Sex Rule : 196

[–] WiseThat@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 hours ago

The goal of the anti-LGBT relious nuts is to force people into straight marriages because that's all that matters to religious zealots.

They know that if kids practice safe sex they won't get pregnant and 'shot gun marriage' rates will go down.

They know that if kids discover their gender or sexual identity is non-cis, non-het, or non-monogamous that they might not wind up having a traditional marriage.

The know that people who only have 1 partner in their lifetime are much, much less likely to successfully leave an abusive partner, meaning there's a higher rate of divorce if people learn that having multiple partners in your life is normal and okay.

They know that kids who are educated about healthy sex and consent in relationships are less likely to go along with a child marriage or an assigned marriage.

They know that removing sex ed means more teen pregnancy, more intimate partner abuse, and more child-rape. For religious people whose only goal is to get young women into marriages, those are good things.

Example: An actual elected official in the state of Missouri defending his stance that "Parents Rights" includes the ability to marry off their kids to adults at age 12, because "Do you know any kids that have been married at age 12, I do, and guess what, they're still married". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6UJ-uCrgc

These people legitimately believe that it's morally correct to kidnap a 12 year old girl and force her to be entirely subserviant to, and dependent on, some pedophile husband who controls everything they do, because them being trapped in that awful situation means that there's one more marriage in the world.

[–] pappabosley@lemm.ee 7 points 6 hours ago

It's almost like paedophiles would benefit from people being too ashamed to talk about sex.

[–] VerbFlow@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Twitter user detected, opinion disregarded

[–] And009@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Could be pre Xwitter

[–] Jackhammer_Joe@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Still Twitter, opinion still disregarded

[–] jaek@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

It's important to have standards

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Normalise sex by having it with me

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 hours ago

i just have a short nine-point questionnare

[–] geogeogeo@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

Some of these comments are way too straight for my gay ass to understand

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Guys...one important thing to know is that jacking off is super easy and free. Having sex with a partner is way much more energy intensive, gets you tired, it's expensive if you want privacy and protection etc...hotel house, marriage, kids, clothes diapers etc. And there are huge risks like marrying the wrong person because all you can think of is sex or because you got pregnant or got her pregnant. There's also the risk of STI including HIV AIDS. Its scary. So I agree let's be lewd so we can talk about it.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

This guy goons

[–] zedgeist@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago

me too thanks

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 73 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Dicks out for haram baes

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

No, my dick was reserved only for Harambe.

I will reconsider for haram Harambes tho.

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Omg i love this and stealing this from you!

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

[–] meathorse@lemmy.world 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It could become as normal as talking about dancing:

"I went to dance class last night, only my second week so I still get nervous but it's good fun and great exercise!

They taught the newer students a new dance and we had to partner up with someone we hadn't danced with before. I got a lovely older lady and OMG - she was so agile she almost broke MY hip! I'm soo sore but going back tomorrow!"

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 1 points 6 minutes ago

"Normal" my ass.

Go on, mention to your other male coworkers that your going to dance classes. See how that goes.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 21 points 15 hours ago

I can't really disagree with this. Sex and sexuality are integral parts of life and as such should be viewed as just another topic for being openly talked and taught. Perhaps if such approach came to be, maybe it would cause a shift towards true liberation.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

Ok riddle me this. How can we normalize sex, if women have to walk on egg shells because any sign of platonic affection or romantical availability (in their eyes) will be met with unwanted approaches from certain parties.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago

well in theory if sex is normalized people won't be so weird about it.

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

honestly "normalising sex" does sound silly, but i'm for shunning the shitheads.

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 33 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

How about we also normalize men being okay with being told no?

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

Look, I was trying to come up with some good hearted explanation for men's behavior (something about not being able to put themselves into womens shoes) because I didn't want to get downvoted to shit again, but frankly I don't care anymore.

Because it mostly comes down to women being fucking horrible communicators and having chronic indecisiveness.

Figure your shit out.

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

What if we only normalise gay sex?

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 2 points 14 minutes ago

Nice try Italy, we're not doing ancient Rome again.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 31 points 16 hours ago (6 children)

Yes and no.

Exposing kids to sex too early isn't good for their development. That doesn't mean you can't start sex ed very early, it just means that what you teach is important.

