|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
On June 19 2023 16:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 07:22 WombaT wrote:
Doesn’t seem age-appropriate for like, 10 year olds or whatever sure.
That aside I don’t really see some massive problem with it either. We live in a world where a big chunk of people in their mid-teens are already accessing pornography after all, which is hardly a bastion of realistic and emotionally deep appraisals of the activity Is seeing some cock and balls going to cause irreparable harm to an 11 year old? Probably not. The fact that kids are going to go online and watch porn is not a very convincing argument for why we should have it in our school libraries. That’s the problem with the shouting about book bans. Pretty much everyone agrees that some books should be banned from libraries. There aren’t any books on bukkake or scat play in school libraries because we have decided to ban them. Even the woman that wrote “this book is gay” has said it’s not appropriate for children which makes the objections to banning it all the more insane. The simple fact is that a lot of parents don’t want “How to suck cock” tutorials for their 11 year old child to read. If there’s a group of parents that really thinks we need to keep the “how to suck cock tutorials” for the 11 year olds then they shouldn’t be surprised if the first group of parents thinks they are groomers.
It is more based in reality than the idea that kids of a certain age will have some non-existent innocence on this topic shattered via exposure, when they’re already interested and seeking out material via other means that have no educational or safeguarding features.
Minibat is 10, he is still of an age where he broadly is this an innocent kid, long may it continue! Curiosity, confusion and interest in sex probably isn’t all too many years away.
It wouldn’t seem to me something particularly age appropriate to folks in that cohort. Where I’d draw the line? Not sure, haven’t read the thing. Probably not adulthood as that would seem to defeat the purpose of the book, as I understand that to be anyway.
Is there a big societal push to teach 11 yos about such things? Is it a book in every school library in the nation? Or are things being blown out of proportion as per usual?
It seems an error of judgement and values in giving this the OK/distributing it to schools to be accessible for kids it’s not age appropriate for. Alternatively an error from ignorance of the content, or whatever happened ultimately.
Will the same folks obsessed with ‘grooming’ accept it being available but for an older cohort of teens? I’d have some doubts there overall, I’m sure some would.
There’s wriggle room in what form sex ed takes, and what kids are educated about at various ages. People are going to have very different ideas here. Pleasing everyone isn’t possible but some largely acceptable middle grounds do exist
Ultimately it feels like classic conservative political theatre, push and amplify extreme examples as a thin edge of the wedge to get chipping away at something else. ‘They’re teaching 11 year olds how to do anal’, something most would disagree with and want changed can gather momentum in pushing back at LGBTQ sex ed, and more permissive sex ed in general.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
On June 19 2023 20:37 Mikau wrote:
.
Can you cut down your wall of text a little? Hard one to get through
|
Sorry, I made a scathing remark about equating sex eduation with a rise in pedophilia and the kind of victim blaming of literal children that that suggests, but ultimately decided against it because I don't really feel like getting banned.
|
8-14 is the age range which marks the beginning of puberty for children. With the median being 11, I think it'd make very little sense to start sex ed for them only when they've already turned 11, because by that point a very large percentage of children are going through puberty (some already for several years) and noticing very significant changes within themselves and others.
|
On June 19 2023 20:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 20:05 Elroi wrote:
I just reacted to the passage BJ cited on how to give... a bj. I was thinking about the scandals in France involving Foucault and Springora, for example. We've had similar scandals in Sweden resurfacing from the 70s and 80s now that children's sexuality is treated completely differently. Those really don't seem related to sexual education being more liberal. The main accusations of pedophilia I've seen towards Foucault (aside from arguing for a lowering of the age of consent) was that he paid Tunisian boys (preteens) to have sex with them. While abhorrent, there's obviously no correlation between this and European countries having liberal sexual education. Springora also seems hard to relate to this. That a 50 year old celebrity seduces a 14 year old can happen many places - the unique part here is that French society somehow kept celebrating Matzneff. Like, I do get the gut reaction, and I honestly don't see the value in explaining to 11 year olds that they should be careful not to use teeth when giving blow jobs. What I'm arguing for really isn't that. However, stuff like 'one of the things that happens when kids reach puberty is that they become interested in the concept of 'sex'', followed by an explanation of what sex is and even stuff like 'people have sex in many different ways, for example oral sex where people use the mouth and tongue to give pleasure to their partner', I think that's a healthy way to communicate the issue and I don't think 10-11 year olds are too young to hear that. They will probably find it disgusting - but that's also their reaction to learning about periods, and I think it's very important that girls learn about that before they experience it.
