![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Question of the Day
Jun. 1st, 2009 11:01 pmWhat do latex allergies as a result of condoms look like?
So, figleaf of Real Adult Sex was talking about Freud's discussion on polymorphous perversity in which he wrote,
I think (obviously for someone with my blog title) it's more appropriate to encourage sexual expression in adults after we've gone through a lot of healthy identity formation. One of the problems with children, ironically, is that because they're polymorphous they're more easily manipulated down convenient-for-adult narrow pathways (gee, sound familiar?)... as opposed to organically developing their own.
I really liked this aside. For several reasons.
Now, most of you probably know I'm totally for comprehensive sex education, at whatever age. This rule of thumb of mine may change, but I figure, if a kid is old enough to ask sex-related questions, then avoiding the questions isn't going to do much for them. In fact, I've been totally misled by something my mom said when I was a kid because she didn't really want to have a conversation with me about it. (And a good thing nothing bad ever came out of it too, and that I realized what a bad thing it was.)
I couldn't really express that there because I was afraid it might be too OT, and besides which, I hadn't really articulated anything else, but I replied with this:
I like the way you put this. Somehow, whenever I try to talk about comprehensive sex education for kids, either I get the told that I'm expecting kids to have sexual expression too young, or that sex shouldn't be a priority anyway. It's kinda mind-boggling.
And don't we darling liberals get that a lot? Especially in traditional Asian countries? "If you teach them about sex they're going to have sex, of course! If they don't know anything about it, how will they know to do anything??"
And figleaf responded to my comment with a whole post that quite beautifully expresses why it's such a good idea to present sex education as morally-neutral to kids.
When I wrote my comment, I was struggling to express it better that wasn't OT, but said pretty much what he just said in this post. The best way I've been able to put it is "just because I advocate comprehensive sex education for children doesn't mean I want them having sex like bunnies or whatever. That's like saying that giving a person a comprehensive education in science will drive them to create monstrosities and death rays."
We teach science because it's useful to know certain facts in case we're in trouble and it helps us better understand the world around us. So why not teach sex ed, to help us better understand this really complicated, hard-to-comprehend part of ourselves? Especially when one considers the likelihood of someone building monstrosities is far less than the likelihood of someone being taken advantage of because they didn't have all the facts they need.
(Also, if you're using your knowledge of science to create zombie monstrosities and death rays to blow up the world, chances are your education wasn't fucking comprehensive enough that nobody ever taught you to be cautious with the shit you work with out of consideration for other people who live on the planet.)
Which is why I get pretty annoyed seeing conservative people decrying sex education like it's going to make their children filthy. If you teach your child that sex outside of marriage is a filthy thing, then yes, it's going to be a filthy thing for your child. Not that it fucking helps them any, mind you, in the off-chance that they get raped or molested or otherwise sexually violated and have no recourse for it. I get annoyed when I see traditional folks bitching that if you teach kids about sex it means that they'll have no respect for sex and for themselves.
Because, in my admittedly very limited experience, learning about something deepens appreciation for the subject. The more I learned about flowers, the more cool they were. The more I figured out the workings of a computer, the nerdier I got. The more I understand social cues and cultural relativity, the more I appreciate cultural divides and the more tickled I am when I see such things happen in stuff I read.
Telling children plain facts about their biological processes, sexualities, and physiological developement probably isn't going to make them want to have sex. Especially if you posit sex as an activity involving more than one person. In fact, it'll probably delay them from it because that shit is complicated, yo, and anybody can figure out really quickly that it's probably best to grow up and figure one's self out first before involving other people in this personal shit.
Now, another thing I get is that if we teach kids sex education, we're positing that sex is a priority, and sex shouldn't be a priority at that age. It's true, sex should wait until you've got your own damn personal hubris sorted out. I understand that sex between two happy, self-confident, psychologically stable, secure people is pretty damn hot. But if we communicate this (that sex between two actively involved, self-confident adults who really dig each other is a categorical good) to kids, that would protect them from being preyed upon by unhappy, controlling, jerks who take advantage of their sexual ignorance.
And anyways, go read figleaf's post, because he explains it much better than I do.
I think (obviously for someone with my blog title) it's more appropriate to encourage sexual expression in adults after we've gone through a lot of healthy identity formation. One of the problems with children, ironically, is that because they're polymorphous they're more easily manipulated down convenient-for-adult narrow pathways (gee, sound familiar?)... as opposed to organically developing their own.
