Subject:
|
Re: Porn for sex education
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:21:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1220 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Sure! I think most American parents think that. I'm perfectly comfortable
> with the fact that a majority can be wrong.
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 the bond between their mate or partner(s). So I caution
taking the opinion that the parents who don't have sex in front of their
kids are "wrong."
I am not personally interested in having sex in front of my kids, or any
other children or people, because that's just not me. And I don't feel the
least wrong for it and I'd probably get violent with someone telling me how
I should feel. That's me. But you are right that the society we live in
keeps it this way. Look at the bullsh*t with Pam and Tommy Lee's personal
home videos getting out in the public. Those are intimate moments between
husband and wife but look what happened. It would be different if they
intended to make a video to sell but that's not the case. I feel anyone who
watched it should feel ashamed.
> 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.'
Dude, you're assuming too much, or too less, about it. Maybe people just
like their privacy, also a freedom we take for granted. If you want to deem
the right of sexual privacy as based on ignorance then you are just as
guilty as the so-called ignorant people you're criticizing.
> > 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 know why I wouldn't: I respect people's privacy.
> 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?
People are different, yeah it depends too on how your socialized, but if
they like living that way and aren't hurting anyone, why pass negative
judgement?
> 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?
Bizarre, no, but pretty darn close. I think it depends on where you live.
Here in the South Bay (So Cal), you get used to the thongs and g-strings
after a while. Seen one, seen 'em all I guess. Same goes for big breasts.
But when I was in Michigan, you're bundled up for 5 months because of the
kick ass winters. When spring finally came and the girls were in tight
shorts and low tops, it was hormone heaven. Climate is an X-Factor in a lot
of this stuff, I think. In the Middle East (won't name the country) I ran
around naked till I was almost 6 years old. It was frickin' hot! That's what
childhood was, a bunch of naked kids running and playing in the streets and
dirt soccer field.
> > 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?
It's a personal thing, man.
> 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?
Different levels of social acceptance within a culture, I guess. In some
Irish group, I heard that men and women never look at each other's genitals.
Sex is always from behind and involves lots of spanking. Different strokes
for different folks.
> > 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?
Depends on the kids personality, the way it is presented, and possible
rejection and riducule from other kids--maybe leading to a downward spiral.
I know it sucks, but that's the conditions and part of living as a society.
No doubt, I agree with you that what we teach our kids depends on how ready
they are. But also know it depends equally on how ready their peers are (and
our society in general).
> > 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.
That's just your assumption, Chris. I didn't think it was bad as a kid but
definitely a little mysterious.
> 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.
Why call it unhealthy where it may also be viruous to respect people's
privacy? We need more of that in America, seeing how we trash people's right
with the bullsh*t excuse that they are in the public eye, therefore nothing
is private. I won't "boo hoo" for Hollywood, but I have to admit that spying
and tabloid stuff is downright wrong.
> 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?
Sex drive is very powerful and intoxicating, which is good I think since it
helps the success of our species, but the likelihood of poor judgement
warrants extreme caution (for the well being of the kids). You are right,
kids will have sex behind parents backs so better to be realistic and
informative with them, but add an ounce of prevention so they can make it to
adulthood without the burden of a child or lifelong disease.
> They would get used to responsible sexuality
> while they were young and never be at any real risk.
Ideally, yes, and I hope it works out that way. From what I've seen,
sometimes the drive to have sex leads to moments of bad judgement that
proves costly.
> > 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.
Childhood and adolecent feelings are very strong and often irrational. Why
advocate sexual experimentation as a child when the likely possibility of a
negative experience (at least from the kid's perspective) may forever
tarnish their feelings about sex? I say wait, for your own sake, until 17 or
18 before having sex with someone. What's wrong with that? Is waiting such a
bad thing to do? Why rush into it?
> That's the
> right of every creature. That's why they have those feelings. Before that
> time, they just aren't very interested.
A parent is supposed to be a child's moral compass until they reach the age
of reason. Smarts has nothing to do with it, I think it's hard wired into us
to be this way, for good reason. Now, you say parents need not be selfish
and restricting toward their kids, but you have stepped very far to
criticise a lot of genuinely compassionate and sensible behaviors on the
part of parents and adults.
> > 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.')
I don't know why you'd think that? Maybe you mean we all have the potential
to be bisexual? That makes more sense. I know I desire only females and I'm
married to one. There's no identity crisis I'm aware of either. I think
homosexuals are the same way: they know they strictly desire members of the
same gender. I think bisexuals are confused to a certain extent but that's
just my opinion.
> 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?
Depends on your sense of morals and understanding of human growth and
development. I know a 30 year old man is at a different level than a 13 year
old girl, socially and psychologically. Her understanding of love,
sexuality, and social identity is just beginning while the 30 year old man
is "seasoned." Therefore, he can easily "take advantage" of her lack of
experience and maturity.
> > 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.
Talk to a porn star sometime (former porn star in this case) and see what
she has to say about the business and the men that control it.
> > 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.
If that's what constitues sexual liberation and confidence to you, then I'm
pretty disappointed. Go back to the Pam and Tommy Lee example.
> > Ultimately, all a
> > "porn star" is doing is selling their body for sex like any prostitute.
>
> And both trades are equally honorable.
Sorry, I'll never agree with that.
> By extreme do you mean rare? What is the measure of extremity?
I mean when someone finally says "Okay, that's little too f*cking extreme
for my tastes." People draw their own lines and we should respect that.
> > Kind of like "Spice Channel?"
>
> I don't get the reference, sorry.
My bad. "Spice Channel" is an adult cable network. Their stuff is pretty
tame, no showing of genitals.
> > 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.
