Subject:
|
Re: Porn for sex education
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:18:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1287 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > 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?
I mean wrong. Counterfactual. Not correct.
> 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
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 be better for me to have sex around
the house without regard for the presense of our kids. But I'm not comfortable
with it. I have vestigial inhibitions because I was brought up in a fairly
normal US household and deep-learned that sex is a secret thingy. So I feel
like I'm neglecting a responsibility, and yet I continue.
> and I'd probably get violent with someone telling me how
> I should feel.
But I'm basically telling you how you should feel (and telling myself too) and
you don't seem hostile about it.
> I feel anyone who watched it should feel ashamed.
I guess I'm mixed. It's a typical IP problem. On the one hand, they should
have the right to control that information since they seemingly wanted
authorial control. But on the other hand, it doesn't hurt them at all for
people to view it. You could make a case that it does hurt them to have had
that kind of publicity in general, but any given individual doesn't hurt them
by watching it.
> Maybe people just like their privacy,
Is it that simple, or is that a symptom of something wrong with our sexual
mores?
> 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.
Guilty of what?
> > > 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.
But what if privacy weren't an issue? What if they liked having people watch?
I suspect that you still wouldn't want to. What is that feeling that you get
when you're thinking about such a situation? I think it's my mind letting me
know that something isn't hooked up right.
> > 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?
Because it is limiting others. The fact that _you_ are happy with our
standards limits everyone who isn't. And to turn that around on you, if the BJ
queen likes living that way and isn'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.
So you think we should have the right to wear in public what we had on when we
were born?
> > 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.
I think we have too much and too little of this accepting attitude. It is
great for different cultures to have healthy differences. But it's not OK for
them to have harmful standards that perpetuate wrongs. Genital mutilation is
an often cited example. It just isn't OK for the cultures that practice this
to contine it. It isn't just an example of their heritage that ought to be
preserved because it's interesting.
The situation that you describe above sounds pretty sick to me...but I admit to
reading substantially between the lines about the whys and wherefores.
> > > 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
No, yes, and it doesn't have to be involved at all. Their personality is
largely, I believe, shaped as they grow. So it won't be an issue since they
should have grown up with exposure to sex from day one. I certainly agree that
sexuality could be presented wrongly. But I'm merely suggesting that it not be
either presented or hidden. When they want to know stuff, you tell them. When
they seem generally interested, you tell them more so that they understand
pregnancy and sexual health. And other kids don't even have to know. Children
are capable of discretion when they're raised with trust.
> --maybe leading to a downward spiral.
> I know it sucks, but that's the conditions and part of living as a society.
Only living in a repressive society sucks. A society in which everyone is free
to please themselves however they want to so long as they aren't victimizing
anyone doesn't suck at all.
> That's just your assumption, Chris. I didn't think it was bad as a kid but
> definitely a little mysterious.
What is the implication of that mystery? Your way is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. You assert that kids aren't ready for sexual behavior until they're
17 (or whatever) based on their demonstrated actions. However all of your
data has been collected in a situation in which the kids weren't taught
sexuality at all. Typically, kids have a brief conversation or two with their
folks and learn the real stuff on their own through trial and error. And
because they've learned this mysterious aura, they wait a long time. So you
look at sixteen year olds and see them doing dumb stuff. But not because they
are innately incabable of being responsible and smart about it, only becuase
they were thrust into ignorance by parents and school, the two groups who are
supposed to be educating them.
> > 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).
I think that if sex were really just for procreation, the male would just hand
a packet of sperm to the woman and they'd be done with the interaction. The
kind of sex that we evolved for is a social activity. It brings people closer.
It glues the tribe together. Poor judgement largely goes away with education.
> 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.
What is this ounce of prevention? It sounds like you're saying on the one hand
to be realistic and accept that your teens will be having sex, and on the other
hand to urge abstinence. Which is it?
> > 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.
Based on what set of highly educated kids that were raised in an environment
open to early sexuality?
> > > 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.
Adult "feelings are very strong and often irrational."
What of it?
> 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 think that through open information-rich atmospheres whatever negative
experiences you mean would be avoided for the most part. But out of curiosity,
what do you mean?
> 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?
It is wrong because your body is telling you not to. Why not trust your
impulse? Why generate societal expectations and guilt in order to combat
completely natural expressions of affection? It's not a matter of rushing into
anything, it's a matter of using your body when it is ready.
> > 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.
Supposed to?
> Smarts has nothing to do with it, I think it's hard wired into us
> to be this way, for good reason.
You think what is hard wired into us?
> 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.
Sort of. I firmly believe that most parents, even the ones with whom I
disagree in the extreme are doing what they think is best. But that doesn't
make them right. Sensible means it makes sense, right? Lots of common
parental behaviors don't. But what are you getting at?
> 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.
Aren't I taking advantage of my son's innocence and immaturity when I play with
him? I find those things very refreshing, so I _use_ him to gain exposure to
his personality. What is the difference?
> > 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.
It is one example. I think to be sexually liberated includes not being ashamed
of sexuality. If you're embarrassed by your sexuality (as I think most people
would be, thus causing their disinterest in being in a movie) then you're
hardly liberated. But I guess that you'll just say it's a privacy issue.
> > > 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.
Why not? There are many ways of exchanging your time for money. What is
different about the ways that are sexually oriented?
> > 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.
So this extreme that you're talking about is completely an individual
aesthetic. Someone could consider "doggy style" to be extreme. Right?
> > > 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 who was doing that? You know, people actually _are_ sex objects. There's
nothing wrong with that. People are good for having sex, and solving problems,
and mucking out the barn, and feeding the cats, and all kinds of things. We're
amazingly versatile.
