I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine,m and he has an interesting viewpoint. Of course, he’s not really sure even he believes it, since he’s not all that interested in thought experiments analyzing the sociological sexual behavior of millions of people.
He mentioned that at least one wag noted that Americans aren’t really all that interested in sex; else why would they need to be sold on it so much. Before dismissing this as a mere sophistry, there was at least one stuy (no cite, sorry) which concluded that Americans boght things like sex toys, oils and lubes, and other “helpers”… and then left them underneath a cabinet like we do with medicines and suntan lotion.
Basically, maybe Americans aren’t very sexiful. Oh, we like to look nice, sexy, or desirable - but this isn’t an isolated goal. In fact, those who look sexy but have no other desirable traits (i.e., they’re not beautiful, just sexy) fall into the category of “skank” or whatever it’s male equivelant is.
Just to embellish a point in my OP, and to support the point made by John, it should be noted that throughout our evolutionary (and even recent ie., until a mere couple of centuries ago) history, sixteen was actually quite a late age to begin engaging in sexual activity, and eighteen or twentysomething would be remarkable indeed. Puberty does not initiate an enormous hormonal rush to desire sexual activity in order to frustrate us for a few years further: I wanted sex at 15 and so I jolly well went and had it, thanks very much. At the time, I thought that the rumour that I could be prosecuted for such activity was, quite literally, a joke.
But #61 is not about the age of consent. It is about what, exactly, is “too far”. Debaser mentions one instance of bullying and abuse, which I don’t really think has much to do with “openness about sex”, and another of oral sex from a 15 year old (which would be legal in parts of Europe, by the way) which, again, has not suddenly started happening two million years into our history when pop videoes appeared. (What about my hypothetical daughter? I would educate her that using blowjobs as shower-room currency may well lead to that boy having less respect for her than if she’d given his birthday present alone and after getting to know him socially over greater time.) And the argument that school should not provide sex education because some parents don’t want anything given but “abstinence only” strikes me as more of an argument for giving detailed, explicit sex-ed in every school before that puberty hits the fan. Schools must provide it precisely because some parents’ sex education is as inadequate and incompetent as their maths or grammar education would be.
As for sex in advertising - the question is why does it work? The answer is that humans are sexual beings, and to consider that they should somehow be less so is to ignore our evolutionary history, as well as poking an IMO unhealthy nose into what other people buy, read or watch on TV.
(-5.63, -6.21)Strongly Disagree Doesn’t go far enough, but that’s assuming you’re talking an average American level of openness here (or a South African one, which is about comparable AFAICT). I’m all for what I see as a Northern European level of openess - public nudity, less Victorian attitudes.
These topics always devolve into a “what about the children” argument - I, for one, think children are foolishly overprotected from knowledge of their own and others’ sexuality. That’s knowledge, I’ve got no problem with sensible AoC laws (somewhere from 12 to 16, with “similar ages” riders to prevent some obvious power abuse problems) relating to practice. I just believe informed children are better protected against all threats, whether sexual predators, pregnancy or diseases.
Again, with regard to what parents want their children to know, I think I take a more European view that the child is not the parent’s property to do with as they wish (like in that “permitted name laws” thread), and that sometimes the child’s protection overides the parents’ wishes, regardless of whether those stem from religious belief or misplaced prudery. So, unlike some, I believe sex education is society’s affair, not the parents. nI’d like it to be a good one, too.
I think part of the objection isn’t to the sexual nature of some media, but to the tastelessness/lack of class in e.g. sexualized advertising. I’m not sure where I stand on aesthetics, but I think that’s a different argument.
Lets assume there are two sets of parents of identical 15 year old daughters, the Debasers and the Meats. All things are equal, except that the Debaser household set tells their daughter “Oral sex is sex. Don’t have sex, you are too young.” The Meat family instead tells thier daughter “Give oral sex as birthday presents to boys that you know socially, but only one at a time honey!”
Do you honestly think that the the Meat’s daughter would have less of a likelyhood of ending up the town slut than the Debaser’s daughter?
If Meat’s daughter is unfairly judged for engaging in healthy activity that Debaser’s daughter wants to do, is that really Meat’s fault?
