Verified by 
51COMMENTS
Some of them are going to be "rainbow" colored and
multi-hued. Also, some of them are going to have
"irasicible" temperments.
When they team up with waves of 3rd world invaders
who are hell bent on imposing shira law, what will the
quality of life be then?
Of course, the media, politicans, and schools will obscfacate and pour perfume on this pig.
May God have mercy on white women in this country,
more then He's having in Europe.
THE BASICS
Source: By Francisco Osorio on Flickr
President Obama’s recent decision to defund abstinence-only sex education was a rare event in that it honored two things often at odds: scientific evidence and majority opinion.
From a purely scientific point of view, testing abstinence-only education was not altogether a bad idea. Testing testable hypotheses—even outlandish ones; even counter-intuitive ones; even ones proposed with unsavory intent—is the bread and butter of the scientific enterprise.
Moreover, putting outlandish and risky hypotheses to empirical test is not only sound science, it’s also sound politics: best to examine bad ideas in the open where they can be challenged and refuted rather than let them fester underground, where they often will morph over time into increasingly grotesque versions of themselves and find more dangerous expressions.
A massive, well-funded test of the abstinence-only hypothesis was indeed undertaken in the US, starting in Reagan’s 80s (even if most of its backers were motivated by ideological fervor, rather than scientific curiosity). At the effort’s peak years, between 1996 and 2007, Congress funneled over 1.7 billion state and federal dollars to Abstinence-only education programs.
By the time of president Obama’s decision, the empirical results had long converged on a robust conclusion: Abstinence-only programs were not delivering positive results in terms of reducing risky sexual behavior and negative sex-related outcomes in the teenage population.
Even though it may have merited testing as a hypothesis, abstinence-only sex education has always been conceptually suspect, starting with the program’s oxymoronic name, which is akin to a wealth management program being titled, “poverty-only.” Yet while much of the controversy over this program has focused on the hidden political and ideological agendas animating the ‘Abstinence’ part, the main problem has always been the “Only” part.
Few people have a real problem acknowledging (and teaching) the fact that abstinence from sex is an available and often prudent choice in the effort to avoid STIs, unwanted pregnancy, and emotional turmoil. As Santelli et al., note: “Abstinence from sexual intercourse is an important behavioral strategy for preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy among adolescents… There is broad support for abstinence as a necessary and appropriate part of sexuality education.”
However, “Controversy arises when abstinence is provided to adolescents as a sole choice and where health information on other choices is restricted or misrepresented. Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic.”
One easy way to illustrate the conceptual folly of using abstinence-only education to guide human sexual behavior is to apply the logic it uses to other realms of human experience. One could, for example, liken abstinence-only education to telling young people that the way to avoid car accidents is by not driving.
It is easy to see how such an approach may not suffice to manage accident risk among youths. First, avoiding driving is difficult in the context of a car-happy and car-dependent culture. Second, it is rather obvious that additional measures—such as teaching the principles and habits of safe driving and basic car maintenance—are bound to advance, rather than impede, our overall driving safety goals. Finally, a teenager who has had “Don’t-drive” drivers ed—even one who has managed to reach adulthood without 'cheating'—will be a danger on the road to themselves and others when they finally get behind the wheel.
Yet this kind of analogy, however illustrative, also reveals a fundamental flaw in our thinking about sex: we tend to equate it with trouble and transgression. We still perceive adolescent sexual behavior negatively, as a kind of behavioral, psychological, and moral failure. It is no coincidence that sex education programs in the U.S. —even those that venture beyond abstinence-only—focus mostly on the negative aspects of sex, such as preventing STIs, avoiding pregnancies, and overall harm reduction.
This negative view of sex has of course deep historical roots. But human consciousness and culture are evolving. There was a time when ideas like democracy (common people have a say in matters of government), equality (all human beings have basic inherent rights), and diversity (different ethnicities can live together in cooperation, equality, and peace) were considered dangerous, unnatural, heretic, incoherent, or untenable. Yet today most of us take them more or less for granted, and see them as both intuitive and aspirational.
Our approach to sex now awaits a similar paradigm shift. After all, in ancient times, puberty meant parenthood. For most of history, sex meant babies. Both are no longer. Our culture has separated puberty from parenthood and sex from procreation, thus making the experience of pleasurable, non-procreative sex safer, easier, and more common than ever. This is a cultural achievement. It should be celebrated like other cultural achievements such as wealth creation. In this context, focusing sex education on the negative aspects of sex is akin to our wealthy capitalist nation focusing its financial education on teaching youngsters how to avoid money or at least reduce the harm having it may cause.
Source: From Pexels
Indeed, a shift toward sex positive education may already be in motion. You can see evidence of it in some European countries, where the pleasures, risks and responsibilities of sex are already discussed candidly with children as a normal part of healthy life. You can see it in the consent debate’s shift from “no means no” to “yes means yes.” You can see it in the increasing recognition that sexual expression itself is not the problem. Rather, guilt, shame, and fear about sexual expression are the problem—just as we’ve come to see that bigotry and prejudice toward minorities are the problem, as opposed to minorities themselves.
All worthy human endeavors involve risk. But the risk is not the point of why we endeavor—and neither is avoiding risk: A figure skater’s everyday aches and pains and efforts to avoid serious injury are not the point of his or her career. A church may go bankrupt, but a church doesn’t exist to avoid money issues. Sex carries risks, but it is not about risk. We need to shift our approach to sex toward a focus on preparing adolescents to deal with what sex is actually about in our time: human connection, transcendence, ecstasy and, at times, wanted children. Sex education reflecting this shift will start early, frame sexuality as a normative and positive part of human experience, and approach the sexual body as part of the human body. It will honor the fact that sex is a gift, not a burden, and acknowledge desire as desirable, not undesirable. It will balance a discussion of sexual safety and health with a discussion of sexual pleasure, curiosity, skill, and creativity.
ATTN: The next president….
Who's going to foot the bill for all these products of "pleasure
Submitted by Lon Spector on April 5, 2016 - 9:25am
In my class we heard all
Submitted by Anonymous on April 5, 2016 - 4:20pm
In my class we heard all about pleasure...for males. It's about time we let female desire and pleasure out of the bag!
Then Make the first move
Submitted by Kevin on April 15, 2016 - 7:21pm
But no, it's easier for women to have a monopoly over anything sexual and not risk rejection/poor investments.
This article is total junk considering work and school, the institutions one spends most of their life are passive-aggressive dictatorships, and diversity is only in skin color, not skill sets including people skills. You would think people who study philosophy or psychology, or even acting, would be asked about people skills or ideas at interviews, but no, the HR has no clue how to find experience not related to being a lackey of the man in that industry.
But no, it's easier for women
Submitted by Gary g on April 15, 2016 - 9:26pm
Anonymous wrote:But no, it's easier for women to have a monopoly over anything sexual and not risk rejection/poor investments.
I don't see how your response has any bearing on the original comment.
As I see it, the point about teaching about women's pleasure is right on target. Americans seem to dread teaching girls that sex can be fun, while they have no problem packing millions of teenagers into shopping mall movie theaters showing "300: Rise of an Empire" which showed dozens of graphic beheadings with pints of blood suspended in mid-air in slow motion.
You answered your question Gary
Submitted by Kevin on April 15, 2016 - 9:36pm
If the person went about sex from intro and flirting to whatever best end result they can get, they would know what works and what is bs. Especially when sex addicts skew and overrate sex to justify a garbage relationship or person without chemistry.
True Sex Ed is a pipe dream, like not being trained to lust after a trophy wife first rather than someone you can actually get. Let alone learn to do things differently based on body type, but then some only see one as accessible, in addition to their own racial filters.
True Sex Ed is a pipe dream,
Submitted by Gary g on April 15, 2016 - 10:06pm
Anonymous wrote:True Sex Ed is a pipe dream,
Actually, it works pretty well in parts of Europe, where the teenage pregnancy rate is much lower, etc. Both parents and schools teach a more positive sexual role for girls.
Not really sure what you're getting at otherwise. We're talking basics about sex, such as how to have an orgasm, a positive attitude about your sexuality, acceptance of other people's different sexual tastes and orientations, etc.
The game is rigged
Submitted by Kevin on April 16, 2016 - 3:21am
How are these "basics" even told? Like somehow magically, we are plowing away in someone's bedrooms or whatever without logistics or techniques like gradually escalating things, or learning to find a way to compromise within her comfort zone.
People overrate sexuality and treat it with kid gloves at the same time. I am simply talking about finding social skills to have a sex life as well as knowing that unless you are some heartthrob or elite, most people will reject you, just like a job interview. Speaking of jobs, the office spouse is another thing too, all sorts of mysterious relationships or things happening with personal space to adjust too.
Examples would be how some women co-workers just throw their breasts at me whenever they want help, yet somehow never find time after-hours to do anything. I just accept it and have fun with logistics, seeing what I can do that is safe for work, finding the right moment despite its limitations. I really doubt people are taught this in Europe, but if I am wrong, feel free to give me an example.
How are these "basics" even
Submitted by Gary g on April 16, 2016 - 10:23am
Anonymous wrote:How are these "basics" even told? Like somehow magically, we are plowing away in someone's bedrooms or whatever without logistics or techniques like gradually escalating things, or learning to find a way to compromise within her comfort zone.
You're not talking about basic sex education about how to pleasure your own body, which many girls don't easily discover on their own. What you're talking about is something else entirely, namely dating etiquette for adults, such as reading flirtation cues, etc. They do have classes on that, and lots of self-help books. What you're talking about is something outlined in basic guides for entering college students, especially the regard to the new "affirmative consent" rules, etc.
