The Sexual Revolution And Children's Education

[Роберт]

comically bad form for someone trying to advocate something he describes as a kind of sexual liberation

It actually makes me wonder if useddestilation is actually just trolling, trying to satirize sexual liberation by saing that "if you accept X, Y and Z sex things, you'd have to accept pedophiles having sex with actual children!"

But I'm pretty sure he's dead serious, and somehow thinks rape is okay if your sexual orientation is "I'm only attracted to people who can't/won't consent".

[Annihilist]

Sex is natural. Sex is normal. Why should we be raising kids to think it's taboo and "icky"? That's the society we live in. We teach kids that sex is "icky" and scary and therefore it's taboo. No one talks about it. If we don't educate kids on sex then they'll go out and find stuff out themselves, which is fine, but the information they find this way will be inconsistent and unreliable. This will likely lead to kids making bad decisions without really realising what they are doing.

I think we need to be more open with sex education, and kids need to be taught that it's nothing to be ashamed of and it's nothing to be scared of. We need to teach them the facts and realities, to help them in becoming mature enough to make the right decisions for themselves.

[elasto]

I think we need to be more open with sex education, and kids need to be taught that it's nothing to be ashamed of and it's nothing to be scared of. We need to teach them the facts and realities, to help them in becoming mature enough to make the right decisions for themselves.

It's somewhat like the situation with drugs in that respect: Society in general and many parents in particular are frightened of giving honest and balanced information on the pros and cons, risks and benefits of engaging in risky behaviour lest it been seen to be encouragement.

I firmly believe that the irony is that by giving honest and balanced information the child is more likely to make the choice the parent would wish them to make (waiting until they are ready for sex and with the right person, avoiding drug use etc.) - and much more likely to choose the safer option on those occasions they don't (using a condom, avoiding hard drugs etc.)

[Copper Bezel]

Agreed. I mean, at least for sex, there's empirical data in the US to show that the sex ed classes that actually prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs are the comprehensive ones. Since we're clearly very stodgy about anything to do with sex in the US, there's a lot of space to move in the other direction and no reason to believe that moving toward even further openness wouldn't produce even better results.

[The Great Hippo]

It's somewhat like the situation with drugs in that respect: Society in general and many parents in particular are frightened of giving honest and balanced information on the pros and cons, risks and benefits of engaging in risky behaviour lest it been seen to be encouragement.

I firmly believe that the irony is that by giving honest and balanced information the child is more likely to make the choice the parent would wish them to make (waiting until they are ready for sex and with the right person, avoiding drug use etc.) - and much more likely to choose the safer option on those occasions they don't (using a condom, avoiding hard drugs etc.)

This is only true if the children are prone to trust their parents, and prone to make intelligent decisions based on that trust. The problem is broader than 'parents aren't being honest about sex and drugs'; the problem is that parents aren't being honest about anything. Rather than teaching critical thinking skills and then providing data for children to analyze with those skills, we just punish them, trick them, and otherwise manipulate them into doing the things we want them to do. Children are just inexperienced adults. Hell, half the time, they're raging, incoherent bastards. We should treat them as such, rather than acting like they're magical little faeries who will wilt at the first sight of anything that isn't innocent or pure.

[elasto]

This is only true if the children are prone to trust their parents, and prone to make intelligent decisions based on that trust. The problem is broader than 'parents aren't being honest about sex and drugs'; the problem is that parents aren't being honest about anything. Rather than teaching critical thinking skills and then providing data for children to analyze with those skills, we just punish them, trick them, and otherwise manipulate them into doing the things we want them to do. Children are just inexperienced adults. Hell, half the time, they're raging, incoherent bastards. We should treat them as such, rather than acting like they're magical little faeries who will wilt at the first sight of anything that isn't innocent or pure.

I'll concede to your expanding generalisation but would like to take it still further...