I really liked this aside. For several reasons.
Now, most of you probably know I'm totally for comprehensive sex education, at whatever age. This rule of thumb of mine may change, but I figure, if a kid is old enough to ask sex-related questions, then avoiding the questions isn't going to do much for them. In fact, I've been totally misled by something my mom said when I was a kid because she didn't really want to have a conversation with me about it. (And a good thing nothing bad ever came out of it too, and that I realized what a bad thing it was.)
I couldn't really express that there because I was afraid it might be too OT, and besides which, I hadn't really articulated anything else, but I replied with this:
I like the way you put this. Somehow, whenever I try to talk about comprehensive sex education for kids, either I get the told that I'm expecting kids to have sexual expression too young, or that sex shouldn't be a priority anyway. It's kinda mind-boggling.
And don't we darling liberals get that a lot? Especially in traditional Asian countries? "If you teach them about sex they're going to have sex, of course! If they don't know anything about it, how will they know to do anything??"
And figleaf responded to my comment with a whole post that quite beautifully expresses why it's such a good idea to present sex education as morally-neutral to kids.
When I wrote my comment, I was struggling to express it better that wasn't OT, but said pretty much what he just said in this post. The best way I've been able to put it is "just because I advocate comprehensive sex education for children doesn't mean I want them having sex like bunnies or whatever. That's like saying that giving a person a comprehensive education in science will drive them to create monstrosities and death rays."
We teach science because it's useful to know certain facts in case we're in trouble and it helps us better understand the world around us. So why not teach sex ed, to help us better understand this really complicated, hard-to-comprehend part of ourselves? Especially when one considers the likelihood of someone building monstrosities is far less than the likelihood of someone being taken advantage of because they didn't have all the facts they need.
(Also, if you're using your knowledge of science to create zombie monstrosities and death rays to blow up the world, chances are your education wasn't fucking comprehensive enough that nobody ever taught you to be cautious with the shit you work with out of consideration for other people who live on the planet.)
Which is why I get pretty annoyed seeing conservative people decrying sex education like it's going to make their children filthy. If you teach your child that sex outside of marriage is a filthy thing, then yes, it's going to be a filthy thing for your child. Not that it fucking helps them any, mind you, in the off-chance that they get raped or molested or otherwise sexually violated and have no recourse for it. I get annoyed when I see traditional folks bitching that if you teach kids about sex it means that they'll have no respect for sex and for themselves.
Because, in my admittedly very limited experience, learning about something deepens appreciation for the subject. The more I learned about flowers, the more cool they were. The more I figured out the workings of a computer, the nerdier I got. The more I understand social cues and cultural relativity, the more I appreciate cultural divides and the more tickled I am when I see such things happen in stuff I read.
Telling children plain facts about their biological processes, sexualities, and physiological developement probably isn't going to make them want to have sex. Especially if you posit sex as an activity involving more than one person. In fact, it'll probably delay them from it because that shit is complicated, yo, and anybody can figure out really quickly that it's probably best to grow up and figure one's self out first before involving other people in this personal shit.
Now, another thing I get is that if we teach kids sex education, we're positing that sex is a priority, and sex shouldn't be a priority at that age. It's true, sex should wait until you've got your own damn personal hubris sorted out. I understand that sex between two happy, self-confident, psychologically stable, secure people is pretty damn hot. But if we communicate this (that sex between two actively involved, self-confident adults who really dig each other is a categorical good) to kids, that would protect them from being preyed upon by unhappy, controlling, jerks who take advantage of their sexual ignorance.
And anyways, go read figleaf's post, because he explains it much better than I do.
I Write Letters
Jan. 5th, 2009 01:27 amI just sent this off to the Star newspaper.
Dear Editor,
In light of the fact that sex parties are held to usher in the New Year, moralists have come seeping out from under coconut shells to express their appalled amazement that people like to have a lot of sex (!) with a lot of other people (!!) and, possibly, an audience (!!!). Why, I ask, are we invested in what other people do with their own bodies? The idea that people participate in such events is a problem - if you think sex is a shameful act that should happen only behind closed doors, rather than a fun-filled activity between consenting adults.
Sure, sex can be an intimate, monogamous act, but that is not the only way it is peformed, and getting angry because other people have sex in other ways than you do is ignoring the variations of human sexuality. Even then, there is always willful ignorance of what's happening with other people's bodies, a mental state unfortunately more often used for issues such as economic disparity and human rights.