Where and how to meet women to date, office romances and such, is NOT what is meant by sex education for young teens in school. The questions you ask are more of the kind that bookish and intellectual students with little dating experience in college or soon thereafter in a new job situation would complain about. And my first recommendation in that regard would be drop the anger attitude and just make friends with lots of women as if they're just more of your guy friends.
Righteous anger is an excellent filter
Submitted by Kevin on April 16, 2016 - 11:51am
wrote:What you're talking about is something outlined in basic guides for entering college students, especially the regard to the new "affirmative consent" rules, etc.
And my first recommendation in that regard would be drop the anger attitude and just make friends with lots of women as if they're just more of your guy friends.
You obviously don't field test your ideas. Intuition for men go out the window with women. Affirmative consent means you already lost. Then of course to treat them like men, another bad thing. Women aren't clear with their feelings with their words so it is a bit of a guessing game.
I know enough from my experiences, good and bad, to know that putting women on a pedestal and always tolerating their poor response times or blind spots only creates more distance. Some prefer you even do the opposite of what they say but you have to gauge body language properly and cautiously.
Being upset while channeling or controlling it lets you communicate about a problematic relationship past its expiration date (i.e. No more spoiling/false hope with alcohol only pretending to make them care) or move onto the next woman and hopefully she won't put up a pisspoor performance and demand her poor scheduling/sense of priorities is your fault. Worse thing to do is keep approaching/asking for consent. When things go bad, warn then bounce without even bothering to text since she'll need to have the last word.
The few that do earn my respect; I can't afford to overpay for that, though maybe you could, with how you are giving away the house so to speak, and acting like somehow I am inexperienced about this.
Does it qualify under relationship advice? Yes, but sexual relations would be a subset, and teaching how to close without selling a good opener makes a broken salesman.
ou obviously don't field test
Submitted by Gary g on April 16, 2016 - 12:55pm
Anonymous wrote:ou obviously don't field test your ideas.
Actually, not only field tested but succeeded quite well.
You apparently didn't comprehend my only piece of advice at all. You would do well to drop your negative attitude, which is extremely unappealing to the vast majority of women. And in your response, you did NOTHING BUT display a negative attitude. Not only will it get you nothing, but it is also not correct and reasonable. Rather it is your distorted perception -- which means you don't see it as a perception -- you see it as truth and would argue to the death that it is, and it isn't.
wrote:Affirmative consent means you already lost.
No it doesn't. It means women shouldn't have to put up with men thinking, "I've paid for dinner and done all this, and they way you dressed you're just asking for it, and if you invited me up to your room, it means you want this!"
wrote:Then of course to treat them like men, another bad thing. Women aren't clear with their feelings with their words so it is a bit of a guessing game.
Because -- guess what -- in many cases women don't know enough about a guy to know how they feel, or should feel, and what to do. They are cautious. Who wouldn't be. Give it time, enjoy the friendship, rather than treating them like an object that has to be manipulated into saying "yes" or else your manhood will be crushed. Women can read that kind of insecurity and single-minded goal stuff a mile away, if not 100 miles away. And it's a HUGE turnoff for them.
wrote:I know enough from my experiences, good and bad, to know that putting women on a pedestal and always tolerating their poor response times or blind spots only creates more distance. Some prefer you even do the opposite of what they say but you have to gauge body language properly and cautiously.
Right, women are so difficult to deal with simply because part of their anatomy has a different shape. Why don't you give women a break when they aren't sure how they're feeling? I'm not sure about a woman when I first meet her either. I'd just take my time to get to know someone -- it's as simple as that. I've never tried desperately to read some hidden signals that might or might not be there. Good grief, just relax and have fun, just be yourself, and stop worrying about what the "signals" might be. Have a sense of humor. Show her you are your own man and that you're not bothered by her not being sure about the situation or whatever. Women can read a mile away the kind of guy whose main goal seems to be to figure out her "readiness for sex" rather than being genuinely interested in her. GUys like that are a DIME A DOZEN, and just plain tiresome to most women.
wrote:Being upset while channeling or controlling it lets you communicate about a problematic relationship past its expiration date (i.e. No more spoiling/false hope with alcohol only pretending to make them care) or move onto the next woman and hopefully she won't put up a pisspoor performance and demand her poor scheduling/sense of priorities is your fault. Worse thing to do is keep approaching/asking for consent. When things go bad, warn then bounce without even bothering to text since she'll need to have the last word.
I included the above quote of yours to demonstrate how profoundly your focus is just on YOURSELF and your own RUMINATIONS about the limitations of women. I see zero, and I mean ZERO, ZILCH, NADA interest on your part in actually who these women are and learning from them as human beings. They are just objects -- you couldn't be more clear about your objectification of women than the way you've written here. Most women reading what you've written here would avoid dating you like the plague. That's what I mean by lose that attitude that is just totally about yourself and your own feelings, and NOTHING about their feelings. You'll GET NOWHERE FAST EVER, with your current attitude.
wrote:The few that do earn my respect; I can't afford to overpay for that,
Oh yeah, because being generous and "losing in the game" could cripple you emotionally and set you back for life, and you'd be so butt-hurt and bellyaching that you'd never get over it. You need to man up and focus on what you're proud of in yourself, and learn to see things in women that are good, and let them know that.
A simple answer to your is -- look in the gender reversed mirror. How would you like to date a woman who felt about men the way you feel about women? The female version of yourself? You'd hate it. And so why should a woman "give you a break" with your incredibly negative attitude, which, again, you've in your several posts here already shown ZERO INTEREST in women as human beings.
So, I'll start with my basic advice again, which I suppose you'll reject again becuase you'll apply your own self butt-hurt whining and bellyaching about yourself all over again. Start by getting to know a whole bunch of women as just friends. Don't even worry about trying to "score". Just get to know them as real friends -- not objects in a plan to pretend to be friends with to get something else. That would be a great first step for you, and a big one given the attitude you've displayed here.
Absolutely. That has always
Submitted by irrelevant on April 16, 2016 - 5:58pm
Absolutely. That has always been the narrative.
I am copying and pasting my comment below as a reply to yours so it will be seen more easily, as you have the usual shrieking hysterical denialists in your replies and it's time they were educated.
Sigh. The usual debunked nonsense about women and sex, I see.
No, women don't love bad boys. That would naturally be impossible, as there is no such thing as an amorphous blob called "women" who all feel the same. Just like men, they are all individuals with individual tastes
If you are going round saying you are a nice guy, you're not. Nice guys don't do that.
Women like hot men, just like men like hot women. Just like men, they overlook personality flaws sometimes to sleep with the hottest guy.
Women have strong libidos and love sex.
The book What Women Really Want by Daniel Bergner uses 7 years of scientific research, including pleythsmographs, to categorically prove that women are not only AS sexual as men, they are probably more so.
And that monogamy kills women's sex drives within a few years. Women are wired up to be non-monogamous. Hence all those thousands of nerves around the clitoris designed for nothing but pure pleasure. If she says she doesn't want sex, she means with YOU.
Women LOVE porn. They just aren't as fond as some misguided men are of watching women with plastic breasts being beaten, abused and anally raped or simply bored out of their mind having fauxgasms. Introduce attractive men, whose faces we get to see, no more of the boring and predictable money shot, and women having real orgasms and suddenly the rate for porn enjoyment in women climbs, well if not exponentially, then vastly. In the studies above, women were turned on by almost ALL sexual films, whereas men were much more limited and restricted. If they said they were straight, they mostly like straight porn. Women were much more free with their interests.
It's now accepted that primitive humans travelled in groups, and females (like our closest relations bonobos) had multiple male partners. This meant extra protection as males were less likely to harm an infant that might be theirs & more likely to protect a female who might be carrying their young. All those extra nerves designed or nothing but pleasure are there to promote multiple partners
It's amazing the mental acrobatics some people will go through rather than just accept that she just doesn't fancy YOU. But if you suddenly turned into a man she did fancy her sex drive would miraculously reappear.
And this notion we often hear, that women find it easier than men to "get" sex - well sure, if they're willing to sleep with men they don't fancy. Women have always slept around of course, just as much as men.
The many social sanctions from chastity belts to venomous name calling prove it. Books like the Secret Garden, which had to fight its way past male publishers to be published, prove it (and many more like it in history).
Common sense proves it, who else were men sleeping with? Each other? Just one really busy woman?
And finally, categorically, DNA testing proved it. Boy, there sure were a LOT of surprised men when DNA paternity testing came out.
Of course it is not ok to cheat, but women and men always have. Equally. Women just had to be a whole lot better at hiding it, due to safety ramifications and social sanctions and being forced to rely on men for money and shelter.
And women can certainly make the choice to be monogamous, though it's tough. Just like men.
A scholarly study called Misperceptions of Sexual Interest by C. Perilloux was carried out. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/18/0956797611424162.abstract
It was actually really interesting. The study showed men consistently rated themselves too highly, went after women right out of their league, got knocked back. Women consistently rated themselves as less attractive than they are, went after men well within their league, fewer knock backs. More attractive men did not mis-rate themselves and did not have this problem. Average men consistently tried to latch onto women they had no realistic chance with.
What's more, the more attracted HE was to HER, the more he was convinced she was also attracted - no matter what she said to the contrary.
In the real world these men then complain about how women don't want sex. If men are having problems with continual knock backs, I recommend they get a completely independent rating of how attractive they are and only make overtures to women within their league.
And even then of course, if she says no it just means she's saying no to HIM.