The Foucault example was perhaps not applicable, as you pointed out. To be honest I haven't followed that very closely. But I absolutely weren't surprised when I saw the allegations, after having read his description of "innocent" sexual practices among children in his History of sexuality (the "jeu du lait caillé"...).
I probably missed some of the nuances of the debate since I just saw the last page so I apologize if that is the case. But my only reaction was that if you give detailed instructions to young children on how to have sex (as is clearly the case in the passage BJ showed), it's more or less the same as encouraging them to have sex. (No, I'm not arguing that all sex ed is meant to encourage kids to have sex.) And once you normalize sexual activity among children it seems that the risk of abuse must also rise.
During the 70s and 80s, children's sexuality was also largely normalized in Europe and it doesn't surprise me that many scandals from that time come to light now that we have a different view on these issues.
On a somewhat different note: The moral case against pedophilia is that kids can't give consent, right? This is important to keep in mind when we talk about children and sexuality. It's not unproblematic that young kids should be able to give consent to other young kids when they can't to adults (even though, obviously, an adult having sex with a child is orders of magnitude worse in many ways).
|
On June 19 2023 21:16 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 20:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2023 20:05 Elroi wrote:
I just reacted to the passage BJ cited on how to give... a bj. I was thinking about the scandals in France involving Foucault and Springora, for example. We've had similar scandals in Sweden resurfacing from the 70s and 80s now that children's sexuality is treated completely differently. Those really don't seem related to sexual education being more liberal. The main accusations of pedophilia I've seen towards Foucault (aside from arguing for a lowering of the age of consent) was that he paid Tunisian boys (preteens) to have sex with them. While abhorrent, there's obviously no correlation between this and European countries having liberal sexual education. Springora also seems hard to relate to this. That a 50 year old celebrity seduces a 14 year old can happen many places - the unique part here is that French society somehow kept celebrating Matzneff. Like, I do get the gut reaction, and I honestly don't see the value in explaining to 11 year olds that they should be careful not to use teeth when giving blow jobs. What I'm arguing for really isn't that. However, stuff like 'one of the things that happens when kids reach puberty is that they become interested in the concept of 'sex'', followed by an explanation of what sex is and even stuff like 'people have sex in many different ways, for example oral sex where people use the mouth and tongue to give pleasure to their partner', I think that's a healthy way to communicate the issue and I don't think 10-11 year olds are too young to hear that. They will probably find it disgusting - but that's also their reaction to learning about periods, and I think it's very important that girls learn about that before they experience it. The Foucault example was perhaps not applicable, as you pointed out. To be honest I haven't followed that very closely. But I absolutely weren't surprised when I saw the allegations, after having read his description of "innocent" sexual practices among children in his History of sexuality (the "jeu du lait caillé"...). I probably missed some of the nuances of the debate since I just saw the last page so I apologize if that is the case. But my only reaction was that if you give detailed instructions to young children on how to have sex (as is clearly the case in the passage BJ showed), it's more or less the same as encouraging them to have sex. (No, I'm not arguing that all sex ed is meant to encourage kids to have sex.) And once you normalize sexual activity among children it seems that the risk of abuse must also rise. During the 70s and 80s, children's sexuality was also largely normalized in Europe and it doesn't surprise me that many scandals from that time come to light now that we have a different view on these issues. On a somewhat different note: The moral case against pedophilia is that kids can't give consent, right? This is important to keep in mind when we talk about children and sexuality. It's not unproblematic that young kids should be able to give consent to other young kids when they can't to adults (even though, obviously, an adult having sex with a child is orders of magnitude worse in many ways).
Quotemining is the problem. You can read as many "problematic passages" as you like, that doesn't tell you anything about whether they're truly age appropriate without knowing all of the other parts of the sex ed program.
What you're not seeing in that text is the dozens of other pages instructing kids to wait until they're truly ready for sex, to stay away from illegal forms of sex (e.g. large age discrepancies), to always ask for and give consent, etc. etc.
But these passages exist as well and they're essential parts of sex ed programs.
Quotemining is standard procedure for conservatives painting things like sex ed as problematic. "See how bad this text is? They're teaching MY kids to have as much sex as possible as soon as possible with everyone out there and with no one to look after them!"
This is a false accusation in the vast majority of cases. That's why quotemining is so essential to the conservative cause.
|
Again, there are several issues within sex education which are being conflated in this argument, and both sides are guilty of pointing to something on one end of the spectrum and claiming that the other side believes the whole thing is good/bad.
1. What should sex education entail?
To quote the New South Wales government, this is what is being taught in New South Wales, Australia.
