Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education
834 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 34 Newer→ Last
-
Absolutely it is. The sex education curriculum should be standardised across all state schools. Just like the rest of biology.
I'm happy with that. It's the standard national testing system that worries me.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Wait, wait, there’s a LAST train? As in “and then no more ‘trains’?”
Excuse me while I just have a quick panic.
There’s another one in the morning. It’s a lovely trip at that time of day.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
... and I'll meet you at gestation.
Well played, sir.
-
Moz,
Could I just chime in as another "not so much a fan of condoms" man, and also deeply skeptical of the "condoms prevent STDs" meme that's been hinted at.
I've used condoms reliably for a good part of my sexual history, and they never ceased to distress me. Partly because they brought the distinction between orgasm and ejaculation into sharp relief as I rarely orgasm wearing a condom but can usually manage to ejaculate eventually. Much of my early-20's sex life consisted of repeatedly explaining that there was a difference, it is important, and refusing to discuss it while remaining in a relationship with me isn't an option. I found men much less likely to have those issues than women, despite the myths about women being better communicators. Many women operated on really narrow views of male sexuality and weren't open to learning, while most of the men I've had sex with are more "what does it for you".
My experience of STDs has been entirely of the condoms-are-irrelevant ones - scabies, HSV-1 and HSV-2. I mean, you *could* prevent scabies transfer by using condoms, but it would make the "lecture with a condom over your head" picture seem restrained. I'm told that one advantage of the femidom is that it is significantly better at blocking HSV-2 transmission (and not just by making genital contact much less likely). I escaped HSV as much by good luck as good planning.
FWIW, my school sex education was entirely about the mechanical bits and didn't mention contraception at all. But that was the early 1980's. I was bemused that the school didn't cover anything that wasn't in "Where did I come from" when I was 13.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I found men much less likely to have those issues than women, despite the myths about women being better communicators. Many women operated on really narrow views of male sexuality and weren’t open to learning, while most of the men I’ve had sex with are more “what does it for you”.
That's a shame, although I can see that the men might have had more of a feel for where you were at with it. You did deserve to be heard.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Wait, wait, there's a LAST train?
Only when the thread gets derailed.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
It’s a lovely trip at that time of day.
someone has to post this:
-
Moz, in reply to
You did deserve to be heard
Oh, being heard wasn't hard. That's where male privilege is handy. Being believed is a whole nother story, and bob help anyone expecting to have that stuff acted on. I mean, it is quite threatening to be told you can't make your partner orgasm (just ask many men :). Also, being told your sexual response is wrong, can't be that way and you're clearly lying is... offputting. When what I'm saying conflicts with the babble about "condoms are essential and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who must be shunned"... it's easier just to go along with the herd and accept that orgasms come from masturbation.
On the other hand, I've heard from a lot of guys who also haven't made the connection between sometimes ejaculation is amazing and sometimes it's a bit of a let-down. It's definitely not just women who don't connect those dots.
I wonder how much this also feeds into my lack of interest in casual sex and strong preference for committed relationships. I can't imagine having an orgasm from a casual sexual encounter, because I'm not willing to go without a condom and don't expect to orgasm from it. So it all seems like a lot of fuss for no reward.
-
B Jones, in reply to
I escaped HSV as much by good luck as good planning.
Luckily for the younger generation, Gardasil protects against that now, providing your parents sign you up for it in time for it to be useful.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Many women operated on really narrow views of male sexuality and weren’t open to learning, while most of the men I’ve had sex with are more “what does it for you”.
This is a bit of a thing for me, and it constantly irritates me how much of “sex positivity” concentrates on female sexuality. We really need to work over the paradigm of male arousal as being really easy and instant because they’re all total horndogs all the time and ergo you never have to work out what works for a guy because everything does. We still have people commenting at TLG astonished to discover that men can ejaculate without orgasm.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
On the other hand, I've heard from a lot of guys who also haven't made the connection between sometimes ejaculation is amazing and sometimes it's a bit of a let-down. It's definitely not just women who don't connect those dots.