The study explained this had an evolutionary advantage. Because for all the hundreds of women out of your league who say no, you might get one yes. And then you have access to really attractive genetic material. But the faulty cognition is passed down to your offspring who also keep chasing women they haven't a hope with, and getting annoyed when they receive the obvious refusal, and so the cycle continues.
And this faulty cognition was of course reinforced by the messed up social inequality we lived with for so long, whereby women would suffer unattractive men because they had so few realistic economical options. Which left a lot of men thinking they honestly had an entitlement to or hope with women who are far more attractive than they are, when independently rated.
So basically, we have a mixture of the average man trying to latch onto women they really haven't much hope with, plus monogamy killing women's original high sex drive, and men mis-reading this as women not wanting sex.
Sadly, no, she just doesn't want sex with YOU.
And lastly, nobody, male or female needs sex. And you have no right to any woman, let alone a hot one, any more than women have a right to a hot man. Accept it, move on.
One day, and hopefully in the near future, particularly with the publishing of the pretty comprehensive book I mentioned, these myths will cease to be repeated. It's a fascinating book and everyone could benefit from reading it.
Meantime, I find myself having to state these proven facts ad nauseam. Le Sigh.
Anyway, everyone who reads my comment is being educated, one comment at a time, even if it is against their will.
And I never reply to shrieking hysterics. Read the book, ready the study. Educate yourself.
Good post overall!
Submitted by Gary g on April 17, 2016 - 1:08am
Good post overall!
wrote:plus monogamy killing women's original high sex drive, and men mis-reading this as women not wanting sex.
Sadly, no, she just doesn't want sex with YOU.
I would only echo your earlier comment:
wrote:there
is no such thing as an amorphous blob called "women" who all feel the same.
I remember well one interview about women with low desire. The female interviewer suggested, "Perhaps her husband no longer excites her, but surely Brad Pitt would!". The female sexologist resonded to the effect, "No, it's not uncommon for women to say that not even Brad Pitt could interest them at all." Many women, particularly after many childbirths and entering menopause, find their sex drive drop completely. In some cases it's a clear hormonal problem. It's not always just a problem of needing a different man, and this particular situation is not uncommon -- which is why I felt compelled to comment.
On a more humorous note, I can just hear the howls of protest from women if a man ever claimed that the only problem with his erectile dysfunction is that he needs a new and exciting woman.
Many Adolescents are going to
Submitted by Obadiah on April 5, 2016 - 11:00pm
Many Adolescents are going to have sex regardless of what they hear in health class. We might as well inform them on the negative implications more so than the pleasure. I'm sure they know full well that sex is a pleasurable act.
Many Adolescents are going to
Submitted by Gary g on April 6, 2016 - 9:29am
Anonymous wrote:Many Adolescents are going to have sex regardless of what they hear in health class. We might as well inform them on the negative implications more so than the pleasure. I'm sure they know full well that sex is a pleasurable act.
As the author said, what you're suggesting is already what is being taught, and it's been proven to not work. Perhaps you should read the article before posting.
"It [sex education] will
Submitted by Barry on April 6, 2016 - 8:18am
"It [sex education] will balance a discussion of sexual safety and health with a discussion of sexual pleasure, curiosity, skill, and creativity" say the author. What does this mean exactly? That teenagers (and even younger children) will be given lessons in pleasuring their partners? That's a bit much, is it not? Also, what about kids from religious backgrounds whose parents believe that sex before marriage is wrong?
"It [sex education] will
Submitted by Gary g on April 6, 2016 - 9:37am
Anonymous wrote:"It [sex education] will balance a discussion of sexual safety and health with a discussion of sexual pleasure, curiosity, skill, and creativity" say the author. What does this mean exactly? That teenagers (and even younger children) will be given lessons in pleasuring their partners? That's a bit much, is it not?
No, actually, it isn't a bit much unless you're the typical American parent who objects to this. That's what this article is talking about -- people who think like you. As the author argues, a more informative approach has been shown to work elsewhere, as in Europe where the teenage pregnancy rate is much lower.
wrote:Also, what about kids from religious backgrounds whose parents believe that sex before marriage is wrong?
Exactly, that is one of the reasons for the problem, of course. Still, the authors approach is apparently to inform kids, not tell them to have sex -- just inform. Many people in America still cling to the belief that teenagers would have little interest in sex if only you kept them in the dark, never mind all the stuff they see on the Internet including porn, and sexting each other!
So you really think teaching
Submitted by Barry on April 6, 2016 - 10:13am
So you really think teaching teenagers and children about sexual "skill" is appropriate? I don't. Teach them the facts about preganncy and STDs, yes, but no more. Reminds me of the episode of South Park where Mr. Garrison was teaching very young kids about sexual positions!
So you really think teaching
Submitted by Gary g on April 6, 2016 - 11:22am
Anonymous wrote:So you really think teaching teenagers and children about sexual "skill" is appropriate? I don't.
I knew you wouldn't, because you're an American. But the truth is that if you don't the only thing they "learn" about sex comes from porn and rumors from friends. You have to combat wrong information with correct information. You can't combat wrong information with no information. And that's the author's point.
Now, don't try to make it sound wacky by implying that such education is going to go into obsessive details of pleasuring, positions -- as if they haven't already seen/heard a lot of incorrect information on those exact things on the Internet or from friends.. There is a middle ground where you can make very positive statements instead of just doing the old "scare tactics". Funny thing is, in Europe many parents encourage teenagers to have safe sex in their own homes. And yet the reaction in many cases is teens decide they're not ready. There are many reasons -- one that I've seen (I was raised in Europe) is that if your parents are so positive about sex, many teens are no longer interested in using sex as a way to make a statement about being independent, or rebelling against their parents. Like who wants to have sex when it's what your parents want -- nope, not gonna have sex just because my parents want me to -- I've seen that reaction.
Here in America we keep kids in the dark, and try to keep condoms away from them lest they take that as a sign it's OK. And the result is they figure if your parents don't want you to do it and refuse to tell you anything about it, it must be pretty wicked cool stuff, and so you fumble around in the back seat of the car, far away from home, with no condoms. The teenage pregnancy rate and teenage STD rate in my part of the country here in the USA is far greater than in Holland or Sweden. I'd say our "sex education" from parents and schools in America is a huge failure.
wrote:Teach them the facts about preganncy and STDs, yes, but no more.
That is what they're taught, and all that they're taught. Right? That's what the article is saying. It's not working well. Where have you been? Did you just fall off the turnip truck?
wrote:Reminds me of the episode of South Park where Mr. Garrison was teaching very young kids about sexual positions!
The fact that you can make an exaggerated comic out of a situation doesn't really argue effectively against it. Like why do we give little boys toy trucks -- it's not like we're going to have them drive big trucks at age 10, right?
What a load of nonsense.
Submitted by Barry on April 7, 2016 - 3:51am
What a load of nonsense. First off, I have to correct you on the issue of my nationality. I'm Irish, not American, and have never even set foot in America. I'm currently living in Germany and nothing annoys me more than to hear Americans (or Europeans) slagging off America and pretending that Europe is better in every single respect. It isn't. Europe is also very diverse. Do you honestly think that Eastern Europeans, for instance, have the liberal attitudes towards sex that you claim are the norm in Europe? As for Ireland, teenage pregnancy and children born outside of marriage were almost unheard of a short few decades ago for the simple fact that people had better sexual morals. You mightn't like to hear that but it's the truth.
As for parents in Europe encouraging their children to have sex in their homes, well I honestly don't know what to say. Even in "liberal" parts of Europe like Scandinavia, I doubt very much that there are many parents who would want such a thing. If you believe such an approach is good, I take it you have no children yourself? Do you honestly think there are fathers out there who like to listen to their 15-year-old daughter having sex in the next room with her "boyfriend". Get real, my friend.
What a load of nonsense.
Submitted by Gary g on April 7, 2016 - 10:30am
Anonymous wrote:What a load of nonsense. First off, I have to correct you on the issue of my nationality. I'm Irish, not American, and have never even set foot in America. I'm currently living in Germany and nothing annoys me more than to hear Americans (or Europeans) slagging off America and pretending that Europe is better in every single respect. It isn't.
I know, because I've lived in both Europe and America. Of course, my guess as to your nationality was obviously an assumption, but not an unreasonable one based on not only your view but also that you are posting in an American magazine's website.
wrote:Europe is also very diverse.
Yes, I know. There is the whole gamut of views in Europe too -- I've seen it in person. But what I also know is that the balance/preponderance is markedly different. For example, in America about 90% of parents would be horrified at the thought of their teenage daughter having sex with her boyfriend in their home. In Holland, for example, the percentage is exactly reversed according to one survey -- 90% of parents would SUPPORT it. And I've personally had to "explain" what they consider "strange" American attitudes about sex to people in Sweden and Denmark.
wrote:Do you honestly think that Eastern Europeans, for instance, have the liberal attitudes towards sex that you claim are the norm in Europe?
I made no claims about Eastern Europe.
wrote:As for Ireland, teenage pregnancy and children born outside of marriage were almost unheard of a short few decades ago for the simple fact that people had better sexual morals. You mightn't like to hear that but it's the truth.
Well, actually, the teenage pregnancy rate in Holland is MUCH lower than in America and they're MUCH more liberal about teenagers having sex. So it's much more than just "morals". It has to do with feeling supported, family structure, and early education about safe sex.
wrote:As for parents in Europe encouraging their children to have sex in their homes, well I honestly don't know what to say. Even in "liberal" parts of Europe like Scandinavia, I doubt very much that there are many parents who would want such a thing.