Quality sexuality and sexual health education focuses on safety, respect for self and others, relationships and friendships, personal rights and responsibilities, effective communication, diversity and inclusion, abstinence, safer sexual practices, informed decision-making, access to services and help seeking behaviours and skills.
I don't see how teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal is part of quality sexual health education.
At the same time, the fact that some sex-ed books contain sections that don't belong in the mainstream belief of what sex education should be, does not mean that the whole book is worthless, or that all sex-ed books are bad.
That said, if this particular book contains objectionable content, when plenty of other books teach sexual health without going into detail about sex acts, why choose this book over the others?
|
United States24779 Posts
On June 19 2023 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:Again, there are several issues within sex education which are being conflated in this argument, and both sides are guilty of pointing to something on one end of the spectrum and claiming that the other side believes the whole thing is good/bad. 1. What should sex education entail? To quote the New South Wales government, this is what is being taught in New South Wales, Australia. Show nested quote +Quality sexuality and sexual health education focuses on safety, respect for self and others, relationships and friendships, personal rights and responsibilities, effective communication, diversity and inclusion, abstinence, safer sexual practices, informed decision-making, access to services and help seeking behaviours and skills. I don't see how teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal is part of quality sexual health education.At the same time, the fact that some sex-ed books contain sections that don't belong in the mainstream belief of what sex education should be, does not mean that the whole book is worthless, or that all sex-ed books are bad. That said, if this particular book contains objectionable content, when plenty of other books teach sexual health without going into detail about sex acts, why choose this book over the others?
You say issues are being conflated but I think you did the same thing in the bolded text. I would put "teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal" in the "something on one end of the spectrum" camp. Most likely, any lesson on that topic would actually be focused not on "ok let me explain the proper methods of anal sex" but rather "anal sex exists, both in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, so we're going to academically discuss safety concerns such as whether the same precautions apply as for other types of sex. Let's also dispel some myths about each type of sex so you don't have only the gay section of your porn website to learn about this stuff."
Personally, my exposure to this topic in high school sex education was, "Oh yeah, and by the way, the anus is an exit, not an entrance, and that's all I'm going to say about that." I believe that was a mistake.
|
On June 19 2023 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:Again, there are several issues within sex education which are being conflated in this argument, and both sides are guilty of pointing to something on one end of the spectrum and claiming that the other side believes the whole thing is good/bad. 1. What should sex education entail? To quote the New South Wales government, this is what is being taught in New South Wales, Australia. Show nested quote +Quality sexuality and sexual health education focuses on safety, respect for self and others, relationships and friendships, personal rights and responsibilities, effective communication, diversity and inclusion, abstinence, safer sexual practices, informed decision-making, access to services and help seeking behaviours and skills. I don't see how teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal is part of quality sexual health education. At the same time, the fact that some sex-ed books contain sections that don't belong in the mainstream belief of what sex education should be, does not mean that the whole book is worthless, or that all sex-ed books are bad. That said, if this particular book contains objectionable content, when plenty of other books teach sexual health without going into detail about sex acts, why choose this book over the others?
The irony here is that anal sex is inherently more risky than oral/vaginal sex in terms of health, so teaching gay boys how to do anal sex properly most definitely does focus on safety.
So by your own definition this definitely is part of quality sexual health education.
|
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
On June 19 2023 21:16 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 20:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2023 20:05 Elroi wrote:
I just reacted to the passage BJ cited on how to give... a bj. I was thinking about the scandals in France involving Foucault and Springora, for example. We've had similar scandals in Sweden resurfacing from the 70s and 80s now that children's sexuality is treated completely differently. Those really don't seem related to sexual education being more liberal. The main accusations of pedophilia I've seen towards Foucault (aside from arguing for a lowering of the age of consent) was that he paid Tunisian boys (preteens) to have sex with them. While abhorrent, there's obviously no correlation between this and European countries having liberal sexual education. Springora also seems hard to relate to this. That a 50 year old celebrity seduces a 14 year old can happen many places - the unique part here is that French society somehow kept celebrating Matzneff. Like, I do get the gut reaction, and I honestly don't see the value in explaining to 11 year olds that they should be careful not to use teeth when giving blow jobs. What I'm arguing for really isn't that. However, stuff like 'one of the things that happens when kids reach puberty is that they become interested in the concept of 'sex'', followed by an explanation of what sex is and even stuff like 'people have sex in many different ways, for example oral sex where people use the mouth and tongue to give pleasure to their partner', I think that's a healthy way to communicate the issue and I don't think 10-11 year olds are too young to hear that. They will probably find it disgusting - but that's also their reaction to learning about periods, and I think it's very important that girls learn about that before they experience it. The Foucault example was perhaps not applicable, as you pointed out. To be honest I haven't followed that very closely. But I absolutely weren't surprised when I saw the allegations, after having read his description of "innocent" sexual practices among children in his History of sexuality (the "jeu du lait caillé"...). I probably missed some of the nuances of the debate since I just saw the last page so I apologize if that is the case. But my only reaction was that if you give detailed instructions to young children on how to have sex (as is clearly the case in the passage BJ showed), it's more or less the same as encouraging them to have sex. (No, I'm not arguing that all sex ed is meant to encourage kids to have sex.) And once you normalize sexual activity among children it seems that the risk of abuse must also rise. During the 70s and 80s, children's sexuality was also largely normalized in Europe and it doesn't surprise me that many scandals from that time come to light now that we have a different view on these issues. On a somewhat different note: The moral case against pedophilia is that kids can't give consent, right? This is important to keep in mind when we talk about children and sexuality. It's not unproblematic that young kids should be able to give consent to other young kids when they can't to adults (even though, obviously, an adult having sex with a child is orders of magnitude worse in many ways).
