Subject:
|
Re: Porn for sex education
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:48:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1086 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Har har har! No, dude, I mean don't you think most parents feel it's wrong
> to have sex in front of kids?
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 wrongness that we're talking about out of ignorance...or put
more nicely, because they grew up in an environment in which sexuality is most
commonly associated with concepts like 'bad,' 'dirty,' and 'funny.'
> Put it this way, would you like to watch your parents have sex?
I have seen them behave sexually. But no, I don't want to watch them. So
what? And I think the larger question is, _why_ don't I?
> 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.
Those things are sexual behaviors that our society deems acceptible for public
consumption. Why not more and other behaviors? Why not the exposure of
genitals? For Christ's sake, because of this puritanical aversion, we don't
have the right to dress however we want...doesn't that seem bizarre to you?
> But
> there is such thing as intimacy and privacy between lovers and it's an
> equally healthy concept, in my opinion.
OK, so sometimes you might want to have sex with an audience, and sometimes
not. Each are equally healthy. We agree. More to my point though, is why not
just be unconcerned about the audience? If you're giving your wife a peck
before getting on a plane, are you concerned about the people around you and
what they think? Do they think poorly of you for expressing your love that
way? Why or why not?
> > 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.
When all the data that I have available suggests that this is so? What would
make me think that there would be bad results? What might those results be?
Why don't they happen to the members of the other cultures on our globe who do
have sex in front of their kids regularly?
> Also, to assume that ill affects will result from NOT
> having sex in front of your kids is equally unwise.
I just disagree. The fact that kids never see sex, leads them to think that
there is something wrong with it. Most of us grow up thinking that sexuality
is some special category of event that has to be kept secret. That includes
all kind of implications. Further, if parents are not open about sex, the
children learn that sex is something to specifically be secretive about. This
is unhealthy.
> 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.
Or you could teach them the possible results of potential behaviors, and how to
counteract those negative consequences. Armed with information why would they
choose to act irresponsibly? They would get used to responsible sexuality
while they were young and never be at any real risk.
> Better to explore sexuality as
> reasoned, more capable adult rather than as a child.
Bogus. It's better for them to explore it whenever they want to. That's the
right of every creature. That's why they have those feelings. Before that
time, they just aren't very interested.
> Isn't having sex with someone of the same gender called homosexual
> intercourse? Therefore, aren't they technically homosexuals?
Not if they are bisexual. And I happen to think that most people are to some
extent. (I'm saying most so that the extremests at either end don't freak out,
but really I mean 'all.')
> > What is it to exploit?
>
> To take advantage of another, often through coersion.
I'm not being obtuse, but I also don't know that we agree on what 'take
advantage' means. That sounds like something we all do all the time, but I
know that it has a negative connotation. I take advantage of my son's
enjoyment of playing to play with him. What if I took advantage of a thirteen
year old girl's enjoyment of screwing to screw with her? The first one we all
consider good, and the second bad. Why? Why is one taking advantage in a good
way and the other in a bad way?
> I don't think most of
> the "porn stars" had this career in mind when they were kids or even youths,
> especially the women.
I certainly didn't have my career in mind as a child. So what?
> The makers go after young women (barely legal) and
> often get them hooked on drugs.
How often? A quick search doesn't turn up any statistics for me, so I'd like
to see yours.
> You can feel just as sexually
> liberated and confident in a monogamous relationship.
Maybe you _could_, but I think it's easy to point out that most monogamous
people are not 'liberated' or sexually confident enough to be filmed in a
sexual movie.
> Ultimately, all a
> "porn star" is doing is selling their body for sex like any prostitute.
And both trades are equally honorable.
> > 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?
Drew what kind of a line?
> 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.
By exreme do you mean rare? What is the measure of extremity? Those sexual
activities that lie beyond what one standard deviation of people have tried?
Even then, your implication is that there is something wrong with those
activities. I still say there's nothing wrong so long as there's no victim.
> > I'd say that at least a good 20% of it would be useful as both edutainment.
>
> Kind of like "Spice Channel?"
I don't get the reference, sorry.
> Hah! I bet
> you probably made some serious money too. Kids are curious and eager to
> learn, but every lesson comes with a price.
Well sure...I marked everything up 100%. That was the price.
> > 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!
Same thing. You're just painting it with 'nice' words. You're saying they're
not capable of understanding something that you are. They used to say that
about blacks and women too.
> Trust me, I work with kids everyday and I understand the mechanics very
> well.
Gee. I have a kid. I have worked with kids professionally. And I spent eight
years at a university studying kids and education. I think I've earned the
right to an opinion.
> 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.
Can you demonstrate this, or even just spell it out? If not, I reject what I
think you're saying.
> 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).
And I think we should change that. Not just say 'for better or worse, our
society is hurting people, and we just have to go along.' I won't play that
game.
> But like the flow
> of traffic on the highway, you cannot go 90 mph when everyone is going 65
> mph, or vice versa.
Interestingly, on the way north from Brickfest yesterday I got a flat tire and
had to proceed up I95 for 2.5 hours at 50 MPH. I managed just fine.
> Kids are naturally impulsive.
Everyone is impulsive. And curious. But our institutional society drives
curiosity (and to some extent impulsivity) out of people.
> 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).
And the only way that people learn is through the freedom to experience.
> 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?
Absolutely. It is also your responsibility to teach your children how others
(and the law) view things, and when to keep your activites quiet, and when to
lie to authorities. The fact that something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
The fact that you _could_ be sued for something doesn't mean you shouldn't do
it. You should keep all the factors in mind and take precautions.