Actually, you're wrong. They are quite different on that count. What you see a lot less of in Scandinavia is the American "double-standard". So just as many parents in the US are a lot more positive (at least on the sly) about their teenage sons being a "stud", many northern European parents are more similarly positive about both their daughters and sons. In America, they give their sons private "high fives" for being studs in high school, while at the same time they will allow their daughters "over their dead bodies" to have sex with anybody.
wrote:If you believe such an approach is good, I take it you have no children yourself?
Actually, millions and millions of parents in northern Europe take my appraoch. And I have five children myself.
wrote:Do you honestly think there are fathers out there who like to listen to their 15-year-old daughter having sex in the next room with her "boyfriend". Get real, my friend.
You're living in a bubble. This happens all the time in Europe. Many people consider it normal and natural. They'd much rather have their daughter have first-time sex in a supportive and safe environment with someone they trust, because they know the alternative is first-time sex in the back seat of a car parked out in the woods with no condoms. I think you're projecting a bit too much of your personal reactions to sexual situations here -- sure, I get that YOU'D feel that way. But you're not the entire and complete "representation" of a "normal person's" reaction to sexual situations and attitudes.
Why do so many Americans
Submitted by Barry on April 7, 2016 - 11:17am
Why do so many Americans nowadays seem to hate their own country so much? All this nonsense about Americans being prudish towards sex and so on. As if it were the Middle East or something!
I consider any parent who would allow their teenage son or daughter to have sex under their own roof to be an idiot, a liberal idiot perhaps but still an idiot. Did you allow this with your own children? Did you enoy listening to your daughter moan as she was pounded by some guy whose only interest in her is sex? You think that's healthy? I live in Germany and I would say the majority of people here and elsewhere in Europe are not nearly as "liberal" on this issue as you might think.
I'll also say the following: "liberal" Europeans better enjoy being able to behave as some of them currently do (sexually) because with the changing demographics of the continent (a rapidly growing Muslim community), things could change pretty quickly in this regard.
Why do so many Americans
Submitted by Gary g on April 7, 2016 - 12:42pm
Anonymous wrote:Why do so many Americans nowadays seem to hate their own country so much? All this nonsense about Americans being prudish towards sex and so on. As if it were the Middle East or something!
Just like you say about Europe, America is also a diverse country. At the moment, Trump and his minority of die-hard supporters are getting a lot of attention. But at this point, he's not popular enough among Republicans to even get a majority of them to support him, let alone the general population in the final election.
As for sex, yes, America is known for its prudishness and "Puritannical" attitudes. But it's a mixture. You have very conservative people in the bible-belt and midwest, and very liberal people in the big cities and the west coast, for example. Hollywood films portray things many people in the country severely object to. Or as one comedian correctly pointed out, Americans have just as many affairs as the French, the only difference is that Americans feel much more guilty about it.
wrote:I consider any parent who would allow their teenage son or daughter to have sex under their own roof to be an idiot,
And people who allow it think people like you are short-sighted and an idiot too. And because each side thinks that of the other, that's the reason it's not easy to change these views with simple rational discussion. It goes to deep-seated emotional perceptions of sex and so forth. Just your mention of "hearing your daughter having sex" speaks to your gut emotional creep factor reaction to a specific sexual situation, not rational logic really. Europeans view it as normal and would quickly argue, well, what do you want? Because the alternative is that your daughter is going to be sexually inexperienced, and have her first experience OUT OF YOUR CONTROL and INFLUENCE ENTIRELY, perhaps in the back seat of the car with a person you don't know, who may feel entitled to be forceful, may be drunk, and without contraception. Which way do you want it? Which way is truly the most idiotic? I would say your way is the most idiotic. You would let your daughter have her first experience in a potentially dangerious, unsafe, and regrettable situation, simply because you would get all voyeuristically disgusted by hearing your daughter having sex, as if that were some sort of moral equivalent to immoral porn or something? Where is the logic in that -- you seem to be appealing to just your own peculiar sexual sensationalism as if it were grounded in solid logic. I, and many Scandinavians, would find your reaction peculiar -- almost like you might laugh at a man who got upset because a woman wasn't wearing a full burka from head to toe.
wrote:a liberal idiot perhaps but still an idiot. Did you allow this with your own children? Did you enoy listening to your daughter moan as she was pounded by some guy whose only interest in her is sex? You think that's healthy?
See, you're reasoning with your own "perv factor" reaction here, which just sounds silly, uptight, and like you're a dirty old man having a problem processing a sexual situation in its proper context. When I grew up in Scandinavia, my mother commented to me with an amused smile that she had heard my sister and her boyfriend having sex upstairs. She was glad that my sister was safe and sound, and learning things in the best possible environment. At the time, I was a few years older and still a virgin, and I was kind of surprised and realized, wow, I need to stop thinking of my little sister as a little kid -- she's now doing some very grown up stuff. I had newfound respect for her as a person who now had "real experience", while at the same time feeling a little envious that she had beaten me to that experience. But nobody in my family thought there was anything wrong or unnatural about it, nor would most people in Scandinavia, especially countries like Sweden, Denmark and Holland.
wrote:I live in Germany and I would say the majority of people here and elsewhere in Europe are not nearly as "liberal" on this issue as you might think.
Well, I've seen full frontal nudity on billboards in Germany, the age of consent is 14, brothels are legal -- not exactly a bastion of conservativism. I've also heard that Germany is a major producer and exporter of porn.
wrote:I'll also say the following: "liberal" Europeans better enjoy being able to behave as some of them currently do (sexually) because with the changing demographics of the continent (a rapidly growing Muslim community), things could change pretty quickly in this regard.
That's for sure, especially in Sweden. I've heard that in some areas of those countries they've set up classes for immigrants (especially for those from Muslim cultures) about proper sexual conduct. Too many reports of immigrant men simply asking women on the street for sex, simply because they are dressed in a way the immigrant men consider "provocative" enough that they must be asking for it. It's certainly going to be a clash in some areas of Sweden, where it's legal for women to be topless at public swimming pools, and sharing them with the increasing number of Muslims who insist that women should wear burkinis, basically like a head-to-toe deep water diving suit with a little skirt on it.
A very long post so hard to
Submitted by Barry on April 8, 2016 - 4:17am
A very long post so hard to respond to each individual point. But in general, I find this juxtaposition between Europe and America to be silly. Both have more in common than not. Both share a Christian tradition, except that many Europeans, especially those in the messed up northern and western parts of the continent seem to be very eager to turn their back on this tradition. I think it's good that many Americans aren't ashamed of their faith. The condascending attitude many Euroopeans have to the US sickens me to be quite honest.
What is your nationality exactly? Are you an American citizen, a Swede or what? Either way, sounds like you should live in Europe as you don't seem to like the US that much.
But in general, I find this
Submitted by Gary g on April 8, 2016 - 10:57am
Anonymous wrote:But in general, I find this juxtaposition between Europe and America to be silly.
Actually, it's very relevant because the differences are essentially real world laboratory experiments that show how you might get better results from one approach vs. another.
wrote:... especially those in the messed up northern and western parts of the continent seem to be very eager to turn their back on this tradition.
And you'd say that only because it's not YOUR tradition? What I saw there worked very with regard to the issues here. And their standard of living is among the highest in the world. I take it you regard faith as important, and that you essentially look down on anyone who is not strongly oriented that way. Well, that's another discussion.
I just wish those of an anti
Submitted by Barry on April 8, 2016 - 11:08am
I just wish those of an anti-American persuasion would stop pretending the US is some sort of backward "Christian fundamentalist" hellhole which is inferior to Europe in every respect. The millions of people who have immigrated to the US over the past few centuries shows that it must be a pretty good place to live. Imperfect of course but still pretty good.
stop pretending the US is
Submitted by Gary g on April 8, 2016 - 11:24am
Anonymous wrote:stop pretending the US is some sort of backward "Christian fundamentalist" hellhole which is inferior to Europe in every respect.
Well, it is a Christian fundamentalist hellhole to a great degree, but it's not inferior to Europe in every respect. Views on religion, abortion, and sex aren't everything.
If the US were a Christian
Submitted by Barry on April 8, 2016 - 12:02pm
If the US were a Christian fundamentalist nation, abortion would not be legal there in the first place. Then thre is the high divorce rate, lots of kids born outside marriage and so on. Please think about what you say. If you want fundamentalism, try living in the Middle East.
If the US were a Christian
Submitted by Gary g on April 8, 2016 - 12:37pm
Anonymous wrote:If the US were a Christian fundamentalist nation, abortion would not be legal there in the first place. Then thre is the high divorce rate, lots of kids born outside marriage and so on. Please think about what you say. If you want fundamentalism, try living in the Middle East.
It's not as bad as the middle east, but it's still enough to make it a problem in many political situations where the fundamentalists make progress in eroding the laws to their ends. It's a constant battle.
typical male copout response...
Submitted by Debra on April 8, 2016 - 1:38pm
Barry says: "If you want fundamentalism, try living in the Middle East."
You see when you put men on the spot about there attitudes about female sexuality they use sexism from other countries to stifle free speech on the topic of how they themselves view female issues.
For the benefit of all WOMEN on the planet, men too, religious fundamentalism needs to be done away with... So does the secular fundamentalism that supports the same destructive practice of suppressing women...
Bruce... there are women in the USA and your country that are sex slaves to men, just like they are in the middle eastern countries... So I don't have to go to the middle east to experience that... Grow up!
American christian tradition??