But the dynamic of child abuse generally fits in scenarios of a power imbalance existing, and often alongside that runs an exploitation of ignorance.
That’s what most abuse and grooming actually looks like, insidious individuals targeting vulnerable kids, or naive kids. Usually over pretty prolonged periods. They aren’t generally taking their pick of sexually aware youngsters who are actively looking to have sex with much people.
Decent modern sex ed deals with both the how, and the mechanics, as well as the why. What your motivations are, what constitutes consent and what constitutes coercion. How to set and express boundaries etc.
Which in theory should act as a more effective barrier against predatory individuals than alternatives
|
Teaching about anal sex, just going by the quoted mission from the New South Wales government, falls under safety, respect, personal rights, diversity and inclusion, safer sexual practices and informed decision making. Basically, what part of that mission statement doesn't apply to educating people regarding anal sex?
|
On June 19 2023 22:48 NewSunshine wrote:
Teaching about anal sex, just going by the quoted mission from the New South Wales government, falls under safety, respect, personal rights, diversity and inclusion, safer sexual practices and informed decision making. Basically, what part of that mission statement doesn't apply to educating people regarding anal sex?
Teaching about what anal sex is, and teaching how exactly to do anal sex, are two different concepts.
|
On June 19 2023 22:32 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:Again, there are several issues within sex education which are being conflated in this argument, and both sides are guilty of pointing to something on one end of the spectrum and claiming that the other side believes the whole thing is good/bad. 1. What should sex education entail? To quote the New South Wales government, this is what is being taught in New South Wales, Australia. Quality sexuality and sexual health education focuses on safety, respect for self and others, relationships and friendships, personal rights and responsibilities, effective communication, diversity and inclusion, abstinence, safer sexual practices, informed decision-making, access to services and help seeking behaviours and skills. I don't see how teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal is part of quality sexual health education.At the same time, the fact that some sex-ed books contain sections that don't belong in the mainstream belief of what sex education should be, does not mean that the whole book is worthless, or that all sex-ed books are bad. That said, if this particular book contains objectionable content, when plenty of other books teach sexual health without going into detail about sex acts, why choose this book over the others? You say issues are being conflated but I think you did the same thing in the bolded text. I would put "teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal" in the "something on one end of the spectrum" camp. Most likely, any lesson on that topic would actually be focused not on "ok let me explain the proper methods of anal sex" but rather "anal sex exists, both in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, so we're going to academically discuss safety concerns such as whether the same precautions apply as for other types of sex. Let's also dispel some myths about each type of sex so you don't have only the gay section of your porn website to learn about this stuff." Personally, my exposure to this topic in high school sex education was, "Oh yeah, and by the way, the anus is an exit, not an entrance, and that's all I'm going to say about that." I believe that was a mistake.
That's not what the specific page in the book does.
The book graphically describes how to conduct anal sex, oral sex, etc.
This is what I mean about conflating issues.
It is perfectly fine, to discuss what anal sex is, and what risks there are, and other issues, at the appropriate level, likely just before the age when teenagers start having sex.
|
On June 19 2023 23:27 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 22:48 NewSunshine wrote:
Teaching about anal sex, just going by the quoted mission from the New South Wales government, falls under safety, respect, personal rights, diversity and inclusion, safer sexual practices and informed decision making. Basically, what part of that mission statement doesn't apply to educating people regarding anal sex? Teaching about what anal sex is, and teaching how exactly to do anal sex, are two different concepts.