Meat’s daughter might put out more, but she’d also demand more from her partners (in terms of respect and in terms of her own sexual needs) and know more about safe sex as well as be more likely to turn to her parents should things go wrong.
I think you’re also unfairly charicaturing pro-sex sex ed.
Yes. My 15 year-old girlfriend (when I was 15) did not turn out to be a town slut ( unlike some 15 year-olds of conservative parents I knew who lived in a state of denial about their daughters’ sexual urges and activities).
But this thread is not about the age of consent (which I believe should be 14).
I think maybe we need to establish some goalposts. Fifteen year olds having oral sex like we shake hands is a bad thing. Right?
So you agree. She would be more promiscuous. Again: this is a bad thing. Right?
Huh? Why would she know more about safe sex? I said all other things are equal in my hypothetical. They both get the same level of sex ed.
Also, why would the Meat’s daughter be more likely to go to her parents when things to wrong?
Elaborate, please. It seems to me that you are the one caricaturing it. Your attitude on fifteen year olds giving blow jobs seems bizarre and comical to me. I’m truly baffled by it.
You misunderstand the question. Please re-read. I’m not comparing some hyperconservative parenting style vs a sex ed parenting style. I agree with you that religous guilt and conservative social upbringing can screw up kids just as bad as the other end of the spectrum. That wasn’t my question. My hypothetical deals with two sets of parents with identical situations. Both kids are getting sex ed. The difference is one is getting permission to have sex, the other is not.
Just becuase you are teaching kids sex ed, doesn’t give them permission to have sex. We teach kids accounting and economics. That doesn’t mean I’m going to expect them to pay my bills and do my taxes.
Well, I didn’t really give two hoots what was explicitly permitted and what wasn’t at the age of 15 (and note that I would never give such explicit ‘permission’ since that is effectively against the law.) But just as I and my wife would give advice about responsible drinking or pot-smoking from an “if you do this thing which is aginst the law, then make sure you…” position, so I or my wife would with sex.
(However, your hypothetical says that both our 15 year-olds have been given adequate sex education, which IMO would include advice on oral sex and the respect garnered or lost thereby, and so I wouldn’t have to say any of this in the first place.)
Or have sex with you, but that sex ed relates to the sex they might have (illegally or not), just as that economics ed relates to their money.
So, since kids are going to do whatever they want, we should just give up and not set boundries at all?
But, you did say you would give permission:
Are you retracting this now?
Good example. I knew kids who had parents who were open about drinking and pot smoking. (I didn’t know any who encouraged or allowed sex as you suggest.) The kids who’s parents nobly tried to teach to be responsible with pot and alcohol invariably were the biggest potheads and drunks in the school. They were also the first ones to be doing harder drugs. The notion that teaching them how to do irresponsible things responsibly will somehow be better than setting limits simply does not work.
Kids need limits. They need to be told what is acceptable and what is not. Sure, sometimes they are going to do it anyway, but it will be much worse if you allow or encourage the bad behavior.
This is silly. My point stands. Teaching kids economics and accounting does not mean that they will have to do their own taxes or pay thier own bills. Just like teaching them sex ed doesn’t necessarily mean we must give them permission to start having sex.
No. I’m not implying that at all. I’ve been consistent in my posts that sex ed is a good thing. SM in post # 22 specifically states his attitude on oral sex, and that is what I’m responding to.
BTW, if you have “no attitude” on the subject, what are you doing in the discussion?
I did not say that. My point was that, since they will be perfectly unbounded anyway within a short period, their education should reflect this even in areas which are currently legally forbidden.
Again, I do not think that “If you are going to do this currently illegal activity, then for heaven’s sake…” advice is explicit permission in the first place. Take that as you will.
Well, our experiences differ. My friends, who were educated so, are now as successful and well-balanced as any. The people I saw getting into real trouble were those who left home having had no such education and behaved in an overly “off-the-leash” manner. Again, I don’t think this is really pertinent to #61.
Since I did it myself, I don’t think that a responsible sexual relationship (which I recall was far more mature than many relationships I see in adults now) is bad behaviour. I would discourage promiscuity, yes, but I’d explain why.