Submitted by Debra on April 8, 2016 - 11:28am
Hey Bruce... Don't be speaking for all us Americans... Your so called Christian tradition is responsible to promoting hatred and suppression of women's individual rights. Christianity teaches men have all authority over women and children, and women and children are under the husbands law. The blown up out of reality impression that Americans are all Christians is a big lie!! Christians have their fanatics too, just like the Islamists do where women and children are being sexually abused. "Christian men" who have all the power, brainwash women and children into believing that their God gives them the right to do this. The catholics condemn the use of any kind of birth control except those sanctioned by the church. Women are also not allowed to take any pain treatment during child birth because women's punishment for causing a MAN TO SIN. IT IS ALL WOMENS FAULT!!! Plus the men of the church love to sexually molest your children!!! Oh these christian priests like to borrow your wives too. How about the Mormons who have sexts of their religion that marry little girls as soon as they reach puberty, and Mormon brothers will intermarry with their nieces, or their cousins etc... and the women and young girls have no say in it... Your so called Christian "faith" blindly ignores all the hatred of women your Christian traditions promote. The USA is near at the bottom of the list when it comes to women's rights issues... The American Constitution does not even reconize women as citizens created equally under God. The American Constitution considers women property to their husbands...
All research about female sexuality is based on mens opinions. Women have never been allowed to explore their sexuality. The present information on female sexuality is based on brainwashed women who have been conditioned to sexually please men. Todays American women are exploring the new frontier of female sexuality and you men are not going to like it because women are taking control of their bodies and if you men do not toe the line and start respecting women and young girls, you may just find yourself having to go without sex. At least sex with a REAL WOMAN. Women are the one who choose to have children not you men. Social change takes time but we will make it happen. We are teaching our daughters that if men will not take responsibility for the children they produce, men will pay the price by loosing the privilege of sex. MEN ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX... Women are learning to support themselves, and have their babies and love them and do right by their children without you men. American men, (Trump and Cruz are perfect examples of the attitudes of the American male), are in a big fight politically to keep women and children under their thumb, but too late it is not going to work...
So Bruce... you know what you can do with your Christian faith, and your female hating traditions...
Give me a break!
Submitted by Debra on April 6, 2016 - 1:50pm
This article does not even began to approach the problem of irresponsible teens and adults who seek sex solely for the "pleasure" of sex!! This article does not even deal with the issues of male dominated societies where men believe and teach their sons they are entitled to sex. Teenage girls and women have sex forced on them with no social consequences for teenage males and men. Explain the divorce rate in older men and women who married for the "pleasure of sex". How about educating people on what happens to sex when you are older. Men hold the majority of divorcing their wives of years over some younger fertile woman, because it is not about love and loyalty, but about the pleasure of sex. How about the consequences of just using a human being strictly to sexually pleasure yourself. You can't blame "sexual ignorance" and inadequate sexual education on this. Girls and women need to be socially educated on the social consequences they will face if they choose to have sex outside of marriage, and the realities of having to raise children without the fathers emotional and physical support. NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO SEX!! Sex education for boys and men need to be centered around RESPECT FOR THE FEMALE GENDER!
As the author of this article, you are clueless. Girls and women are not sexually driven in the same way males are, and the mental health industry and society needs to stop teaching sex education from a predominately male perspective!!! Quit trying to make women act like men!!! Girls and women need to be taught that they are the ones in control of sex because teenage girls and women are the ones taking all the risks. PREGNANCY CAN KILL A WOMAN!!! For thousands of years of human history men have dominated girls and women sexually. THIS NEEDS TO STOP AND CAN ONLY BE STOPPED BY TAKING THIS POWER AWAY FROM MEN! Of course this is men's worse nightmare.... Girls and women with the power to say NO!! This is not a moral issue, it is a power issue...
What is an Insight Therapist?
Submitted by Debra on April 7, 2016 - 6:44pm
Noam Shpancer Ph.D.... your article has no insight...
Your article brings people to wonder about some of the contributing authors, that Psychology Today, allows to contribute articles like yours. The paragraph in your article states...
Noam Shpancer Ph.D. says: "Our approach to sex now awaits a similar paradigm shift. After all, in ancient times, puberty meant parenthood. For most of history, sex meant babies. Both are no longer. "
Hate to tell you this but your observation is delusional... It is still true today, as it was in the past, children who reach puberty, can still become parents. Sex still means babies!! Birth control does not work very well in young adolescent girls who have reached puberty... Hmmmmm.... Considering the risk factors of hormones with women, are you suggesting putting young girls and teenagers on hormones??? Wow... I wonder what the health risk factors are putting girls and teenage girls on birth control... Hmmmmm.... Who does this benefit? What do boys and teenage boys need to do here? Make sure they have condoms... Yeah condoms are real safe!! Nobody has ever gotten pregnant using a condom... Do you see how self-serving your male biased article is!
Noam Shpancer Ph.D. says: "Our culture has separated puberty from parenthood and sex from procreation, thus making the experience of pleasurable, non-procreative sex safer, easier, and more common than ever. This is a cultural achievement. It should be celebrated like other cultural achievements such as wealth creation. "
OMG!!! you are calling children who have reached puberty and teenagers, for the sake of pleasurable sex, risk producing babies they are in no way mature enough, financially capable, or the responsibility of a UNWANTED HUMAN BABY!!! This a cultural achievement!?! For who is this an achievement? Where did you study history? Are you nuts? Yeah that was a challenge to your intellegence... Where is the insight?
Wealth creation? Are you implying that learning to sexually pleasure another person could lead to a well paying career?? A career for who?? I don't know too many girls, teenage girls, or women willing to pay for sex, especially giving boys, teenage boys, and mens track record for even caring whether the female gender even reaches climax. I suppose if you pay them, they might have more incentive to accomplish that task... So this is your idea of wealth creation...
Noam Shpancer Ph.D. says: "In this context, focusing sex education on the negative aspects of sex is akin to our wealthy capitalist nation focusing its financial education on teaching youngsters how to avoid money or at least reduce the harm having it may cause."
I need to do this... another "OMG"!!! are you saying that procreation, having children is a negative aspect of sex!?! What the hell??? And, you compared teaching sex education to teaching capitalistic financial education... Capitalism is based on greed and corruption and screwing your neighbor... That is some insight you got there Noam Shpancer Ph.D., Insight Therapist... X
Noam Shpancer Ph.D. says:
Submitted by Gary g on April 7, 2016 - 10:39pm
Anonymous wrote:Noam Shpancer Ph.D. says: "Our approach to sex now awaits a similar paradigm shift. After all, in ancient times, puberty meant parenthood. For most of history, sex meant babies. Both are no longer. "
Hate to tell you this but your observation is delusional... It is still true today, as it was in the past, children who reach puberty, can still become parents. Sex still means babies!! Birth control does not work very well in young adolescent girls who have reached puberty...
Sorry, but I think the author is right on target, and your argument has little merit in that it essentially ignores the obviously profound effect of birth control and modern understanding of pleasure, STDs, sexual dysfunction, orgasm, etc. Sure, we can still get pregnant, but the reason for many teen pregnancies is lack of education and contraceptive techniques -- THE EXACT ISSUES THIS ARTICLE ADDRESSES. In fact, many of your complaints are already addressed in the article, and in fact, many of the points in the article are SOLUTIONS to your complaints.
wrote:Hmmmmm.... Considering the risk factors of hormones with women, are you suggesting putting young girls and teenagers on hormones??? Wow... I wonder what the health risk factors are putting girls and teenage girls on birth control...
I'm sure the author is not recommending requiring hormones. The author is saying we now have choices we never had before. And that's been a revolution. And why do you assume that only intercourse is sex? That's part of what education can do too -- outline all the things you can do that have little or no chance of pregnancy. In fact, the article says: "Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic". In other words, the article recognizes your point. And the point would be that it would be better to have teens on the safest method of birth control that works for them rather than dealing with the even GREATER DANGERS of STDs, pregnancy at an early age, etc.
wrote:Hmmmmm.... Who does this benefit? What do boys and teenage boys need to do here? Make sure they have condoms... Yeah condoms are real safe!! Nobody has ever gotten pregnant using a condom... Do you see how self-serving your male biased article is!
I'm sure you're not stupid enough to believe that condoms are the only contraceptive method. Again, there are many forms of sexual pleasure that have virtually zero chance of pregnancy. And that's part of education this article supports. Many of those techniques aren't new, but many young people don't even know all the techniques they could use.
wrote:OMG!!! you are calling children who have reached puberty and teenagers, for the sake of pleasurable sex, risk producing babies they are in no way mature enough, financially capable, or the responsibility of a UNWANTED HUMAN BABY!!!
The point is that now you can have sex with much less risk of pregnancy. In Holland, for example, teenagers start off with a much more positive sex education than in the US, yet their teenage pregnancy rate is MUCH LOWER.
wrote:Wealth creation? Are you implying that learning to sexually pleasure another person could lead to a well paying career?? A career for who??
Try to read with some discernment. That was obviously merely a comparison of naming methods and was not content relevant.
wrote:... and mens track record for even caring whether the female gender even reaches climax.
Again, that's EXACTLY the kind of education this article supports -- fix exactly the thing you're complaining about.
wrote:Noam Shpancer Ph.D. says: "In this context, focusing sex education on the negative aspects of sex is akin to our wealthy capitalist nation focusing its financial education on teaching youngsters how to avoid money or at least reduce the harm having it may cause."
I need to do this... another "OMG"!!! are you saying that procreation, having children is a negative aspect of sex!?! What the hell???