Have you ever experienced it the other way around? Had an orgasm without ejaculating? That's pleasant, if a tad confusing.
-
Moz, in reply to
Gardasil
Are you sure? I can't see any reference to that and it would be big news. I suspect you're confusing HPV and HSV (cancer vs cold sores/herpes).
-
Moz, in reply to
Had an orgasm without ejaculating? That's pleasant, if a tad confusing.
Regularly. Now that I'm old and tired it's more obvious to my partner (I lose interest in more sex), but I've been doing that since I was quite young, when it was more like a "can we pause just a sec.... ok, where were we?". It's really obvious to me when I have partners who just keep coming and coming and coming (like the energizer bunny but in reverse?) and every now and then one of their orgasms sets me off (again).
Which is another discussion that causes distress to sensitive readers... there's a whole ownership of concepts barrier that most men don't notice since it never applies to them. At least once I've had what amount to multiple orgasms, and was just lying there going "ooooh touch me again". But "only women do that".
-
Worth noting that arousal, orgasm and pleasure are distinct, and while it's expected we'll have all three at once, it's also possible to have any subset: orgasm without pleasure, pleasure without orgasm, orgasm without arousal, arousal and pleasure without orgasm, etc etc. We need to talk to each other more about this sort of stuff.
-
Moz, in reply to
We really need to work over the paradigm of male arousal as being really easy and instant because they’re all total horndogs all the time and ergo you never have to work out what works for a guy because everything does.
I have had brief relationships with a couple of women who were convinced that all they had to do was lie there. And one who took sayings like "rod of iron" painfully literally. It felt as though she was trying to circumsize me with her bare hand. Actually, that's the one time I have literally run away from someone. Well, hobbled.
This might feed into the whole viagra thing too - if both men and women expect that the opportunity for sex is all that should be required, then as those men age and need more foreplay, they will be likely to conclude that they are defective and need drugs to fix the problem. The cynical part of me says yes, and that's why the drug industry is opposed to sex education.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
We really need to work over the paradigm of male arousal as being really easy and instant because they’re all total horndogs all the time and ergo you never have to work out what works for a guy because everything does.
Quite - and without wanting to poke that sleeping bear, it's not actually a very healthy assumption for anyone. It's not really a very big step from "men have their brains in their perpetually tumescent knobs" to finishing that (non-)thought, "therefore Animal Penis Brains can't really be responsible for anything they do with their primordial erections, so women have to police everyone's sexuality - even rapists". Which is totally fucked up, and not in a good way. At all.
-
B Jones, in reply to
I suspect you're confusing HPV and HSV (cancer vs cold sores/herpes)
You're right, I was. I had thought herpes = warts = a variety of HPV (not the cancer causing sort, but both sorts are caught by Gardasil). Instead it's herpes = cold sores = HSV, a totally different virus, but like HPV, one that people get non-sexually on other body parts. Thanks for helping clear that up.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
This might feed into the whole viagra thing too – if both men and women expect that the opportunity for sex is all that should be required, then as those men age and need more foreplay, they will be likely to conclude that they are defective and need drugs to fix the problem.
There was a study someone did at Uni of Canterbury (sorry don’t have time to find the reference just now) into how ED had affected the sex lives of older couples. The conclusion was surprising – many of the couples in the study said their sex lives had improved, because they were having to find and invent new ways of pleasuring each other.
-
Moz, in reply to
how ED had affected the sex lives of older couples. The conclusion was surprising – many of the couples in the study said their sex lives had improved, because they were having to find and invent new ways of pleasuring each other.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Saddens, but doesn't surprise me. Non-PIV sex is even more amazing when you're young and horny, at least in my experience. But to people who started with quick PIV-and-run sex it's a very hard habit to break. Hopefully the increasingly permissive parenting (kids sleeping with their partners) will help change that. I was sleeping with mine from a very young age (because same-sex doesn't count, y'know)
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
and also deeply skeptical of the "condoms prevent STDs" meme that's been hinted at.