I'm not convinced that authority figures in general are prone to trust those subject to them - whether child or adult - to exercise independent critical thought. Western societies are probably the most liberal that humanity has ever got to in this regard, but even with us most of the time most people just don't have the patience to let others they control make up their own minds on things. They'd far rather attempt to make the person's mind up for them - or force them to go along, at least. (And that's even on the occasions that the authority figure has the underling's best interests at heart...)

I'm typically of the 'if you love them let them go' school of thought: I'll state the facts and make my case, then leave the person to make up their own mind; If they come to a different conclusion, either their mind was made up from the beginning, or perhaps my argument isn't as strong as I think it is - and perhaps I'm the one that needs to think it through again. I'm just not sure that's especially common across humanity across history though when it comes to the typical parent and child, spouse and spouse or employer and employee.

(I hope I'm wrong though!)

[Shahriyar]

Just for the information of this thread, between the time where I was active in it and now I've had as close an experience as one can get to getting date-raped without being able to sue the other person.

It was the most disgusting experience I've ever gone through in my life, and affected me in a way no beating ever has.

In the new light of that experience, I have come to the conclusion that:

The ickiness of sex isn't just a matter of culture.

Once you see it dispassionately (or watch yourself doing it for that matter), it is pretty damn clear that people behave very strangely while having sex. Very strangely indeed.

Rape is a very special kind of evil. I can't think now of a society where it would be "normal", future or otherwise, without that society being somehow very unfair.

This stuff is hard to talk about. Like, where are the words to describe the experience? Cause I don't have them. If sex was better understood, if one could speak about it freely and analytically the same way one speaks of sports or friendship or commerce, maybe one would be better equipped to handle the... strange physiological thingies... stirrings... feelings... that are invovled with it.

So, in conclusion, I'm even more in favor of teaching kids everything about sex that they can understand, including that they really really really should be in no hurry to experience it themselves.

[StevenR]

So, in conclusion, I'm even more in favor of teaching kids everything about sex that they can understand, including that they really really really should be in no hurry to experience it themselves.

Which is counter to everything they experience culturally. Music, TV, movies, every other message kids get is sex is good. Sex is fun. Sex sells.

You can't have a culture that says "sex can wait, masturbate!" on one hand and sell shorts to 11 year old girls that read "Juicy" across the butt on the other.

[The Great Hippo]

Rape is a very special kind of evil.

I don't think this is an emotionally healthy way to approach it; I agree that it's evil, but evil is evil. I don't think 'hierarchies' of evil are very useful, and 'special' types of evil imply the existence of such hierarchies.

Then again, I'm not fond of telling people how to parse their experiences. If defining an event as a special sort of evil is helpful to you, then I won't argue--but from the perspective of someone who wants to help educate and spread rational, critical thought--who wants people to live happy, free, and sexually liberated--I worry that assigning it the class of 'special evil' is, in a way, mystifying it--shrouding it in a nebulous enigma of foulness. Doing this makes it that much harder to talk about, and I really think it's important that we as a culture talk about it.

So, in conclusion, I'm even more in favor of teaching kids everything about sex that they can understand, including that they really really really should be in no hurry to experience it themselves.

This much I absolutely agree with, though. Kids should know what sex is, and they should be encouraged not to engage in it until they've gained enough experience to make clear and positive decisions about it.

[StevenR]

[snip]

... Child rape and/or molestation is an automatic trip to a ditch on the side of the road and a bullet to the brainpan.

Yeah, this isn't what Serious Business is for. All subsequent replies deleted.

- Az

[useddestilation]

[snip]

Are you describing a situation where ...

Do you suffer from down syndrome? Read my post above.


That right there is how you get banned from SB.

... what the hell, this thread?

- Az

[Shahriyar]

Hey! I would like to think I carried myself here with proper scientific decorum: quiet, dignity, and grace.

[Роберт]

Hey! I would like to think I carried myself here with proper scientific decorum: quiet, dignity, and grace.

Even with only 77 posts, that's a higher post count the main people stirring the pot as it were.