Why don't you try comprehending with some intelligence what the author might actually have meant, rather than inventing your own strawman for your misguided "outrage"? I doubt he meant procreation and the creation of life is negative -- what an absurd fake argument you've made up. Clearly he meant the lack of information on positive aspects of sex, and focus only on the dangers of sex, while providing little in the way of how to avoid those dangers except by abstinence.
wrote:And, you compared teaching sex education to teaching capitalistic financial education... Capitalism is based on greed and corruption and screwing your neighbor... That is some insight you got there Noam Shpancer Ph.D., Insight Therapist... X
Again, you missed the author's point. While your point about capitalism overall is debatable, his point is obviously that capitalism has provided a higher material standard of living than any other system so far, in spite of its flaws. Like sex, it has its good and bad parts -- so the analogy is symmetric in that regard.
Your approach is not very healthy...
Submitted by Debra on April 8, 2016 - 1:44am
Wow i appreciate the work you went to, to respond to each point I made in my post, Gary g.
The problem is, this article is written with a total male bias. Girls and young women as a rule are not as ready to jump into sexual exploration as readily as male secular society would like to think they are... teenage girls get a LOT OF PRESSURE from teenage boys to have sex before they are ready. So do all ages of women. Historically, this is a new era for the human female. Sexually, human females have not had time to really define their OWN sexuality yet. The so called present definition of "female sexuality" is a male imposed definition of what males want from "female sexuality... Men have had thousands of years to explore their sexuality, and as a female, I do not find what men find as sexually pleasing, not very pleasing at all... In fact, it is rather disgusting what men like to do to women sexually, and the male sexual appetite is impossible to live up too... Women are not sexually geared, or driven like men. A women's sexual goal in general is not to have sex with a different woman every day of their life, like men's goal is. Women want a life partner and children. Men have no interest in a life partner until they start getting old and realize they need someone to cook and clean and slave for them in their old age. And the men in their old age want a young sexy woman not a old woman. There are a LOT of older single women in this country who would like to be in a relationship but men their age will not have them... So women have a lot of self-discovery of their sexual selves in the USA, because the present definition of female sexuality is a new undiscovered concept... The article serves the male sexual needs because it projects that women are into sex the same way men are. It is biased. YOU are biased because you don't want women to decide that self pleasuring is good enough and you don't need a man. Very safe. The safest method!!!
Another thing... until men get pregnant and have to deliver a baby, I don't think you have any concept of what female sexuality is about. Men, even in your country don't have to live with the stigma of being referred to as a slut, whore, or the other filthy names applied to women who are exploring their sexuality... Society has not reached that point yet. We have to teach these realities to our daughters... Sex kills women. Men rape and kill women and children for sex... Harsh reality.
Gary g says: "I'm sure you're not stupid enough to believe that condoms are the only contraceptive method. Again, there are many forms of sexual pleasure that have virtually zero chance of pregnancy. And that's part of education this article supports. Many of those techniques aren't new, but many young people don't even know all the techniques they could use."
In the USA, the only contraception available to men is a condom... Other methods for men are the withdrawal method. We all know how that works. Otherwise contraception is all on the women. Women have to put their physical health at risk with the various available contraception methods. Sex for a woman is a total health risk. It costs a woman about $2500 a year in medical costs to maintain a healthy vagina... What does it cost a man to have sex?
So these sexual techniques that don't risk pregnancy you mentioned... Hummmm.... Sex toys. This could be just me, but when it comes to sex toys, like the ones women prefer to use, why do I need a man to help me with that if I am just looking to pleasure myself? This method is a healthy choice. This method of pleasuring yourself supports the human need for that climax. I do believe the vast majority of women are totally happy with this method, while they wait for that special someone to come along, that wants a lifetime relationship and children! What men do not understand is womens desire for children is just as strong as mens desire for just sex!! But for men, this is a mans biggest nightmare. A woman who wants commitment before sex, and the power to say no to sex with a man. Climax's are just as good without you... actually they can be better... if you are just looking for the pleasure of sex.
Another popular sexual method is oral sex... Yes no risk there. STD's like herpes, hair, urinary tract infection, doctor visits, antibiotics... $$$ Here is a fact... The majority of women do not want to preform orally on a man. A woman wants a penis in her vagina not her mouth... I really don't believe men really like preforming orally on a woman either, it is just men will do anything for a woman to preform orally on him... A woman needs plastic wrap or a female condom to safely have oral sex.... Ugh... :
Girls and young women as a
Submitted by Gary g on April 8, 2016 - 12:17pm
Anonymous wrote:Girls and young women as a rule are not as ready to jump into sexual exploration as readily as male secular society would like to think they are... teenage girls get a LOT OF PRESSURE from teenage boys to have sex before they are ready.
And that very message is part of a good positive sex education for teenagers, and it would emphasize that girls should do things on their terms, not just to please boys. That's what the article supports -- so why are you against it?
wrote:So do all ages of women.
No. These days there are plenty of guys getting pressure from women too. In about 1/3 of cases of couples coming to sex therapy because of a difference in desire for sex, it's the woman dragging the man into therapy because he doesn't want as much sex as the woman. There was even a book written for women whose husbands don't want as much or any sex with them. Not to mention the number of guys with ED because of obesity and smoking whose wives feel shut off, and not to mention the younger wives who are porn widows and can't get their guys to want them in bed. And even in college I had women who wanted to do stuff I wasn't expecting to or wasn't prepared to do. So your generalization these days is baloney. Yes, it applies in a number of cases, but as a generalization that "all women are like this and they are different from men" is just baloney. There are more differences between some women than the general average difference between men and women.
wrote:The so called present definition of "female sexuality" is a male imposed definition of what males want from "female sexuality... Men have had thousands of years to explore their sexuality,
Nonsense generalizations. In fact, a lot of women feel that they have sexuality imposed on them by other women telling them how they should feel. I've known women who love sex as an adventure, and are boiling mad about the insistence by other women that good sex can only happen in a long-term committed relationship. One woman told me she thought that requirement was "total bullshit".
wrote:and as a female, I do not find what men find as sexually pleasing, not very pleasing at all... In fact, it is rather disgusting what men like to do to women sexually, and the male sexual appetite is impossible to live up too...
I think you're telling us a little too much about your own personal sexual reactions here. Those are some pretty personal and unique reactions, and quite different from what a number of women would say. The specific advice for you would be that you need to speak up in any relationship about what you like. Too many women lose their voice in a sexual situation and think their job is just to please the man -- which is AGAIN, what a positive sex education tries to correct. I've certainly had women who wanted to do things I didn't think were pleasing. But like most men do, and as MORE WOMEN SHOULD, I spoke up politely and showed what I liked.
wrote:Women are not sexually geared, or driven like men.
I'll agree they tend to be different on average, but I've certainly met women who are more like men than even the average man. There's just too much variety to have statements like that be constructive in any discussion trying to solve problems for people's unique sexual situations.
wrote:A women's sexual goal in general is not to have sex with a different woman every day of their life, like men's goal is.
Well, no, see right there you're dead wrong. So much for your generalizations. I'm a man and I've NEVER wanted sex with a different woman every day. What I've always wanted was a really great woman to have repeat sex with. My view is, who wants to have sex with a different person every day, and you have to show them over and over again what specific things you like the best, and learn what works best for them. We are all so different in that regard.
wrote:Women want a life partner and children.
No they don't. Some do, and a good number don't. One of my best female friends (not my wife) has made it clear she never, ever wants kids, period. She's a sexual adventurer and has spent a decade having all kinds of hookups, and apparently enjoys it quite a bit.
wrote:Men have no interest in a life partner until they start getting old and realize they need someone to cook and clean and slave for them in their old age.
As a generalization, TOTAL AND UTTER BALONEY. I married a woman just out of her teens when I was in my mid-twenties. We are now still married DECADES later. She's super smart and a high achiever, and we have five kids. I wasn't looking for a life partner before I met her, but she changed my mind! So you just couldn't be more wrong in my example.
wrote:There are a LOT of older single women in this country who would like to be in a relationship but men their age will not have them...
I'll agree you are generally right. But again, there are wonderful exceptions. I know of a woman in her late 80's who's married to an energetic young man in his late 60's. They've been together for 30 years.
wrote:Men, even in your country don't have to live with the stigma of being referred to as a slut, whore, or the other filthy names applied to women who are exploring their sexuality...
Another things a positive sex education teaches against, right? so you should be supporting a positive sex education, such as this article supports. And by the way, slut-shaming is something a lot of women do to other women, not just from men. Especially in America. There is a lot less of that in northern Europe, where they accept sexuality of young women as being natural, not something that ruins your life and makes you a dirty person, etc.
wrote:Society has not reached that point yet. We have to teach these realities to our daughters...
Which is, again, what a positive sex education teaches.
wrote:So these sexual techniques that don't risk pregnancy you mentioned... Hummmm.... Sex toys. This could be just me, but when it comes to sex toys, like the ones women prefer to use, why do I need a man to help me with that if I am just looking to pleasure myself?
Many men and women prefer to have a partner for the companionship and sharing -- the very thing you were just claiming women like. But sure, self-pleasuring should also be part of the eduction. Your implied one-upmanship with regard to "I don't need the opposite sex" to pleasure oneself is silly -- in fact, as you well, know, that works both ways. There are too many men who are all too "happy" with just porn on their laptops, thank you, leaving the woman a "porn widow" waiting in bed. Taking out her vibrator is not her first choice in many of those cases. As you would say, it's not just about the orgasm.
wrote:Another popular sexual method is oral sex... Yes no risk there. STD's like herpes, hair, urinary tract infection, doctor visits, antibiotics... $$$ Here is a fact... The majority of women do not want to preform orally on a man. A woman wants a penis in her vagina not her mouth... I really don't believe men really like preforming orally on a woman either, it is just men will do anything for a woman to preform orally on him... A woman needs plastic wrap or a female condom to safely have oral sex.... Ugh... :
I guess you didn't really read the artice??? As it says, "You can see evidence of it in some European countries, where the pleasures, risks and responsibilities of sex are already discussed candidly with children as a normal part of healthy life." So, yet again, that's part of a positive sex education. So why are you against the article?