Can I have clarification - are you suggesting that condoms are not effective at preventing STDs or that it's not worth worrying about them when assessing condom use? Because in the context of the New Zealand STD environment, and STD-transmitting sex with new partners, neither of those are true.
When what I'm saying conflicts with the babble about "condoms are essential and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who must be shunned"... it's easier just to go along with the herd and accept that orgasms come from masturbation.
I feel like that's not what's being said here? Or at least, what I've been trying to argue is that there are very specific situations - i.e. penetrative sex where STD/contraceptive status isn't mutually confirmable - where they are essential, but that those aren't all sexual situations or even most, and penetrative sex is hardly the only option people have when they are in that situation.
This might feed into the whole viagra thing too - if both men and women expect that the opportunity for sex is all that should be required, then as those men age and need more foreplay, they will be likely to conclude that they are defective and need drugs to fix the problem. The cynical part of me says yes, and that's why the drug industry is opposed to sex education.
"Female sexual dysfunction" is increasingly being marketed as a problem solvable by drugs, too. But then, focusing on communication and experimentation doesn't make anyone any money. It's probably not a deliberate strategy on the part of the drug companies, but they're not going to be behind alternative solutions, obviously.
-
Slow train coming...
(or was it slow come training?
sorry Bob and Tommy n Bobby!)...don't be slow,
Oh, no, no, no,
Oh, no, no, no...
...And I don't know if
I'm ever coming...
homeNow having trouble getting the phrase "Last Train to Vagville" out of my head.
Try uncoupling the baggage car at the end of that train of thought...
(there are two lights on behind...) -
Moz, in reply to
are you suggesting that condoms are not effective at preventing STDs
Exactly. Condoms can help prevent some STD transmission. "condoms prevent STDs" is false, but easy to convey on a billboard. I think sex education shouldn't be limited to billboards. I gave examples.
I feel like that's not what's being said here?
I haven't seen the nuance in the condom discussion, and I was responding to a very specific comment that condoms stop STDs. Which is so utterly false that I would be surprised to see it had I not been overexposed to such nonsense in the past.
Or at least, what I've been trying to argue is that there are very specific situations - i.e. penetrative sex where STD/contraceptive status isn't mutually confirmable - where they are essential,
Arguably, and that in itself makes your statement false. Lying about what condoms do isn't helpful. Talking about things in terms of risk is much more useful, and I would expect it to lead to better outcomes. Kids are not stupid, and once a couple of kids in the class start saying "my friend got pregnant when the condom burst" it's game over for the "condoms are the solution" mantra.
"condoms make pregnancy less likely" needs more explanation, but at least it's honest. And it feeds into a bunch of stuff that has to be discussed anyway. If two people have unprotected PIV sex once there's a small chance one of them will get pregnant, and a small chance one or both of them will catch one or more STD's. If they use a condom some of those chances drop, but not to zero (the chance of pregnancy is probably already zero since women are fertile less than half the time).
Oh, and for the record, STD status is never confirmable. Claiming otherwise is usually an indication that the person misunderstands what tests do and how they work. Trivially, an test can show infective status at the point when the test was carried out, and by the time the results are known that status may have changed. Testing is not a substitute for trust, but the contrary is not true either.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Arguably, and that in itself makes your statement false. Lying about what condoms do isn't helpful.
As noted, everyone should be careful with language in this thread. I know you're not calling Lucy a liar, and I'm really appreciating your contribution, but perhaps "lying" isn't the best word to be using in a reply.
-
Moz, in reply to
As noted, everyone should be careful with language in this thread.
Sorry, point taken.
-
B Jones, in reply to
"condoms prevent STDs" is false, but easy to convey on a billboard.
Equally, "condoms don't prevent STDs" isn't that accurate either, and can lead to some pretty unhelpful outcomes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.