Subject:
|
Re: Porn for sex education
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:04:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1024 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > Huh? What parents wouldn't be shy demonstrating sex to their kids in person?
>
> Some. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Did you want names and
> addresses?
Har har har! No, dude, I mean don't you think most parents feel it's wrong
to have sex in front of kids?
> I suspect that even if there are not specific and precise laws about it there
> are generally vague laws that could (and would) be used to prosecute the
> parents under some circumstances if/when pushed by busy-bodies.
Put it this way, would you like to watch your parents have sex? I think
parents showing affection is great! Kissing, hugging and holding each other
is very healthy and I believe kids need to see their parents doing this. But
there is such thing as intimacy and privacy between lovers and it's an
equally healthy concept, in my opinion.
> > Or maybe you meant demonstrating it as in talking and
> > showing pictures or something? Sorry if I'm slow on the take.
>
> No, I meant by having sex with out constant worry of closed doors and who might
> see. Some parents treat sex as a natural part of life -- just one among many
> behaviors that everyone does. As such, they engage in sexual activity without
> hiding it from their kids. As it has been done in less puritanical cultures
> since the beginning of time with no ill effects.
Of course sex is natural but to outright assume that having sex in front of
your kids will have no ill affects is unwise. Also, to assume that ill
affects will result from NOT having sex in front of your kids is equally unwise.
> > Ideally, sex is natural and part of the bond between man and woman (if
>
> By this, you mean it satisfies some personal aesthetic for you, that way. But
> really, sex is about social interface and feeling good. One way that sex feels
> really really good is by having it with your life mate. Another is by just
> 'doing' two other partners at once. The full range of consensual sexuality can
> be healthy for the participants. It feels good, it binds people socially, and
> it explores your physio-psychology. I'd say our culture (in general) doesn't
> know squat about what sex is "ideally."
There is such thing as sexual responsibility, especially with regard to
spreading disease and getting pregnant as a young teen. To advocate sexual
hedonism rather than responsibility may result in a backlash of fatherless
children and more young people with disease. Better to explore sexuality as
reasoned, more capable adult rather than as a child.
> Sure, sex can just as easily be between members of the same sex. And it
> doesn't neccessarily mean you're homosexual. It means you were having sex with
> another guy, for presumably the same set of reasons that you'd have sex with a
> woman.
Isn't having sex with someone of the same gender called homosexual
intercourse? Therefore, aren't they technically homosexuals? Either way,
whatever floats your boat.
> What is it to exploit?
To take advantage of another, often through coersion. I don't think most of
the "porn stars" had this career in mind when they were kids or even youths,
especially the women. The makers go after young women (barely legal) and
often get them hooked on drugs. I don't think sexual liberation has anything
to do with it. I think feeling sexually liberated and confident is great,
but being in a porno doesn't make you either. You can feel just as sexually
liberated and confident in a monogamous relationship. Ultimately, all a
"porn star" is doing is selling their body for sex like any prostitute.
> What is extreme? What is the hardcore shock? You mean specialty topics like
> fisting and animals? That's not porn, that's a freak show. And it's
> interesting for the same reasons that freak shows have always been
> interesting...and simultaneously a little distasteful.
So you finally drew a line, eh? I was worried for a minute... We both agree
that there are graphic sexual acts that can be deemed "extreme," even if our
lines vary.
> But what do you have against multiple partners or lesbianism? You're right the
> trend is toward those actions...both in the adult cinema and in the real world,
> best as I can tell.
It's not a matter of having anything against it. If that's what people want,
great. I know homosexuality helps keep the population down so I won't argue.
But the way you're talking, why must I be for it either?
> I'd say that at least a good 20% of it would be useful as both edutainment.
Kind of like "Spice Channel?"
> I watched more as a kid. (But I was running a covert porn delivery business in
> high school, so I might not be representative.)
***Suddenly, the "Mission: Impossible" theme starts playing*** Hah! I bet
you probably made some serious money too. Kids are curious and eager to
learn, but every lesson comes with a price.
> > To expose kids to porn at a young age,
> > before they are able to really understand it, may affect their sexual
> > identity in negative ways, even with "adult supervision."
> This kind of statement really gets me revved up. There's not much to
> understand. How demeaning of you to assume that children are so functionally
> stupid.
And how blantantly ignorant of you to assume it's that simple. And how
demeaning of to assume that's what I think. Functionally stupid, no way!
Emotionally and rationally unprepared, yes! Don't twist my statements. I
know how you feel on the matter, doesn't change the facts of human
psychological development.
> Kids are putting all the pieces together every day, solving problems,
> figuring out how the world works. They're better than we are at this kind of
> thinking. And they learn and unlearn and relearn and revise their learning all
> the time as new evidence challenges their world view.