As for your assumption about where a woman wants a penis, speak for yourself only. We don't really want to hear about your personal sexual preferences in detail here. In fact, many women actually think of it as having power over a man and have all kinds of different reasons for liking it, and some don't even particularly care for vaginal sex, while preferring oral sex on themselves, etc. While yet others think that performing oral sex on a man is "demeaning" and disrespectful of women. Well, that's OK if their man is OK with it too. Some men don't like oral sex at all, and some are even unable to climax that way. There are all kinds of people.
And wrong again about men peforming oral sex on a woman. Many men love it for fantasy reasons. And you assume men do it ONLY so they can get oral from a woman? Wow, you're really lacking experience, or you have some really really odd stereotyped off-the-wall ideas. True for some, but you'll find a lot of disagreement if you just tried joining an open sexual discussion group or whatever. Or just pick up a book, even a sex book written by a woman.
I suspect you're just dismissing a lot of sexual information you don't agree with as being unduly influenced by "male bias", resulting in you believing all women think as you do, and all men are of just one mindset because anything else they say is just a manipulation to get quick sex. It's pretty clear from some of the things you're a bit off on, including the thing I can certainly speak up for with regard to your generalizations of men.
Gary g you are awesome :)
Submitted by Debra on April 8, 2016 - 3:06pm
Gary g says: "And that very message is part of a good positive sex education for teenagers, and it would emphasize that girls should do things on their terms, not just to please boys. That's what the article supports -- so why are you against it?"
Ok Gary g... I have a confession... I have been pulling your chain a bit... Who better to make my point about men needing to give the female gender their freedom to explore their sexuality, than using your male voice as an example. Have you noticed Gary g that as a male commenter on this topic you stand alone. Even with some of the other men who are not Americans! You notice too I am the only women here discussing it. Here is my problem with the article. This man who wrote this article is giving this topic lip service. He has a lot of infulence in the USA and I do not see him taking the forefront in American politics to make any changes to this issue. Let him put his money where his mouth is...
Now, a fact about female sexuality... Your small Scandinavian counties is culturly more advanced with their views on female sexuality. But you have male religious fundamentalist immigrants flooding the boarders of your world that are determined to change that. Gary g, you as a man are outnumbered in your views about sex education for young people, and the whole human sexual behavior research has been observed totally from a male bias. Women have been conditioned for thousands of years to mold their sexual outlook to be focused totally on what pleases men... So in the new frontier of female sexuality we will see what evolves.
Now as far as the issues I have mentioned. I have spent a life time at Women's crises centers, participating in groups dealing with women and teenage girls issues. All the generalizing you think I have been doing is not my personal opinion but based on the voices of MANY women that I have listened too. I have been living my life the way I want to live not based on what men in the USA think I should live. So believe me when I tell you all the generalized sexual "female" views are other women not mine. I have a huge source of women and young womens opinions about what they want sexually. You cannot base your personal experiences with women as a representation of women as a whole. For women in this new age of discovery, there has to be a standard for female sexuality set, or it could escalate to the point, that female sexuality will be just as perverted and corrupt as male sexuality. Don't look at your small world... look at the whole world. Now to set a standard, first you have to set a goal. The standard for female sexuality has to be set high because of the very negative side effects that sex produces when there is no standards, or accountability for people who abuse sex!!
Children have the right to a father figure, and a mother figure. I do not care if the couple is heterosexual, homosexual, or Asexual, or whatever sexual evolves from this sexual revolution that is taking place on the planet... The children that will be produced need to be protected from the people who are just into sex for pleasure without consequences, and who will not take responsibility for the children they produce. Do you see the big picture Gary g. It is all fine and good that in your country that you have a head start in this, but outside your house that is not the case. How does your country handle the unwanted children that are produced? In the USA the Foster Child Care institutions is a breeding ground for child abuse. It is horrific Gary g. Do you really think the American media is really going to show the truth to the world about this so called child care system...
It really is not a good example to compare teenage birthrates between your country and the USA. The USA has a major problem with rape, incest, sex slavery... teenage girls are a commodity in this country, and the sex slavery trade that exists in the world, is feeding the American male appetite, as you know, because this is the richest country on the planet. So your country is an exception to the rule.
Thanks for the exercise Gary g. Your children are very fortunate to have you...
problem...
Submitted by Debra on April 8, 2016 - 2:03am
it did not post half of my post... will try again
one more time...
Submitted by Debra on April 8, 2016 - 2:04am
Having sex with animals... I don't think an animal can really give consent... so that is animal abuse. Yes I am being facetious...
Gary g says: "In fact, the article says: "Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic". In other words, the article recognizes your point. And the point would be that it would be better to have teens on the safest method of birth control that works for them rather than dealing with the even GREATER DANGERS of STDs, pregnancy at an early age, etc."
Fact 1: birth control does not protect against STD's, not even condoms are 100%. Plus birth control methods available to women are not only unhealthy, but they can cost a teenage girl or a woman her life. Side effects can be unwanted pregnancy because teenage girls hormones are not stable yet, so birth control causes a total disruption of her hormones. A woman's periods don't become regular until about 18 years. STROKE, permanent physical disability as a result of a stroke, internal bleeding, CANCER in later life. Yeah that really puts me in the mood.
First lets look at the definition of abstinence... the fact or practice of restraining of restraining oneself from indulging in something. When you apply this definition to sex, it reeks of religious imposed brainwashing... Just my opinion. I do not advocate "abstinence"... You want to talk "self pleasuring" as a self-control method fine. Nothing in the article said anything about teaching self-control through self pleasuring...
Gary g says: "Why don't you try comprehending with some intelligence what the author might actually have meant, rather than inventing your own strawman for your misguided "outrage"? I doubt he meant procreation and the creation of life is negative -- what an absurd fake argument you've made up. Clearly he meant the lack of information on positive aspects of sex, and focus only on the dangers of sex, while providing little in the way of how to avoid those dangers except by abstinence."
Sorry Gary g but in the USA men and some women view procreation negatively... Men in this country abandon the teenager/woman if she's pregnant. Some women who want the pleasure of sex, and get pregnant, use abortion as a birth control method. NO WRONG!!! Morally only exception for abortion is rape and incest. Men in this country think all women are out to trap them by getting pregnant on purpose... Yeah right a women wants to raise a child by herself!! If a woman wants a child on her own they have sperm banks now... Men in this country want the milk, but they don't want to pay for the cow. So here is another danger of sex for teenagers... Are teenagers emotionally mature enough to handle the bonding that takes place with the majority of people when they have sex with someone. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RECREATIONAL SEX... SOMEONE CAN BE REALLY HURT AND SEX CAN CAUSE EXTREME EMOTIONAL TURMOIL AND EMOTIONAL DAMAGE IF THE TEENAGERS ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE BONDING EMOTIONS THAT COME WITH SEX. Hell! Many adults don't handle emotions that go along with sexual bonding. The people who can go out and have "recreational" sex are just using people to satisfy their own selfish sexual needs with no commitment. These people are called "players". They are narcissists who prey on people. This is not "sexual freedom", this is a social disease.
I am not sure how old you are Gary g, but you talk like a young man who does not see the far reaching consequences of not establishing some universal morality, not the religious kind, but a moral standard to protect the true nature of sex which is to form a bonded loving family unit for the protection and committed rearing of the children that sex produces. Otherwise if people do not want to respect this fact about sex, than go be gay, and quit producing unwanted children, child poverty, mental illness, abortions, domestic violence, teen and adult suicide... These social problems are created when you have disrespect for sex and treat sex like it is all about the pleasure...
You see I don't give a rats ass if people go out and screw their brains out, but when they bring a child into existence who deserves two loving parents, and these assholes don't take responsibility for the children that the "birth control" methods failed to prevent... it is a crime against humanity...
Sex, once again is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!! Perhaps when you get older and gain some insight you will see that your idea of sex education create more social problems than it solves.
Fact 1: birth control does
Submitted by Gary g on April 8, 2016 - 11:20am
Anonymous wrote:Fact 1: birth control does not protect against STD's..........
...and so forth and so on.
Yes, we all know there are all kinds of risks. So I'll repeat again, it's a choice we didn't have before, and having sex without these modern tools is RISKIER. That's the only point. Some of these modern tools make sex MUCH LESS risky, but not completely 100% safe -- which apparently is the only point you keep hammering on. And there are mehtods which are in fact completely safe, such as advanced petting and avoiding getting fluids in places that can get you pregnant. All very much part of a good and positive sex education. For some reason, you don't seem to want to teach young people those very useful things -- instead just going on and on and on about the worst possible things that can happen with sex. Which is exactly the SCARE TACTICS this article says is not effective, and that's correct. The scare tactics you're repeating over and over again don't really work.
wrote:First lets look at the definition of abstinence... the fact or practice of restraining of restraining oneself from indulging in something. When you apply this definition to sex, it reeks of religious imposed brainwashing... Just my opinion. I do not advocate "abstinence"... You want to talk "self pleasuring" as a self-control method fine. Nothing in the article said anything about teaching self-control through self pleasuring...
This is one of many things taught in such a class. And sure, self-control. But also what to do if you want to share mutual and totally safe techniques? Why are you drawing some kind of line there? You need to be open about all that's possible for people who decide they want that.