> > > 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.
Not at all. You're saying that kids aren't as good at thinking rationally
because they are young and lack experience. My every indication is that kids
of the age group that I think we're talking about are completely up to the task
of figuring out the details of sexual responsibility.
> 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.
My mind seems to handle playing and fun fairly well as well as those other
kinds of tasks. So do kids'. All they need is experience and context which
they pick up naturally whenever they're ready for it. If a kid isn't ready for
a given activity, then nature suggests that they won't participate. And if
a child who is raised in a healthy environment does participate, then by
definition they are ready.
> Emotion has a key role because children are still learning
> to govern their emotions, and that affects rational thought.
This doesn't magically end at 17 or 18. We continue to learn and grow and
manage our minds. And I suspect that the difference between the average 14
year old and the average 18 year old is less than the extremes of 25 year olds.
So what does that say about adults? Do you think that maybe 10-20% of adults
shouldn't have sex because their emotions cloud their judgement too much?
> > > 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.
Doing the right thing is not an experiment. I will continue to reject bad
societal mores. I'm disappointed that you won't. Far from the cynic that you
acuse me of being, I am ever confident in mankind. I hope that those who
adhere to what you seem to be espousing are the minority.
> > And the only way that people learn is through the freedom to experience.
>
> But there is such thing as providing exposure and experience.
That is certainly a common attempt. I'm not sure how much good it does
compared to harm.
> As adults and
> parents, WE are responsible for what our kids learn or don't learn.
Horse pucky! The only person responsible for learning is themselves. Allways
and forever. No one needs classes in walking and talking. Kids learn that
because they want to. Same with reading and math and art and writing and
everything. It is not even my right to dictate what my children learn.
> We don't
> say "Go out and learn something," that's strictly for adults.
Yes WE do! Except that I don't find the need to tell that to my son. When he
wants to learn stuff, he does. I don't even have to tell him to go learn
something.
> In regard to
> kids, WE guide them, direct them, motivate them, teach them, and nurture
> them.
I gently guide, certainly nurture, and inadvertantly teach. WE don't do what
you mean.
> There's often little real freedom for the kids in this matter,
And that is a great injustice. Children are not given rights in our society.
Not even the basic human rights that the UN says all people should have.
> more "required learning" for their benefit.
For society's benefit. The current system is one designed specifically to
produce workers so that America could transission from an agrarian to an
industrial economy. The last real formative changes took place early last
century.
> > 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.
Ugh! Honesty has been a critical element of my relationship with every sexual
partner that I have ever had. We are apparently from different planets.
> > 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?
It causes a physical reaction that can feel good and release stress.
> If so, then it IS a
> substitute for having sex since the usual outcome (pardon the pun) is
> pleasure and erotic euphora.
It is nothing compared to the social interaction that takes place during
partner-sex. Without that bonding and 'love' that you feel for the partner(s),
sexual activity is hollow at best. In that sense masturbation is not
reasonably called a substitute any more than the pizza.
> > It wasn't innate impulsivity. Impulse has a reason, each and every time.
>
> Is impulse the reason or the excuse, though?
Neither. That's what I'm saying. I don't need or have an excuse. I did what
I did and I've lived up to my own expectations quite well. The reason for my
behavior has been explained previously. And it didn't happen during any sexual
encounter when I was a kid. How do you explain that?
> No, that sex is always a good thing but not to be rushed into or used to
> control or influence people.
Well, I certainly agree that it shouldn't be used to control. But I'm also not
sure where that came from.
> > 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.
Now I see our communications issue. I think you misunderstand the nature of
self. Self is what is defined internally. You can have or lack respect for
yourself completely aside and against what others think.
> 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.
Sure, but only because the ones who think you're a jerk don't want to be around
you. So what? That still has nothing to do with self-respect. You can know
that you are good even if others think you're bad. (Good and bad are generic
terms here for which you can substitute at will.) And the opposite is true
too. If you do something that you think is wrong and no one knows, it doesn't
go away, it haunts your self-respect without regard to the respect of your
peers.
> > 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.
I believe that the first lady never made a statement that could be taken to
mean that he was doing that without her approval. What is your inside track?
I think we have no way of knowing what their sexual arrangement is. But I
agree that it's off topic.
> > 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.
What does that mean? What if the president could do a better job by getting
blown twice a day? Wouldn't it be in the public interest for him to have an
intern or two satisfying his needs?
> > 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.
Nope. Go see http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ignorant if you
want some evidence.
> That's unfair cynicism. Why assume people brought a beautiful life into this
> world for the sole purpose of controlling it?
I don't think that. I think that they are overly controlling as an aside.
They don't even give the matter the thought it deserves because they were
controlled and after all _they_ turned out OK, right? They're having kids for
other selfish reasons, not (I presume) because they get their kicks by being a
dictator. Though now that I'm thinking about it, I'm sure that some parents
actually do have kids specifically becuase they feel empowered by having others
depend on them.
> Really, all you can and should do is work on YOUR circle of influence, which
> is family and friends.
That's you Dan :-) If even a single person ever reads this and gets to
thinking and moves even a little in the direction that I advocate, then all
this time was well spent.
> 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.
I'm not even sure what form this kind of invasion takes on.
> > > 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 isn't any technically about it. We all get to have valid opinions on
this one. I happen to think that any contact causing carnal pleasure. So I
think that making out (even without petting) is sexual. Certainly oral sex
counts as sexual by most definitions that I can find.
> > > 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?
>
> Being nice, eh? Maybe a little too nice I think,
How could it be too nice? I don't see such a thing as even existing. And yes,
a woman who provides oral sex to her mates _is_ being nice. She is providing a
valuable service in making people feel good.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