Trust me, I work with kids everyday and I understand the mechanics very
well. Yes, a child's mind is free and not structured and rational like an
adult's. Yet there ARE concepts that require rational and structured
thought, and reasonability. Additionally, there are societal factors that
must be adhered to, and a good part of our sexual identity lies in how we
are socialized (good or bad). You say kids are more capable than we give
them credit for? Obviously I agree, to a certain extent. But like the flow
of traffic on the highway, you cannot go 90 mph when everyone is going 65
mph, or vice versa. Kids are naturally impulsive. Even if a kid clearly
understands the mechanics of something (the how), it takes them much longer
to learn how to govern themselves (the why). Plus, in the "Land of the
Lawsuit," is it fair to teach a kid to be uninhibited about sex and then get
sued because they fondeled someone's kid? We have to repect the differences
in each other, even if we disagree.
> There just isn't that much to understand...
<snipped explanation of sex to a child>
Easier said than done.
> > But it may also
> > help, so long as the topic IS approached from a sense of love and bonding
> > between two people.
>
> Or more than two. But I agree that sex is mostly about bonding.
Whatever works, but better to teach monogamy in this day and age of AIDS.
> > I think it would be a failing to advocate promiscuity or
> > sex for the sake of self gratification.
>
> Why?
A good measure of character lies in how much we care about others. Remember
the saying: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much
you care." I cannot imagine anyone who prefers a selfish, self gratifying
"lover" who is not concerned with pleasing their partner, nor a "lover" who
bounces from one partner to the next without concern for love and loyalty.
Sounds like an empty shell of a person to me. But hey, that's just my opinion.
> Masturbation is a fine and healthy activity, but it's not as fun as a mutual
> experience. You lose the whole social side of sex. Masturbation is a quick
> and easy release when time and circumstances don't permit better sex. But it
> is in no way a substitute.
Technically, it IS a substitute just not one you personally prefer, right?
> > To surrender our better judgement for a good f*ck can be very
> > costly, not to mention downright sleazy in my opinion.
>
> I'm not particularly interested in your provincial notions of sleaze.
Sorry, doesn't change my opinion. Everybody has an image of what sleaze is.
I won't push my view but I won't deny it either.
> On the
> other hand, your point about danger is quite serious. Even without AIDS. My
> son exists because ~7.8 years ago, I was getting in the pants of a friend and
> it had been soooo long since my last lay that I wasn't thinking straight and
> didn't even think to use a condom. Oops. He was conceived on our first time
> having sex. (He is the light of my life, and the best thing to have ever
> happened to me, but still an accident of epic stupidity.) I suspect, that had
> I been in a more regularly sexual situation that kind of stupidity wouldn't
> have happened. It never has when I've been in a more steady relationship. I
> was wound up be sexual tension and did something stupid.
Then you must see my point about kids being impulsive and irrational? Well,
adults can be the same way, but kids are that way by nature. It's just the
normal impulse to learn and explore the world but it needs tempering, for
exactly the example you gave.
> This is the state the our kids are put into if they buy our puritanical mumbo
> jumbo.
Define that one for me, then. We both know there's a lot of Puritanical
"mumbo jumbo" that has screwed people up, but to advocate the exact opposite
is equally "mumbo jumbo" in my opinion. A healthy middle ground is a better
starting place.
> Luckily most of them don't seem to any more. They have sex behind our
> backs. But that's bad too, because they have learned that their parents (who
> should be their loving guides in all things) aren't to be trusted (or worse
> yet, that their own minds and bodies aren't).
I know what you mean.
> Your self respect is not linked to your participation in sex.
It is when it is the object of attention of other people. How many kids do
you know that really understand discretion and intimacy (i.e. don't kiss
kiss and tell). How harmful is it getting the "reputation" as the school
slut or fag? So, regardless of how successful Monica Lewinski is in her
life, she'll always be rembered for what she did best. I didn't make this
rule, but there it is.
> In fact, the less taboo restrictions you
> place on yourself (or have placed on you by nutty parents), the more self
> realization you can experience. And what's wrong with cherishing all your
> mates?
No arguments there.
> > I
> > can't imagine being the parent of some of these porn queens in gangbang
> > flicks with 500 men. Don't care what anyone says, that's just disgusting.
> I will be proud of my children whenever they are doing what they want to and
> living the way they want to, so long as they are not hurting others.
Words to live by, no doubt.
> > So, yeah, do what feels good with YOUR PARTNER (a mutual thing by the way)
> > but have some decency and self respect.
>
> Self respect (or whatever you really mean...compliance to externally set
> standards of conduct is how it sounds...which is pretty twisted, really) it
> seems to me comes from inside. Why would a woman enjoying a gang bang lack
> self respect?
Like I said, I didn't make the rule...
> If she knows that there is nothing wrong with that activity,
> then how would it decrease her self respect?
> Why wouldn't it be increased
> based on her ability to do what she knows is right in the face of disapproval
> from people like you?
Who cares if I disapprove? She has to live forever with the reputation.