[nitePhyyre]

So, in conclusion, I'm even more in favor of teaching kids everything about sex that they can understand, including that they really really really should be in no hurry to experience it themselves.

This much I absolutely agree with, though. Kids should know what sex is,

So far I'm following...

you and they should be encouraged not to engage in it until they've gained enough experience to make clear and positive decisions about it.

...but here you've lost me. What are you going to teach them? "Hey kids, sex is one of the prime drivers behind human psychology, and it feels really good. You can catch a disease or a baby, but if you use protection you will be fine. Still though, don't do it."

I'm honestly not seeing how you can have an honest and comprehensive sex education and have people come away with a reluctance to have it. I'm also not clear as to why reluctance should be a goal.

[meridian]

and they should be encouraged not to engage in it until they've gained enough experience to make clear and positive decisions about it.

...but here you've lost me. What are you going to teach them? "Hey kids, sex is one of the prime drivers behind human psychology, and it feels really good. You can catch a disease or a baby, but if you use protection you will be fine. Still though, don't do it."

I'm honestly not seeing how you can have an honest and comprehensive sex education and have people come away with a reluctance to have it. I'm also not clear as to why reluctance should be a goal.

I think the thing that is missing is the education on the psychological ramifications of sex, especially at a younger age. In our sexual education classes, are we highlighting the pros and cons of intimacy and the connections that sexual encounters form? True, for a portion of humanity, sex is just a physical activity, but there are also cultural weight added to a person's first time (coming of age, supposed reaching of maturity) added to the scope of you might get a disease/baby. Students could be warned that there's often an imbalance of expectations during an act of intimacy and honest conversations between both parties are advised. They should learn about power imbalances between the differences of age, especially evident before the completion of puberty and how that older partner may seem cool and experienced, but they may not feel the same way about as the younger person does (in terms of devotion, long term commitment, emotional impact of the act in and of itself).

This is why, I feel, they should be provided with information, but then encouraged to hesitate and think about what they want and what the other person brings to the table. They are definitely allowed to make these decisions, but why rush? Life experience will bring faster ease at at which to make these decisions, but the first few might be rough/boring/exceedingly emotional.

[Shahriyar]

^That was beautiful.

[The Great Hippo]

This is why, I feel, they should be provided with information, but then encouraged to hesitate and think about what they want and what the other person brings to the table. They are definitely allowed to make these decisions, but why rush? Life experience will bring faster ease at at which to make these decisions, but the first few might be rough/boring/exceedingly emotional.

This, and to add: Teaching reluctance isn't about convincing kids that sex is bad, or something they shouldn't do; it's about convincing kids that sex is a big thing, and should be treated responsibly. Part of making responsible decisions is realizing they shouldn't be rushed, particularly when you know you don't have enough experience to make them clearly (as the above implies).

[elasto]

I'm honestly not seeing how you can have an honest and comprehensive sex education and have people come away with a reluctance to have it. I'm also not clear as to why reluctance should be a goal.

Previous posters have largely covered this but I'll have my say anyhow ^_^

There are lots of things in life that are not in any sense intrinsically bad, merely highly consequential, and hence people should enter into with their eyes wide open: Marriage, career choices, alcohol/gambling/drugs etc. Sex is just another of these things that has the potential to bring great happiness or great sadness.

'Reluctance' isn't the right word for the state of mind education should seek to instil; 'Thoughtfulness' might be a better term for it.

[nitePhyyre]

I think the thing that is missing is the education on the psychological ramifications of sex, especially at a younger age. In our sexual education classes, are we highlighting the pros and cons of intimacy and the connections that sexual encounters form? True, for a portion of humanity, sex is just a physical activity, but there are also cultural weight added to a person's first time (coming of age, supposed reaching of maturity) added to the scope of you might get a disease/baby. Students could be warned that there's often an imbalance of expectations during an act of intimacy and honest conversations between both parties are advised. They should learn about power imbalances between the differences of age, especially evident before the completion of puberty and how that older partner may seem cool and experienced, but they may not feel the same way about as the younger person does (in terms of devotion, long term commitment, emotional impact of the act in and of itself).

