I can’t really disagree with this. Sex and sexuality are integral parts of life and as such should be viewed as just another topic for being openly talked and taught. Perhaps if such approach came to be, maybe it would cause a shift towards true liberation.
Sex is such a minuscule part of the majority of peoples lives. Technically “ideally” everybody would only need to have sex 1-2 times (i.e have 2 kids or more) throughout their entire lives to keep our species going.
Most people shit themselves more often than that and there’s no talk about normalizing that.I think you might be asexual friend. That’s entirely okay, but you are on end of the spectrum. Some of us have an “ideal” of 1-2 times per day.
My parents were pretty open talking about sex and positive and it. They wouldn’t let us watch too violent movies as kids, but movies with nudity were ok after we were like 12. I saw Blow-up before I saw Alien haha.
I think that’s a big part of why Americans treat sex as a weapon and shame it, they teach you young that it’s literally less socially acceptable than murder.
The goal of the anti-LGBT relious nuts is to force people into straight marriages because that’s all that matters to religious zealots.
They know that if kids practice safe sex they won’t get pregnant and ‘shot gun marriage’ rates will go down.
They know that if kids discover their gender or sexual identity is non-cis, non-het, or non-monogamous that they might not wind up having a traditional marriage.
The know that people who only have 1 partner in their lifetime are much, much less likely to successfully leave an abusive partner, meaning there’s a higher rate of divorce if people learn that having multiple partners in your life is normal and okay.
They know that kids who are educated about healthy sex and consent in relationships are less likely to go along with a child marriage or an assigned marriage.
They know that removing sex ed means more teen pregnancy, more intimate partner abuse, and more child-rape. For religious people whose only goal is to get young women into marriages, those are good things.
Example: An actual elected official in the state of Missouri defending his stance that “Parents Rights” includes the ability to marry off their kids to adults at age 12, because “Do you know any kids that have been married at age 12, I do, and guess what, they’re still married”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6UJ-uCrgc
These people legitimately believe that it’s morally correct to kidnap a 12 year old girl and force her to be entirely subserviant to, and dependent on, some pedophile husband who controls everything they do, because them being trapped in that awful situation means that there’s one more marriage in the world.
And yet this self satisfied intellectual stance on sex happens to be a huge fucking turn off
lots of fluid transfer involved. also humor. science helps. intellectuals can be hot too, it’s not just a slur.
I get my rocks off by mildly annoying internet denizens so no hard feelings
it’s very clearly tongue in cheek
Sorry being a kill joy is my kink
Dicks out for haram baes
Omg i love this and stealing this from you!
People that make posts like this clearly don’t understand what “normalizing” means. It doesn’t mean being blindly accepting of everything that would be the exact opposite of “normalizing”. It rather means we as a society decide, what “is regarded as normal” and what “isn’t regarded as normal”. In that sense sex is already normalized. The overwhelming majority of all people are straight, who also mostly engage in recreational and procreational sex. And this is what is also considered the “norm”.
We don’t have to go out of our way to find excuses to make specific kinks and fetishes out as “normal”, because they will mostly never matter to the average persons life. And it’s also widely accepted as normal, that if you want to get “kinky”, you do it on your own time, not everybody else’s.
The foundation of sex is consent. If consent (including hearing about it and discussing it) is absent, then it is torture.
And I literally mean rape and sexual assault should be considered torture, because they are and they have the same effects on the brain as classic forms of torture, and indeed both SA and rape are used as a form of torture in war. Look at the mass rapes in Ukraine. It’s not for sexual gratification, it’s to torture people, and they also happen to get off on it.
People have different boundaries around what they discuss, especially personal info. It’s important to respect that.
If you want to experience a less inhibited place, I recommend checking out a sex club.
People talking about sex is not torture. Get a grip.
The foundation of every activity people do together is consent. That doesn’t mean I need the consent of everyone in the room to talk about something.
The second paragraph has my full support, the first one seems weird to me.
No, and your sex ed is incomplete if you don’t understand this.
No, not every activity is consensual. What consent is, is a deeper question and interaction than what you’re making it out to be.
Consent is the foundation of sexual education and sexual interactions.
Freedom of speech is separate, and no, you don’t “need the consent of everyone in the room to talk about something,” but then you’re operating outside of consent, and you may violate emotional boundaries. That includes triggering survivors who may not have expected you to violate social norms and who would have told you, “hey, I don’t like talking about sex in front of people because I get panic attacks.”