Regardless of how great we are as individuals, we are at the mercy of other
members of society to accept or reject us. I spent all my childhood and
youth suffering the rejection from my peers, by no intention on my part.
Only as an adult did people start accepting me, but it took lots of effort
and changing my last name.
> > Yes, the mind of a child is much different so it helps if an adult can put
> > things in perspective.
>
> That's not what I meant. The primary difference between a child's mind and an
> adults is that it works better and isn't as full (maybe those are flip sides of
> the same coin?).
Better, no. Different, yes.
<snipped some stuff>
> > At middle school dances I work at the boys and girls may not "dirty dance."
>
> That's pretty silly.
Didn't make the rules, dude.
> > So a lot of the girls end up bumping and grinding with each other (and I
>
> Oh, neat. That's a great way of getting back at the adults who are being
> overly invasive and controlling of even the most personal aspects of the kids'
> lives. Good thinking on their part.
Encouraging kids to break rules isn't very responsible, in my opinion.
> > mean some serious stuff that would shock most adults) and this is pretty
>
> I'd hope that most adults aren't that...(what's the right word?)...ignorant.
Your opinion, only makes it true to you. Could be you're the one who's
ignorant to them.
> > much allowed (I was the only staff who was stepping in).
>
> That's too funny. They must think you folks (except you, maybe) are really
> stupid for being so bizarre about the rules.
I have to do my job. And in my mind, I have different appreciation of
dancing altogether. I enjoy the energy, grace and art of it, even the
sensuality. I'd rather kids learn all the great aspects of dance, rather
than limit it to the "sex-with-your-clothes-on" aspect of dance. So whether
its boy-girl, girl-girl, or even boy-boy, I'm pretty much disappointed to
look at a sea of kids leg humping and not really gettin' down with some
smooth dance moves.
> > So what is the message being sent?
>
> That adults are controlling jerks and too stupid to even do it consistently.
Are you saying that's what the kids think or what you personally think of
adults?
> > I'm not down on lesbians or anything,
>
> It kind of sounds like you are. You almost define sex as being an activity for
> one man and one woman. You listed lesbianism as a bad thing in adult movies.
No, I listed it as a trend...
> And here you object to young women dancing lewdly together.
Sh*t, I object to anyone humping and grinding out on the dance floor and
somehow calling it "dancing," but that's just me. Likewise, someone could
see me breakdancing (waving, worming and moonwalking) and wonder how much
crack I smoked before I had my seizure. Different tastes.
> If you're not down
> on lesbians (or is it homosexuality over all?) then what's the deal?
To each their own, I guess. If I feel a certain way about homosexuality,
that's the way it is. People have their freedom, but I'm inclined to believe
that humans are mostly heterosexual by nature (from the simple fact that an
egg and sperm are required for reproduction). That's not casting a shadow on
homosexuals but since that fact remains, I am further inclined to believe
that heterosexuality is the rule, and homosexuality is the exception.
Therefore, they are simply different flowers in the garden of life, no more
or less beautiful. I'm more worried about the social message being sent. To
take the position of outlawing contact between opposite sexes and allowing
the contact between the same sex is a coercive push toward homosexuality. If
people are going to be homosexual, it should be by free will, not because
that was their only option for sexual experimentation. Do you see what I
mean now?
> They're humping on the dance floor because it feels good and they know it
> tweaks you. More power to them. You know what? When they get alone after
> school, they do it for real too. (With no clothes on!)
No sh*t, Chris? Why be obtuse about it?
> > Is the right thing to do?
>
> Futilely trying to control the kids with your sense of aesthetic isn't.
Too bad you see it that way. There's a difference between control and
guidance. And you and I cannot change the fact that there are rules to
follow if we want to function as a society.
> > Same thing goes for messages about oral sex. A lot of the girls
> > have the notion that it's really not sex.
>
> It isn't genital intercourse.
Right. But if it's called "oral sex" then it IS technically "sex."
> And they know it. If it occupies a different
> social rung than genital sex, then it just does. And there's no harm in that.
There's no harm in being known as the "BJ Queen" of your high school?
> And it's probably a result of your (you-society at large, not you-Dan)
> represive attitudes anyway...not our illustrious ex-president.
It sucks (pardon the pun) but that seems to be the rule. As far as I'm
concerned, it's none of the public's business regarding our President's sex
life with other consenting adults. It's between him, his wife and whomever
he's getting it on with on the side. I think it's naive to assume that these
powerful, often corrupt politicans, aren't laying pipe left and right behind
their wife's backs. And it's equally naive to expect them to tell the truth
about it when their whole business is based on lies and buttkissing for votes.
Thanks for your post, Chris.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) Sure! I think most American parents think that. I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that a majority can be wrong. I'm not talking about what most people feel. I'm talking about what I think is right. I think that most people feel the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) Some. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Did you want names and addresses? (...) I suspect that even if there are not specific and precise laws about it there are generally vague laws that could (and would) be used to prosecute the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