> > There just isn't that much to understand...
>
> <snipped explanation of sex to a child>
>
> Easier said than done.
What does that mean? I virtually summarized everything you'd need to teach in
one paragraph. What is so hard about explaining simple stuff?
> > > 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.
Monogamists aren't AIDS free. Much of AIDS in the US is spread through
serially monogamous people. However, a circle of partners who are all disease
free and honest to the group can't spread AIDS. They just can't.
> > 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?
Sure, but so is mushroom pizza. Just not one that I personally prefer. Since
it is obvious that the main role of sexuality in humans is social, how can you
claim that masturbation is a substitute. It is inherently unsocial.
> > 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?
If you mean 'agree with' when you say 'see,' then no. The problem was not that
I was a kid (I was 24), it was that I was not getting any! If I had been (and
if kids are) then they won't make that dumb mistake.
> 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.
It wasn't innate impulsivity. Impulse has a reason, each and every time.
> > 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.
I basically mean the notion that sex isn't a good thing. The opposite of which
is that sex is a good thing. What is the middle ground? I guess you'd say
that sex is sometimes a good thing.
I certainly can't disagree with the broad idea of that. Rape, for instance is
a bad thing. But it's not the sex that's bad, it's the force. Sex is bad when
it infects someone with a deadly disease, but again, the sex isn't what's bad.
It seems an kind of like driving to me. You can drive anywhere and use your
car for anything, so long as you aren't hurting anyone.
> > 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?
Wait, you were talking about self respect. You now seem to be defining it as
the respect and admiration of your peers. Many kids and many adults each talk
about their sex lives. I don't see a difference. I never saw dramatic harm in
being dubbed the school slut. And maybe whatever 'harm' there is in such a
thing is less significant than the harm that those who would dub them such are
suffering...closed-minded fools that they are.
I know that school fag can get you beaten, so there is obvious harm in that.
But these two examples of possible harm that you point out serve my side just
fine. The whole turn that society should take would eliminate such stigma. If
sex were an open and socially acceptable activity, jealousy, small-mindedness,
misunderstanding, and hate could all be combatted more effectively. As long as
we encourage kids to call one another 'slut' and 'fag,' we are the one guilty
for any harm done to them.
> 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.
But if we weren't a bunch of prudish weasles, we wouldn't care that she was the
president's blow buddy. Hell, if there were reason to belive that she were
especially accomplished at it, we might be able to honor her for it. After
all, why not?
> > 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...
Going along with it when it can be changed for the better is not exactly
meritorious.
> Who cares if I disapprove? She has to live forever with the reputation.
But reputation is not self respect. She can know in the face of public
disapproval that she was a sane, healthy, and good person. That is self
respect.
> > > 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.
I didn't say _you_ are pretty silly. Seriously, I was commenting on the rules,
not on you.
> > > 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.
Oh, I do. I think it is a very serious responsibility that parents carry. We
must teach our children to get around stupid rules and decide for themselves
what is right and what it wrong. My son absolutely knows that at school where
they have rules, he can analyze them and decide if they make sense. Further he
is confident enough to ask adults for justification and base his acceptance or
rejection on the response. And _then_ he knows that if he choses to disregard
a rule, there may be consequences, fair or not, that he must face.
> > > 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.
Ignorant is the state of not knowing something. We are all there. My stance
on this is that I hope adults are not so out of touch with their childrens'
reality that they would be shocked by their dance floor behavior. It would be
stupid to claim that the opposite of ignorance is ignorance.
> > > 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.
Sure. All that I meant is that they probably respect you more than the others
for not being duped by their end-run around the rules.
> And in my mind, I have different appreciation of
> dancing altogether. I enjoy the energy, grace and art of it, even the
> sensuality.
Great! You have an aesthetic, and they have one. No problem, right?
> 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.
Give them time. They'll learn what they want to when they're ready if you
let them.
> 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.
If you want dance entertainment, watch AB. If you want to chaperone the kids
safely, then let them have their own aesthetic. It's not like it's hurting
anyone.
> > > 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 meant that's what the kids thought...but now that you mention it, I do agree.
> > 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.
It seems weird to object to it. I can understand not appreciating
it...particularly if you're not involved, but object?
> Likewise, someone could
> see me breakdancing (waving, worming and moonwalking) and wonder how much
> crack I smoked before I had my seizure. Different tastes.
Sure, but would they object?
> 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?
I certainly agree. Kids should be allowed to experiment both ways in an
open-minded nurturing environment.
> > > 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.
I can die having tried. I will not stop trying to make this world a better
place just because it's a big job. I'll do my little bit and hopefully others
will too. And we can sheperd in the next set of great social advances.
> > > 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."
Isn't all physical affection 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?
Not unless small-minded bigots hurt you because if it. Why wouldn't being an
accomplished fellatist be the same as a track star? Oh, I remember, because
being a track star is all about seeking public adulation while being the "BJ
Queen" is about being nice to others. That's a great set of public values,
isn't it?
> > 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.
I agree with all that.
> Thanks for your post, Chris.
You too,
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) You mean "wrong" to you? Sexuality is a very personal thing and people have different levels of it. Some wish to be private, some are more open, so it's not realistic to say either is "wrong." Sexuality is an intimate part of an individual and (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) Har har har! No, dude, I mean don't you think most parents feel it's wrong to have sex in front of kids? (...) Put it this way, would you like to watch your parents have sex? I think parents showing affection is great! Kissing, hugging and (...) (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
|
|
|
|