Gary g says: "Why don't you try comprehending with some intelligence what the author might actually have meant, rather than inventing your own strawman for your misguided "outrage"? I doubt he meant procreation and the creation of life is negative -- what an absurd fake argument you've made up. Clearly he meant the lack of information on positive aspects of sex, and focus only on the dangers of sex, while providing little in the way of how to avoid those dangers except by abstinence."
wrote:I am not sure how old you are Gary g, but you talk like a young man who does not see the far reaching consequences of not establishing some universal morality, not the religious kind, but a moral standard to protect the true nature of sex which is to form a bonded loving family unit for the protection and committed rearing of the children that sex produces.
You couldn't be more wrong on may of your guesses. I'm not here to talk about my personal beliefs to the extent you seem to be doing. I'm here only to talk about REAL consequences to what you teach kids about sex. And that means you have to be open-minded to many different beliefs. The minute you start talking about the moral right you have to an abortion in various situations, your'e already on shaky ground in terms of talking to a general group of people. Sure, live by your own beliefs, but you'll LOSE a lot of your audience right there no matter how fervently YOU believe in your own beliefs in that regard.
wrote:You see I don't give a rats ass if people go out and screw their brains out, but when they bring a child into existence who deserves two loving parents, and these assholes don't take responsibility for the children that the "birth control" methods failed to prevent... it is a crime against humanity...
And the teen pregnancy rate in Holland is MUCH LOWER than in the USA because they have a more positive approach to teaching kids about sex in both school and home. Based on your goals, you should be EMBRACING their approach because it WORKS, PROVED BY REALITY. What more proof do you need???
wrote:Sex, once again is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!! Perhaps when you get older and gain some insight you will see that your idea of sex education create more social problems than it solves.
I have kids and they're all doing very well in the sex and pregnancy category, much as I learned when I grew up in Scandinavia.
The people who can go out and
Submitted by Gary g on April 9, 2016 - 10:13pm
wrote:The people who can go out and have "recreational" sex are just using people to satisfy their own selfish sexual needs with no commitment. These people are called "players". They are narcissists who prey on people. This is not "sexual freedom", this is a social disease.
Let me just address this dogmatic nonsense. Yes, many people can't handle sex without emotional entaglements, but some people certainly can. And yes there are narcissistic "players". But there are also cases where BOTH people are fully aware and willingly participating in a friends with benefits arrangement. Women are not always "victims" and men not always just "predators". I'd call it "friends with benefits", and in a good friendship of that kind, sex can be a fun thing they share. And they are not "using" each other any more than friends "use" each other for support, companionship, being a good tennis partner, or being a good person to talk to at the bar. Just because sex is the thing they're enjoying with each other instead of tennis, does not mean that some kind of moral negative automatically clicks in and turns the shared fun from "support" to "using each other". That's all YOUR NEGATIVE PROJECTION or MORAL AGENDA. If it's sex instead of tennis does not mean you go from being a "good friend" to being a "narcissist" -- that's your silly ARMCHAIR PSYCHOLOGY. You have absolutely no logical argument to support why this "using each other" negative context suddenly kicks in only and just because the pleasure of eroticism and sex is involved. What's kicking in here is your personal religious fears and notions and has nothing to do with any reality for other people.
I am sorry...
Submitted by Debra on April 10, 2016 - 12:08am
Gary g... I really am sorry. I did not intend to upset you like that. Yes all that crap I dredged up is all the garbage that societies have been taught about sex... I tried to not get too descriptive, and I appoliges for that too. All that crap is on the Internet and I have heard that negitive sexist language for years... It is toxic, I do agree with you Gary g. You destroyed all this negative garbage with your positive reality...
Gary g you are such a good writer... You say lots! You made all the points in the article much more clear. Yeah I did hammer on some things but you covered the topic way better than I could have. So please accept my apology. People need to hear clear honest speech. There is a lot of confused people. There is so much crap out there that people have been brainwashed with. The USA is full of information that is not true, especially sex. I know all kinds of people read this magazine and it helps sometimes to just lay it out there. I know I learned some new things to consider about being understanding of people's right to pursue the right to explore and define their lives and learn to be happy.
I know all that stuff was negitive and ugly... I hated it I really did... Playing devils advocate is not very comfortable on some issues.
I am all for everything you said about fair and balanced sex education, maybe some slight differences, just mainly my focus is on taking care of kids.
Sorry again...
Gary g... I really am sorry.
Submitted by Gary g on April 10, 2016 - 7:40am
Anonymous wrote:Gary g... I really am sorry. I did not intend to upset you like that.
No need for anybody to be sorry for me here. I love a spirited debate, and I assume everybody's here for the same reason. And that means taking heat from others and vigorously standing up for your own opinions. Frankly, I'd probably be bored if everybody agreed with me!
I would be bored too!
Submitted by Debra on April 10, 2016 - 10:21am
But I am saving this discussion for some of the women's crises groups I go too , and I am showing women out there that there are men who fight for them so they can let go of all this toxic garbage... Lack of education and healthy role models are needed in the USA...
You did not faulter once on your stand Garg g and I am kinda proud of you! I really threw some hateful garbage at you! Didn't you notice the countrodiction with ole Barry though? You know a lot of that hate for men garbage comes from fundamentalist Christian women... Man if their husbands knew how they felt!!!
But I am saving this
Submitted by Gary g on April 10, 2016 - 7:24pm
Anonymous wrote:But I am saving this discussion for some of the women's crises groups I go too
I don't really know your full situation, but it can happen that people like you who gives a lot of their time helping other people can sometimes have their views colored by all the troubles they see others having. That's why it's not uncommon for therapists themselves to go to therapy to make sure they keep a proper boundary between their own emotions and views and the sometimes deeply troubling issues their patients are dealing with. It's easy to lose persepective, no matter how normal and grounded your life is otherwise when you are exposed to a lot of people with serious difficulties.
There is a term for it...
Submitted by Debra on April 10, 2016 - 9:03pm
It is called secondary PTSD. Many women in or coming out of crises has PTSD.
Now, the stinky thinking garbage that I focused on with what can develope in women is a result of not being able to think properly because of being locked into a state of fight or flight mode... as a result of emotional, physical, mental trama. Other people, besides women, experience this type of negitive stinky thinking. People for the first time in some parts of the world are able to openly live as who they are. That is why this issue of sex education is so important to teach at a young age with children and continue throughout their teenage years. Plus this sex education should include knowledge of the genders, sexually, mentally, emotionally, physically. Young children should know about heterosexuallity, homosexuality, Asexuality, bi-sexuality, transgendered, cross-dressing.
Children need this information so they can grow up knowing who they are.
Gary g... Do you think the ills we see would be as bad if people, starting at childhood, were educated?
Gary g... Do you think the
Submitted by Gary g on April 10, 2016 - 11:55pm
Anonymous wrote:Gary g... Do you think the ills we see would be as bad if people, starting at childhood, were educated?
Yes, but it's a tough goal with all the politics, shame, religious notions, etc. And if the parents have uneducated attitudes, they'll often stand in the way to "protect" their kids from what they see as immoral teachings.
In the most recent podcast, Dan Savage interviewed the makers of the documentary, "Give Me Sex Jesus" which documents the struggles of young evangelicals with sex and church teaching. It's available free on Vimeo. Haven't seen it yet, so can't say if it's good. But it sounded like it would address some of the issues you mention.
one more birth control method...
Submitted by Debra on April 8, 2016 - 2:40am
Sterilization... Great method for those people who don't ever want children, but not very practical for teenagers...
This method will not protect you from STD's, a broken heart, and is not an excuse to use other people strictly for pleasure even if they are consenting to sex just for pleasure.
There is a universal moral principle that applies here. Respect for another human being. Sex is not love and men need to grow up and quit demanding that love to them is sex!!! That is just sexual blackmail... No sex, no relationship? Well young women are going to learn to tell men, no relationship, no love, no respect, than no sex guys!!
I don't care what male dominated "mental health" RESEARCH claims how men see sex as love... major bias there!! Women want a loving committed relationship. Sex is not love to a woman.... So men out there... Women are going to take control of their own sexual lives, teach their daughters about female sexuality, and you men are not going to have any say or control over it. Social change takes time, but women are going to make sex work for them on their terms, and men if you want a woman's love, it has to be all about the relationship and commitment first, sex dead last.... You will not die if you don't have sex with a woman...
Sterilization... Great method
Submitted by Gary g on April 8, 2016 - 11:05am
Anonymous wrote:Sterilization... Great method for those people who don't ever want children, but not very practical for teenagers...
You're just coming up with a lot of strawmen here. A really ridiculous point.
wrote:This method will not protect you from STD's, a broken heart, and is not an excuse to use other people strictly for pleasure even if they are consenting to sex just for pleasure.
Well, if you disagree with consenting people having sex for pleasure, the argument is over. Very few people agree with you, and what you have to say is not interesting to most people, and thankfully you are not in a position to dictate anything.
wrote:but women are going to make sex work for them on their terms, and men if you want a woman's love, it has to be all about the relationship and commitment first, sex dead last.... You will not die if you don't have sex with a woman...
Sorry, but not even all women share your view to the extreme you do. You may well be talking for yourself, but I know women who would NOT agree with you. Sex dead last -- Nope, not by a long shot for a number of women these days. You're stereotyping all women to be the same -- they are not, period. And no, not all women want a relationship and commitment first -- even I can personally attest to that. Get a grip on reality. There is variety among both men and women. Your stereotyping isn't really constructive. You're just telling us all what YOU PERSONALLY would like for yourself, which is OK. No problem with that. But to say all women are like this and that, and all men are like something else, is just plain baloney.
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next
Post Comment
advertisement