This is why, I feel, they should be provided with information, but then encouraged to hesitate and think about what they want and what the other person brings to the table. They are definitely allowed to make these decisions, but why rush? Life experience will bring faster ease at at which to make these decisions, but the first few might be rough/boring/exceedingly emotional.

sex is just a physical activity, but there are also cultural weight added to

also cultural weight added

cultural weight

Sure, after we've created a bunch of irrational and destructive beliefs about sex, the least we can do is give our kids some band-aids to help them cope with all the neuroses we just created, my question is why go through any of that at all?

it's about convincing kids that sex is a big thing

[Citation Needed]
And its apt that you use 'convincing' rather than 'teaching'. That's throwing an 'open, and honest' education right out the door.

There are lots of things in life that are not in any sense intrinsically bad, merely highly consequential, and hence people should enter into with their eyes wide open: Marriage, career choices, alcohol/gambling/drugs etc. Sex is just another of these things that has the potential to bring great happiness or great sadness.

'Reluctance' isn't the right word for the state of mind education should seek to instil; 'Thoughtfulness' might be a better term for it.

Did you just put sex and marriage in the same box? Seriously? Because spending your next 45 min with somebody and spending the rest of your life with somebody should be in the same box.

[lutzj]

There are lots of things in life that are not in any sense intrinsically bad, merely highly consequential, and hence people should enter into with their eyes wide open: Marriage, career choices, alcohol/gambling/drugs etc. Sex is just another of these things that has the potential to bring great happiness or great sadness.

'Reluctance' isn't the right word for the state of mind education should seek to instil; 'Thoughtfulness' might be a better term for it.

Did you just put sex and marriage in the same box? Seriously? Because spending your next 45 min with somebody and spending the rest of your life with somebody should be in the same box.

Well, the "important decisions box" is pretty big.

[Hyphe]

it's about convincing kids that sex is a big thing, and should be treated responsibly

I agree with everything you and meridian have said, except for this part. Sex might be a big thing; and for most people, it will be. But it's very, very important that sex-ed lessons don't isolate, exclude or stigmatise the not-insignificant minority who feel that sex really is just another kind of physical activity, just as it's important to not exclude people who, for example, don't want heterosexual sex, or who don't want sex at all.

[lutzj]

it's about convincing kids that sex is a big thing, and should be treated responsibly

I agree with everything you and meridian have said, except for this part. Sex might be a big thing; and for most people, it will be. But it's very, very important that sex-ed lessons don't isolate, exclude or stigmatise the not-insignificant minority who feel that sex really is just another kind of physical activity, just as it's important to not exclude people who, for example, don't want heterosexual sex, or who don't want sex at all.

Even if you don't attach a lot of social or cultural importance to sex, its dangers still warrant it Big Thing status. Driving, for comparison, is only a physical activity (that some people attach a lot of cultural significance to), but it's still important to really emphasize to teenagers who can't really foresee consequences yet how dangerous and therefore important it is.

[gmalivuk]

Yeah, sex will cease to necessarily be a big thing that should only be had after serious consideration just as soon as the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is eliminated. In addition, humans seem pretty strongly predisposed to form emotional attachments to people we have sex with, and I seriously doubt this is entirely a cultural phenomenon.

[elasto]

Did you just put sex and marriage in the same box? Seriously? Because spending your next 45 min with somebody and spending the rest of your life with somebody should be in the same box.

Yes I did. Both are decisions that should be taken thoughtfully and not casually or rushed into.

The main consideration when having sex is that you are both in the same place mentally. Given how sex can run an enormously wide gamut in terms of what it means to a person - a bigger range than almost any other act that I can think of - it's essential that it means a similar thing to both parties. If not there's the potential for enormous emotional fallout that a few minutes of pleasure will simply not have been worth. If the sex is throwaway to both parties - fine; If the sex is deep and meaningful to both parties - also fine. The problems come about when one party misrepresents the significance of the act either to the other person or to themselves.