Again, I would not give explicit permission since this would leave me open to prosecution. My post #22 outlined an option, of sex in a relationship, which would garner more respect than multiple gobbles in a shower room - if you still think this is explicit permission to engage in underaged sex then so be it. My point is that my advice would be for life, not just for the next few months until she can fellate the entire hockey team without opprobrium since it would then be legal.
Ultimately, Debaser, I think that the precise phrasing and explicitness of the “permission” in our two identical situations would not be so important. If the school’s sex ed was as detailed and adequate as you say, and we were both loving parents who communicated with our 15 year-olds in a spirit of mutual respect, I don’t think they’d go what you consider to be “too far” anyway. (Incidentally, do you think I went “too far” in having what I call a responsible sexual relationship at 15?)
Of course you didn’t. However, it is a logical extension of what you are saying.
Yes, but that wasn’t what you started out with. Your position has changed, or at least been clarified. In post #22 you were clearly giving permission. This is outragous and I called you out on it, and you’ve since retracted. That’s OK, just don’t try and make me out to be inventing it.
Yes. Unless of course, we started giving them permission to.
The latter, I’d suggest. Since I was having sex at 15 and finding it every bit as fulfilling as I do now, the only reason I don’t give explicit permission is because it is against the law (which I disagree with, advocating as I do European limits ). If I were living in Holland or Germany, or indeed Iowa or Missouri, I would give explicit permission. If those countries or states are “outrageous”, well, so be it. (Some interesting statistics, by the way.)
It’s funny that you care so much about the law that you would allow it to affect the way you raise your children. Most people, I would imagine, simply don’t care what the law says the age limit should be. They raise their kids the way they see fit and don’t give it a second thought. It’s not like a parent would be arrested for raising their children to be promiscuous, even if it is distasteful to most.
Telling your 15 year old that having sex is just fine <> making sex for 15 year olds legal. It’s odd that you would treat the two equivilently. I do think it’s outrageous for a parent to actively encourage their 15 year old to have oral sex with boys they like as long as it’s only one at a time. I don’t think it’s outragous for the state to allow 15 year olds to have sex without breaking the law.
Well, I give them permission to do that which they are legally entitled to do. If they can legally drive, I give them permission to drive and educate them about responsible driving. If they can legally drink, I give them permission to drink and educate them about responsible drinking. If they can legally have sex, I give them permission to have sex and educate them about responsible sex. This is how I would see fit to raise my children.
Again, I think you illuminate “I would educate her that using blowjobs as shower-room currency may well lead to that boy having less respect for her than if she’d given his birthday present alone [and after getting to know him socially over greater time]” with the worst possible light, so I’ll replace the bracketed portion with “…[in a relationship of mutual respect]”. Further clarification upon request.
I’m surprised to see anyone have that much faith in the law, especially about the specifics of such issues with children. Of course, I woudn’t allow my kids to drive unless they are legally able to. However, this doesn’t mean I’m obligated to buy them a car when they get their first license, or even that I’m obligated to let them borrow mine. In the same respect, just because it’s not against the law for them to be having sex at whatever age doesn’t mean that it’s good parenting to let them have sex at that age.
It’s legal to let a 13 year old stay out all night, in most areas. (Notable exception: Cities with curfews.) Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean I’m planning on doing it.
I find it odd that you would trust a 15 year old to know the difference between “a relationship of mutual respect” and a 18 year old male sexual predator who has patience, experience and charm and is looking for another notch to add to his bedpost.
Well, this thread has degenerated into precisely what kind of parents you and I would be, Debaser. Of course I would have “house rules” (since I own the house and they don’t) regarding whether they can stay out past a certain time or have sex in my house (I might allow it if I considered the relationship to be mutually respectful, healthy and have lasted a certain time, just as you might when your daughter was arbitrarily older than mine). The ‘predator’ issue is yet another wrench of the steering wheel, and would yet again be part of an adequate and detailed sex education in the first place, since 16 or 18 year-olds can be similarly duped.
I will give permission for responsible legal activity, whatever it is, and I will decide what counts as responsible. If that decision causes moral outrage in others, I will bear the opprobrium with good grace, foregoing any told-you-so gloating if their teenagers went ahead and did what had been forbidden outright, only less responsibly.