These interactions, being between more than 1 person, require the input of the other people. It’s not a great look to force people into accepting sex as you see it or want it.
That includes triggering survivors who may not have expected you to violate social norms and who would have told you, “hey, I don’t like talking about sex in front of people because I get panic attacks.”
That’s true but that’s also true for any number of topics. This is a general “how/when do I talk about potentially triggering topics” issue and has nothing to do with sexual consent.
Which other topics? List some
You are actually asking me if there are other topics that might trigger people besides sex? Sod off
You said there’s many that are equivalent in the trauma and triggering. You can’t even name one other?
The one I can think of - war - is quite obvious you should check in with people and just say, “I know this is a topic that can be tough to talk about, do you mind?” Eg my friend’s entire family overseas just died to the war in Ukraine/Russia. Or someone’s dad may have died in a war. Etc.
So go on, name an example, just 1, of a topic that’s equivalent and explain why you wouldn’t want to just check in and make sure the person you’re talking with is comfortable.
Heck, asking you for an example of your own claim was apparently triggering af, maybe use that. Is this as traumatizing as war or sexual abuse? Giving an example?
Friend, you are not getting what is happening here. We are in agreement that there are topics that might need some checking in if anyone is uncomfortable with it. That includes sex, that includes war, it includes health, it includes childhood stories.
I am aware of that, you are aware of that, you are just being unnecessarily confrontational. To which I say: sodd off.
My dude, you set up the strawman argument of speech in a conversation about sexual consent. They were just trying to explain how they’re not the same thing.
No. I reacted to someone claiming that hearing about sex needs the hearing parties consent, the same as sex needs consent which I don’t agree with.
Talking about sex needs to be done with some caution to not upset others, like many other topics. It’s different from the consent needed for engaging in sexual activities with someone.
Talking about sex needs to be done with some caution to not upset others
This is literally what I’m saying. Upsetting others means you are violating their emotional boundaries. If they do not consent to the interaction, then they might get mad.
It’s literally so easy to say, “hey, I’m going to bring up an adult topic, anyone uncomfortable with that?” And then if anyone says yes, say nevermind. its so easy and you all bellyaching like its a hike up a mountain is WEIRD.
That’s not the issue and you are failing to understand that. I agree with you. But the first comment said that that is the same form and level of consent needed that is needed for sex and that’s just not true.
Yes and no.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development. That doesn’t mean you can’t start sex ed very early, it just means that what you teach is important.
For example, the first thing kids should be taught is the proper name of all their body parts. Call a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina. It’s also important to teach things like “Let mom and dad know if someone wants to see your penis/vagina”. It’s also important to start the concept of consent early “You don’t have to give a hug or let someone touch you if you don’t want to” and extended to “Ask first before giving a hug, it’s ok if someone doesn’t want a hug.”
As kids get older, you should absolutely be having frank conversations about what sex is. You should further have frank conversations about adults soliciting sex from kids “Jerry Seinfeld was a huge creep that raped a high school teen. That wasn’t ok”.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.
Can you elaborate on negative aspects of early sex ed? You only provided the positive examples, and I’m curious now
I hope they reply, but personally I don’t see any reason to keep children ignorant of biology besides our religions making us feel like sex is taboo and unnatural.
Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
I’m not saying kids shouldn’t be educated on the biology, just that age matters and too young is associated in research with lifelong negative consequences.
Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
Which I think we agree on. Teaching a 5 year old consent is proper, how sex works is improper. Teaching a 12 year old how sex works is proper, what various sex acts are is improper. Teaching a 16 year old the various sex acts is proper, especially if accompanied by a discussion of STDs, how to prevent them, and how to properly disclose to prior partners you have one.
Sex ed isn’t just one lesson and what can be taught when is a gradient based on age.
You know a sizable portion of teens have sex before the age of 16? Sex ed should basically be complete at age 14, which is approximately when most teens start/are consuming porn and some are starting to be sexually active.
Also, you should definitely start teaching what sex is to 10 year olds. For example, most girls have their first period between 11 and 12 years of age and they should know prior to having one what it means and how to deal with it.
I don’t really disagree. I wasn’t trying to put the ages out as being a hard absolute on what should be taught when. It was more just to layout the progress of how sex ed should be taught as kids grow up.
I wouldn’t say sex ed can be complete by 14. It’s one of those things that I think should be retaught a few times as kids get older. Mainly because 14yo are likely to forget the lessons they learned.