And the blame games! What simplistic notions we buy into! "Blame the West!" cry some, as if only Westerners condone sexual activities, completely ignoring the fact that the United States of America has poured _millions_ into abstinence-only programs to discourage pre-marital sex among teenagers, only to fail in preventing teens from having sex before marriage. (They did succeed in one thing: said teens are less likely to use contraceptives.)
"Blame the parents!" cry others, completely ignoring the fact that most parents, for all their flaws, do their best to raise children in an expensive world, in societies that encourage self-sufficient nuclear family setups that are neither sustainable nor supportive to young families, in economies that make it impossible for parents to earn a decent living without leaving their beloved children at home for long hours, just to earn enough so said children can have the best possible starts in life through an education system that runs on money. And that's being optimistic.
Which leads us to the group that cries "Teachers must do their part too!", forgetting that many teachers a) are bogged down with ridiculous administrative tasks that hamper them from the actual job of teaching; b) are trained to spoonfeed children facts and formulas instead of encouraging mental facility and curiousity; and c) are miserably underpaid for the grand task that is Making People.
People are going to have sex anyway; the best thing we can do about that is to encourage safe, sane and consensual sex. We have more important, highly complex issues to worry about than some random people whom we don't know having lots of sex with other people and an audience.
If they publish that entire thing like how they've been publishing the dribble from the moralists, I will treat anyone interested to lunch. Anyone in Malaysia, that is. And it would have to be a cheap lunch. Like, RM1 nasi lemak.
Dear Editor,
In light of the fact that sex parties are held to usher in the New Year, moralists have come seeping out from under coconut shells to express their appalled amazement that people like to have a lot of sex (!) with a lot of other people (!!) and, possibly, an audience (!!!). Why, I ask, are we invested in what other people do with their own bodies? The idea that people participate in such events is a problem - if you think sex is a shameful act that should happen only behind closed doors, rather than a fun-filled activity between consenting adults.
Sure, sex can be an intimate, monogamous act, but that is not the only way it is peformed, and getting angry because other people have sex in other ways than you do is ignoring the variations of human sexuality. Even then, there is always willful ignorance of what's happening with other people's bodies, a mental state unfortunately more often used for issues such as economic disparity and human rights.
And the blame games! What simplistic notions we buy into! "Blame the West!" cry some, as if only Westerners condone sexual activities, completely ignoring the fact that the United States of America has poured _millions_ into abstinence-only programs to discourage pre-marital sex among teenagers, only to fail in preventing teens from having sex before marriage. (They did succeed in one thing: said teens are less likely to use contraceptives.)
"Blame the parents!" cry others, completely ignoring the fact that most parents, for all their flaws, do their best to raise children in an expensive world, in societies that encourage self-sufficient nuclear family setups that are neither sustainable nor supportive to young families, in economies that make it impossible for parents to earn a decent living without leaving their beloved children at home for long hours, just to earn enough so said children can have the best possible starts in life through an education system that runs on money. And that's being optimistic.
Which leads us to the group that cries "Teachers must do their part too!", forgetting that many teachers a) are bogged down with ridiculous administrative tasks that hamper them from the actual job of teaching; b) are trained to spoonfeed children facts and formulas instead of encouraging mental facility and curiousity; and c) are miserably underpaid for the grand task that is Making People.
People are going to have sex anyway; the best thing we can do about that is to encourage safe, sane and consensual sex. We have more important, highly complex issues to worry about than some random people whom we don't know having lots of sex with other people and an audience.
If they publish that entire thing like how they've been publishing the dribble from the moralists, I will treat anyone interested to lunch. Anyone in Malaysia, that is. And it would have to be a cheap lunch. Like, RM1 nasi lemak.
Video Post: Vagina Power and Penis Power
Feb. 9th, 2008 10:54 amThis is some serious matter-of-fact edjamacation, yo.
Fucking awesome. Some of it of course doesn't make sense (like, how women like rabbit vibrators because they like having sex), but she's totally serious about sex, and she does make some good points about ego, self-respect, and I can't get over how straight-faced she is.
Fucking awesome. Some of it of course doesn't make sense (like, how women like rabbit vibrators because they like having sex), but she's totally serious about sex, and she does make some good points about ego, self-respect, and I can't get over how straight-faced she is.