I was being figurative with "price" in that instance. I mean price as in a
part of yourself that you lose when you start treating women like objects
(for their body parts), not as human beings.
> > And how blantantly ignorant of you to assume it's that simple. And how
> > demeaning of you 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.
100% pure bullsh*t, dude, but think what you wish. I won't try to change the
way you characterized my statement (and personal sentiment) but know that
you've got the wrong idea. And adding the racist/sexist connection is really
reaching.
> > 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.
That wasn't a challenge on my part, just letting you know where I'm coming from.
> > 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.
I think you spelled this out before about kid's minds, that they are not as
overly structered and inflexible as adults. Now you seem to be contradicting
yourself. Look, my point is that our understanding of things depends on our
level of thinking and our experiences. An unstructured mind is effective at
managing unstructured concepts like playing and fun. A structured mind is
effective at managing structured concepts like planning a playground or
being a parent. Emotion has a key role because children are still learning
to govern their emotions, and that affects rational thought. With all your
education, how can you possibly reject these fundemental concepts of human
growth and development?
> > 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.
Man, can't you see your own persoanl agenda is the driving force here?
There's no balance if what you're saying is outright anarchy against
American society, though I grant the problem you describe exists. No parent
should treat their kid like an experiment.
> > 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.
But I bet you didn't drive in the fast or passing lane, though. That's my
point, different levels that demand equal respect. You'd agree only a
dumbass would drive slow in the fast lane or fast in the slow lane.
> > Kids are naturally impulsive.
>
> Everyone is impulsive. And curious. But our institutional society drives
> curiosity (and to some extent impulsivity) out of people.
Damn, dude, I thought I was cynical. You got me beat, I concede ;^p
> And the only way that people learn is through the freedom to experience.
But there is such thing as providing exposure and experience. As adults and
parents, WE are responsible for what our kids learn or don't learn. We don't
say "Go out and learn something," that's strictly for adults. In regard to
kids, WE guide them, direct them, motivate them, teach them, and nurture
them. There's often little real freedom for the kids in this matter, it is
more "required learning" for their benefit. That's how it works in the most
basic sense. You can add the Puritanical crap to this too, but every culture
has it's style, "good or bad."
<snipped explanation of sex>
> > 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?
Oh, I understood it fine! Doesn't mean every kid will get it, or even half
of it, the 1st, 2nd or even 10th time. That's the way kids are. That's why I
said "easier said than done." But I do like your approach.
> Monogamists aren't AIDS free. Much of AIDS in the US is spread through
> serially monogamous people.
I should have been more specific with monagamous as in "married."
> However, a circle of partners who are all disease
> free and honest to the group can't spread AIDS. They just can't.
Honest is the opperative word. How often is honesty associated with getting
it on with somebody? Half of being sexy is being deceptive and mysterious.
> > 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.
Hah! Good one.
> 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.
Put it this way, can masterbation be sexually pleasing? If so, then it IS a
substitute for having sex since the usual outcome (pardon the pun) is
pleasure and erotic euphora.
> > 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.
You proved my point right here! Our drive for sex, and enjoyment, can
overpower our sense of rationality. It's multiplied when you are a kid with
raging hormones and really a limited sense (not out of stupidity, but lack
of experience) of the possible long term consequences of certain actions.
Perspective is a lot different when you're an adolecent. Man, when I was 13
or 14 I thought "old" was like 30. Here I am at 28 and I don't consider
myself "old." My perspective and appreciation of sex certainly has changed,
in a Zen kind of way.
> It wasn't innate impulsivity. Impulse has a reason, each and every time.
Is impulse the reason or the excuse, though?
> 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.
No, that sex is always a good thing but not to be rushed into or used to
control or influence people.
> > > 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.
Self respect, or self esteem, comes from others. Self image does not exist
without a mirror, that being other members of our society. If people think
you're jerk, more than likely you'll associate with the people who don't
think you're a jerk (unless you're glutton for punishment). That's why we
can say people are in denial or delusional about something (even if they
happen to be correct) because what they do contradicts the behavior they
display or the notions others have of 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.
Not that I care, but since it's an open topic now, he did it as a married
man and without the consent or approval of his mate. It that sense, I think
it was wrong but it's still a private matter.
> 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?
Not with my tax money, that's for sure.
> > 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.
There's a time to fight and a time to step in. I can't rush feverishly into
something without really fully understanding the bigger picture and the best
way to acheive change. This is one of those topics for me.
> > 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.
Still, everything is in the hands of fate and no one can really know what is
in the heart of their child--though the closer, more attentive you are the
better you know your kid. Looking at these school shootings I see parents
severely disconnected with their kids.
> Ignorant is the state of not knowing something.
I thought ignorance is a state of being aware of something but disregarding
it anyway, hence "ignoring" of it.
> > 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.
That's unfair cynicism. Why assume people brought a beautiful life into this
world for the sole purpose of controlling it?
> > 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?
My bad. I "object" as in I'm repulsed by it. Better?
> 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.
Really, all you can and should do is work on YOUR circle of influence, which
is family and friends. To step outside of that is to invade other peoples
circles, and that's the sort of stuff that pisses you off as far as I know.
> > Right. But if it's called "oral sex" then it IS technically "sex."
>
> Isn't all physical affection sex?
I thought technically it's stimulation of the sex organs through direct contact?
> > 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?
Another spectator sport, I suppose? Would this be a time or distance event,
or both? Or is it in the contact sport category?
> 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?
Being nice, eh? Maybe a little too nice I think, but whatever works. Fun
discussion either way.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) I mean wrong. Counterfactual. Not correct. (...) I'm in a somewhat different boat. I've thought this through and through and I'm convinced that it is a disservice to not treat sexuality as a casual and natural physical loving gesture. It would (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