Oh I think you’ve added an “ed” where I didn’t (and didn’t intend to). Early sex ed is a positive. Early exposure to sex is not. Sex ed isn’t just about sex and there are aspects of it that can (and should) be taught quite young (like I outline above).
IE, you shouldn’t be educating your 5 year old on the finer details of what a blowjob is. You should be working with them on the proper names of their genitals and the difference between good touch and bad touch. Both of those are sex ed that should eventually be taught to everyone before they become adults. However, age matters.
As to the negative consequences of exposure to sex acts. I’ll point you to a page talking about child sexual abuse. Exposure is sexual abuse (and often a precursor to rape).
What do you mean by exposure?
Showing a child porn or having sex while they are around. Those have the most definite negative effects. Stuff that borders that is trickier but, IMO, best avoided.
Does walking in accidentally count, or is there a minimum time limit?
I ask because some people act like a child accidentally walking in on their parents once ruins them for life.
I’m less sure on if anyone has studied that (for obvious reasons). It would be more of “We are having sex and don’t care if the child can see” sort of thing. The normalizing and exposure of sexual acts with kids is what’s known as “grooming” and it’s what child sexual predators use to coerce kids.
Do you think drag queen storytime counts as porn that children shouldn’t be exposed to?
No.
A trans woman wearing a dress is not porn.
Okay, because “we shouldn’t give children access to porn” is the exact argument they use against LGBT folks.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.
Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with ‘yes, probably’ as the closest answer to accurate).
If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.
Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.
This is a disgusting comment
If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably
There is NO “probably” about it. We have brain scans and decades of research proving it is EXTREMELY HARMFUL to children. There are children who’ve been in sex cults, including in the 70s, who have been interviewed as adults regarding this (to say it profoundly negatively affected them). The most common environmental factor for DID is childhood sexual abuse, and the severity of the DID is usually correlated with the severity of the abuse. Suicide is also extremely common in children with a sexual abuse past, as is heavy substance use in children.
Sexual abuse results in automatic behaviors like bedwetting recurrence after being potty trained, defecating in odd places or playing with feces, masturbating in front of others, dissociation, depersonalization, UTIs and other urinogenital issues… So much so that mandated reporters look for these signs in non-communicating (disabled) kids as signs they’ve been sexually abused to trigger investigations. No one has ever told these kids how to respond to sexual abuse - their bodies automatically do it. It is automatically harmful at a human instinctual level.
It’s 100% absolutely harmful and that has been proved by DECADES of research. I’m disgusted by that sentence, and the fact that you haven’t bothered to research that but researched THIS:
Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy.
Why the FUCK did 14 people up vote this shit, Lemmy?
Go do some fucking reading, you absolute pieces of shit
And OBVIOUSLY we should teach kids age-appropriate sex ed.
For real. Children cannot consent. Period
It’s sad this got downvoted.
Who tf is downvoting this? Why do we have these people here?!
They are pretty common on Lemmy tbh. I think like 4 months ago some guy on here was telling me it was “natural” to be attracted to 14 year olds. He got a bunch of upvotes, like at least 30 iirc. Lemmy is pretty disturbing tbh.
Holy shit I hadn’t even focused on the votes because I have that deactivated but Damm
I knew people in Lemmy had to have some kind of mental issue given the constant calls for murder and violence since losing the election, but Jesus fuck this is a whole nother level
Ask first before giving a hug
Yes, please do. I volunteer in a 1st grade class and I’ve had 3 kids just randomly hug me from behind.
I don’t know why you thought about kids when the conversation about normalizing sex came about. Are you ok? No one wants to talk to 5 year olds about sex but 15 and 16 year olds should know about it…
Oh because I’m well informed enough to know that when talks about sexual normalization come up there’s always going to be at least a few people that think that means normalizing it for very young children. It may seem obvious to you and I, it’s not to everyone.
Take for example, this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kentler
Normalizing sex is something that needs at least some nuanced discussion about what that means.
Ironically, you’re fighting against ideas that were not presented by the OP or in the comments;and, in doing so you brought up the topic that you complain about seeing.
I agree with your position, but the OP was talking about in general society.
Obviously there are edge cases (developmentally challenged people are another example) but, in general, treating sexuality as a taboo subject causes a lot of harms that are not necessary.
I’m getting ahead of the argument and laying out what I think is the reasonable position. I’m not really complaining, just want to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes being sexually open.
Some well meaning people have damaged kids because they try and push sexuality too young from mistaken notions of what it means to remove the taboos of sexuality.