A secondary consideration is that orgasms release Oxycotin causing you to bond a little deeper with the person you just had sex with. If that person would be a crappy long-term life-partner then having sex with them might be a pretty bad idea - even if for both of you the sex is initially just about having a little fun. (Another thing that our super-duper sex-ed class needs to teach is that being in love isn't a good enough reason for two people to marry or even to be together; Compatibility of personality, world-view and life-ambition are as important if not more-so.)

[ninja'd on the second point but ah well!]

[Shahriyar]

I agree with everything you and meridian have said, except for this part. Sex might be a big thing; and for most people, it will be. But it's very, very important that sex-ed lessons don't isolate, exclude or stigmatise the not-insignificant minority who feel that sex really is just another kind of physical activity, just as it's important to not exclude people who, for example, don't want heterosexual sex, or who don't want sex at all.

just another kind of physical activity

That's sort of tautological: every human activity is physical in nature, even thinking. Perhaps you mean "just a sport" or "just a workout"?

Let's assume it is just a sport. Well, sports can and do get you killed, or worse, maimed and/or in pain for the rest of your life, sometimes by accident (and carelessness and ignorance increase the risk, but some amount of risk is inherent, and is always considerably greater than in most activities that aren't "sports"), andsometimes by design.

Yeah, sex will cease to necessarily be a big thing that should only be had after serious consideration just as soon as the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is eliminated. In addition, humans seem pretty strongly predisposed to form emotional attachments to people we have sex with, and I seriously doubt this is entirely a cultural phenomenon.

The main consideration when having sex is that you are both in the same place mentally. Given how sex can run an enormously wide gamut in terms of what it means to a person - a bigger range than almost any other act that I can think of - it's essential that it means a similar thing to both parties. If not there's the potential for enormous emotional fallout that a few minutes of pleasure will simply not have been worth. If the sex is throwaway to both parties - fine; If the sex is deep and meaningful to both parties - also fine. The problems come about when one party misrepresents the significance of the act either to the other person or to themselves.

A secondary consideration is that orgasms release Oxycotin causing you to bond a little deeper with the person you just had sex with. If that person would be a crappy long-term life-partner then having sex with them might be a pretty bad idea - even if for both of you the sex is initially just about having a little fun. (Another thing that our super-duper sex-ed class needs to teach is that being in love isn't a good enough reason for two people to marry or even to be together; Compatibility of personality, world-view and life-ambition are as important if not more-so.)

I can't possibly stress how right all of you are, and how important it is that kids be taught about these points. There's just one aspect of sex that you're forgetting:

"Naughtiness". "Doing the nasty". "Bumping uglies". "Getting freaky". These metaphors aren't just a result of cultural frameworks. Sex entails Smells. Fluids. Sounds. Breath. Strange sensations. Strange, nonsensical behaviors. The feeling that your body isn't yours, somehow, that it's moving on its own. Sex a powerful Dionysian force against Apollonian rationality, of civilization, of control and deliberation and judgment. (Unless you've got specific training...).

Education is about learning the Apollonian skills and knowledge and judgment that will help us to properly grasp (understand, get, weight, evaluate, hold, control, constrict, own) our Dionysian instincts, compulsions, cravings and passions, in order to become, not a bundle of contradictory wants and feels and stirrings, but to ride and steer and manage them, to become free individuals, able to make informed choices, and able to make the best use of the reality of their bodies, both mechanically and physiologically (emotionally), to achieve maximum happiness. That is the fullness of wisdom, that is true, final adulthood. It certainly and undeniably involves the loss of innocence, that is to say, blissful ignorance.

And I believe children should not be denied the tools to reach it as soon as they are able to, lest they remain children, on a certain level, for the rest of their lives.