|
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 |
Norway28816 Posts
On June 20 2023 01:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The 11 year olds aren't really starting to have sex though? Not like it happens literally never but that's damn rare. But that's an age where many start finding it more interesting. And I dunno how it is in more catholic countries but here virtually nobody starts out with anal. Like I'm not prudish about this but I spent a couple years teaching 10-11 year olds and the ones that want to have sex at that age must be absurd outliers because I've never met anyone, and I have a similar impression of 13 year olds (where occasionally some girls have had sex) and anal.
Talking openly and frankly about sex is a good thing but you don't need like a 'if you want to have anal sex then you should start slowly and patiently work your way up to a penis sized object while using suitable lubrication' talk with 11 year olds. I dunno exactly when, but 11 is too young. 13? A case can prolly be made, there, but I think that's the earliest. That's my view as a pedagogue, anyway.
|
Most 11 years old in western world do not have sex. From this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12322060/
[...] the median age at first intercourse is 16.4 years in the US, 17 in Germany, 17.4 in France, and 17.8 in the Netherlands.
In US this age is also rising relatively fast. However they have much higher numbers of teenage pregnancies, so I guess they are in need of sex education... at least pregnancy prevention methods and not being afraid to seek medical help.
I don't really see the point of teaching anyone how to have oral sex though...
|
|
|
On June 20 2023 01:40 Silvanel wrote:Most 11 years old in western world do not have sex. From this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12322060/[...] the median age at first intercourse is 16.4 years in the US, 17 in Germany, 17.4 in France, and 17.8 in the Netherlands. In US this age is also rising relatively fast. However they have much higher numbers of teenage pregnancies, so I guess they are in need of sex education... at least pregnancy prevention methods and not being afraid to seek medical help. I don't really see the point of teaching anyone how to have oral sex though...
The youngsters don't have to learn specific techniques, but learning to respect your partner while experimenting is very important! Knowing that various kinds of sex exists is good.
Also, remember that kids nowdays have porn available on their phones as soon as they know the search words. Porn is a TERRIBLE way to learn sexual education, and if they don't learn it at school or at home, porn will be their primary reference.
We have to educate kids for the world we live in, not how we would want it to be.
|
As someone who had zero sex education, I'd just like to say that it would've been nice to not get all my sex knowledge from porn videos -- my expectations and reality were wildly out of sync. I can't remember exactly, but I must have been around 10-12 when I watched my first porn video and definitely not older than 13. If you're teaching about vaginal sex, I don't see why you shouldn't teach about other types of sex including oral.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
|
United States44109 Posts
The outrage over showing 11 year olds non erotic non sexual pictures of reproductive organs is one of the things that baffles me. As if they’ve never seen themselves in the shower. They know what reproductive organs look like, human biology is not pornographic.
I recall a video of a prude raging against a school for sex ed books that featured photos of naked adults and insisting that there was no reason to show minors photos of naked adults. Presumably had the school had a collection of naked photos of minors that would have been somehow better?
|
On June 20 2023 05:13 EnDeR_ wrote:
As someone who had zero sex education, I'd just like to say that it would've been nice to not get all my sex knowledge from porn videos -- my expectations and reality were wildly out of sync. I can't remember exactly, but I must have been around 10-12 when I watched my first porn video and definitely not older than 13. If you're teaching about vaginal sex, I don't see why you shouldn't teach about other types of sex including oral.
Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think anyone should be taught how to give a blowjob until they learn how to give a proper rimjob
|
On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy.
|
But also talking about what the reality of sex looks like so people have more understanding than just clinical terminology is not the same as teaching kids how to use Grindr. So that's not what people are talking about. This is a conversation where it's really important not to put words in other people's mouths.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy.
Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr
Absolutely fair read, well done
|
On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done
That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so.
|
On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so.
To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school.
|
|
|
The fact that you got warned for that post, but BJ didn't for the post you quoted is an absolute joke and proves your point excellently.
|
United States44109 Posts
If kids are going to give rimjobs I want someone to talk them through how to do it in a sanitary way. That’s just common sense.
|
Norway28816 Posts
Complaints about moderation go to the website feedback thread. Petty grievances towards other posters ideally are kept to yourself and certainly don't belong here. Bj was warned for the same thing a couple days ago in the covid thread.
|
On June 20 2023 13:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 09:03 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 05:13 EnDeR_ wrote:
As someone who had zero sex education, I'd just like to say that it would've been nice to not get all my sex knowledge from porn videos -- my expectations and reality were wildly out of sync. I can't remember exactly, but I must have been around 10-12 when I watched my first porn video and definitely not older than 13. If you're teaching about vaginal sex, I don't see why you shouldn't teach about other types of sex including oral. Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think anyone should be taught how to give a blowjob until they learn how to give a proper rimjob Can you explain the point of this post other than you being an asshole because I’m struggling with finding it. Drone keeps saying people are being mean to you, but I see absolutely nothing you have added. Prove me wrong and tell me what I’m missing, or stop pretending like your victim and man up and take your lumps when people are a jerk back to you. I have no idea why the rest of us have to follow so many rules to participate in these threads and you can go full asshole over and over again then play victim. What value did you provide? It was not even slightly funny let alone intelligent post, just 100% asshole. No one else does these ever and has no consequences and you do this shit posting all the time AND think you are persecuted. Prove me wrong. Explain how this was a post that provides value and follows threads rules. User was warned for this post
What exactly do you have against a good old tongue punching of the fart box to be so upset by this post? Anyone that’s had a proper rimming will easily favor it over a good blowjob. If you support teaching kids how to give blowjobs you should definitely support teaching them how to eat ass. Just my humble opinion.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On June 20 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so. To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school.
Well quite. That page doesn’t seem appropriate for young kids at all, and I can’t have an opinion on the rest of the book I’ve never read.
The general consensus here seems to be both that, but also ‘well that’s a bit extreme, but we should have more in-depth sex Ed’ and the discussion has circled round to that.
But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook
|
Norway28816 Posts
I actually just read like 200 pages of that this is gay book,to get a proper impression of it.
It doesn't really read like a book written for preteens. Not because it is too explicit (very little deals with sex), but because the references and language are more understandable/entertaining for teenagers. There are segments that can be useful for younger children too. I also don't really think it's a book I'd use in a classroom setting because of the overall tone, but again, some segments could be useful, and more than anything, I think it's written for people who in some way identify as LGB*.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