You can't teach safe sex practice without explaining how to do anal sex, considering the 'how to' is a large part of what makes anal sex safe or unsafe.
|
On June 19 2023 23:27 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 22:48 NewSunshine wrote:
Teaching about anal sex, just going by the quoted mission from the New South Wales government, falls under safety, respect, personal rights, diversity and inclusion, safer sexual practices and informed decision making. Basically, what part of that mission statement doesn't apply to educating people regarding anal sex? Teaching about what anal sex is, and teaching how exactly to do anal sex, are two different concepts.
Are they though? Teaching someone the proper way to do something, especially when it's something they're going to try to do on their own anyway, is exactly what good education is. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's kind of fucked up if you explained to people what anal sex is, and stopped there. You're telling them that something is out there and giving them no language or tools to actually understand what that thing is. You're essentially promoting fear and ignorance at that stage.
|
United States44076 Posts
Giving children the language to talk about sex makes them harder to abuse, not easier.
|
Norway28814 Posts
I think these are different age groups. 11 year olds can be taught that people have anal sex (Again, almost half have seen porn, at least in norway), but there's no reason to teach them the how. 16 year olds can be taught the how, too, but also that they don't have to try it even if their boyfriend wants to.
Incidentally one and a half week ago I had my final sociology (not a direct translation, it's a it broader thematically) class of the semester with a group of 17-18 year olds and halfway through I was like so is there anything else you wanna learn and then 'sex education and with real language not the birds and bees crap' was the first thing mentioned. Tbh I hadn't prepared and it ended up being kinda shittily improvised but I did, very briefly mention the how of anal sex.
Wouldn't have with 11 year olds though!
|
United States24779 Posts
On June 19 2023 23:29 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 22:32 micronesia wrote:On June 19 2023 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:Again, there are several issues within sex education which are being conflated in this argument, and both sides are guilty of pointing to something on one end of the spectrum and claiming that the other side believes the whole thing is good/bad. 1. What should sex education entail? To quote the New South Wales government, this is what is being taught in New South Wales, Australia. Quality sexuality and sexual health education focuses on safety, respect for self and others, relationships and friendships, personal rights and responsibilities, effective communication, diversity and inclusion, abstinence, safer sexual practices, informed decision-making, access to services and help seeking behaviours and skills. I don't see how teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal is part of quality sexual health education.At the same time, the fact that some sex-ed books contain sections that don't belong in the mainstream belief of what sex education should be, does not mean that the whole book is worthless, or that all sex-ed books are bad. That said, if this particular book contains objectionable content, when plenty of other books teach sexual health without going into detail about sex acts, why choose this book over the others? You say issues are being conflated but I think you did the same thing in the bolded text. I would put "teaching boys how to have gay sex by doing anal" in the "something on one end of the spectrum" camp. Most likely, any lesson on that topic would actually be focused not on "ok let me explain the proper methods of anal sex" but rather "anal sex exists, both in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, so we're going to academically discuss safety concerns such as whether the same precautions apply as for other types of sex. Let's also dispel some myths about each type of sex so you don't have only the gay section of your porn website to learn about this stuff." Personally, my exposure to this topic in high school sex education was, "Oh yeah, and by the way, the anus is an exit, not an entrance, and that's all I'm going to say about that." I believe that was a mistake. That's not what the specific page in the book does. The book graphically describes how to conduct anal sex, oral sex, etc. This is what I mean about conflating issues. It is perfectly fine, to discuss what anal sex is, and what risks there are, and other issues, at the appropriate level, likely just before the age when teenagers start having sex.
Sorry didn't notice how far along we were on this topic already. My poor formal sex ed blinds me to the truth!
|
On June 20 2023 00:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think these are different age groups. 11 year olds can be taught that people have anal sex (Again, almost half have seen porn, at least in norway), but there's no reason to teach them the how. 16 year olds can be taught the how, too, but also that they don't have to try it even if their boyfriend wants to.
Incidentally one and a half week ago I had my final sociology (not a direct translation, it's a it broader thematically) class of the semester with a group of 17-18 year olds and halfway through I was like so is there anything else you wanna learn and then 'sex education and with real language not the birds and bees crap' was the first thing mentioned. Tbh I hadn't prepared and it ended up being kinda shittily improvised but I did, very briefly mention the how of anal sex.
Wouldn't have with 11 year olds though!
If 11-year-olds are starting to have sex, why do you presume that doesn't include anal sex? What makes it so that regular sex starts at 11, but anal sex only at 16? I don't think that's true at all. If we are teaching 11-year-olds to have safe sex, we should also be teaching 11-year-olds to have safe anal sex.
Whether 11 years old is the right age to do sex ed? I'll leave that to pedagogues, medics, parents and politicians to fight about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