For example, the first thing kids should be taught is the proper name of all their body parts. Call a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina. It's also important to teach things like "Let mom and dad know if someone wants to see your penis/vagina". It's also important to start the concept of consent early "You don't have to give a hug or let someone touch you if you don't want to" and extended to "Ask first before giving a hug, it's ok if someone doesn't want a hug."

As kids get older, you should absolutely be having frank conversations about what sex is. You should further have frank conversations about adults soliciting sex from kids "Jerry Seinfeld was a huge creep that raped a high school teen. That wasn't ok".

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 13 points 13 hours ago

Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.

Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with 'yes, probably' as the closest answer to accurate).

If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.

Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.

[–] ddplf@szmer.info 39 points 16 hours ago (11 children)

Exposing kids to sex too early isn't good for their development.

Can you elaborate on negative aspects of early sex ed? You only provided the positive examples, and I'm curious now

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 16 points 14 hours ago

I'm not the original person, but I was interested and did some digging myself, so here's what I found. I'm primarily citing this paper which seemed to cite a lot of other papers to back up its claims, compared to many others, that just utilized a single survey's results

The paper specifically mentions education all the way down to the preschool level, whereas many other studies didn't do anything below middle-high school.

Parents, teachers, families, neighbors and the media all have important roles in the sexual education of children and give children sexual education from birth without even noticing that they are doing so. Studies have confirmed that sexual education is a lifelong process that starts at birth.

This is the key point: Sexual education is already effectively taught in many ways in non-educational settings, often with traditional heterosexual norms instilled. (e.g. general discussion of relationships and attraction, consent, mentions of people "trying to have a baby," things like that) This is education that the respondents themselves did not consider to exist (the majority said they believed sex education of any form did not begin early in adolescence)

However, most of the general resources I can find around how official sex education curriculum are developed, how parents bring up these topics to their kids, and what kids are actually comfortable with discussing themselves, seems to point to an age-appropriate level of education, based on what they're likely to encounter at their given age range. (e.g. a very young child may be taught to say no if someone asks to see their privates, whereas a young adult may then be taught how to properly use various forms of contraceptives, with the context of different sex positions, because that's the age within which they're most likely to engage in those different positions.)

It seems like the age-adjusted measures work best not because they necessarily bring harm if taught to younger individuals (although there's significantly lacking data on this specific age range and being taught a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum) but rather that it's more possible to teach it to students as they get older, because they form a larger body of existing knowledge around the topic from peers/media/family, that provides the context required to be more easily taught, and they become more comfortable discussing such topics as they grow older and have a larger existing understanding of them.

You could try teaching an extremely comprehensive sex ed curriculum to students who are much younger, but they would probably just be too uncomfortable to actually care/pay attention/truly learn, is what the evidence I can find seems to point to.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 25 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

I hope they reply, but personally I don't see any reason to keep children ignorant of biology besides our religions making us feel like sex is taboo and unnatural.

Obv we can't teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren't at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not saying kids shouldn't be educated on the biology, just that age matters and too young is associated in research with lifelong negative consequences.

Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.

Which I think we agree on. Teaching a 5 year old consent is proper, how sex works is improper. Teaching a 12 year old how sex works is proper, what various sex acts are is improper. Teaching a 16 year old the various sex acts is proper, especially if accompanied by a discussion of STDs, how to prevent them, and how to properly disclose to prior partners you have one.

Sex ed isn't just one lesson and what can be taught when is a gradient based on age.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You know a sizable portion of teens have sex before the age of 16? Sex ed should basically be complete at age 14, which is approximately when most teens start/are consuming porn and some are starting to be sexually active.

Also, you should definitely start teaching what sex is to 10 year olds. For example, most girls have their first period between 11 and 12 years of age and they should know prior to having one what it means and how to deal with it.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I don't really disagree. I wasn't trying to put the ages out as being a hard absolute on what should be taught when. It was more just to layout the progress of how sex ed should be taught as kids grow up.

I wouldn't say sex ed can be complete by 14. It's one of those things that I think should be retaught a few times as kids get older. Mainly because 14yo are likely to forget the lessons they learned.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 2 points 13 hours ago

Exactly. Normalizing sex is about not making it a taboo, it is not about talking to everyone about it.

There is a huge amount is topics that aren't taboo & yet we don't really talk about them much/with just anyone.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago

I support her journey.

Closely.