Teaching Good Sex

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex.html

by c0riander • 15 years ago

181 99 15 years ago

_delirium• 15 years ago

How to tackle this well is a difficult question, so it's interesting to see someone trying. I think sex tends to fall along with personal finance into the category of things most people end up doing without learning anything about it first, or at least, not learning very well. About the most you can hope for in either case is a few don't-do-this rules of thumb being taught in school or via public-service ads, like "use a condom" and "don't rack up huge credit-card debts".

I assume it'd work differently for different students, but for a subject some people find awkward, non-classroom sources of information might also be useful to think about. The internet makes it so that few people are really strictly unable to access a huge range of information. But is the information out there good and well organized? Wikipedia, as often, is probably the least-bad high-profile thing out there, but I'm not sure that Wikipedia on sex-related topics is actually that helpful for a teenager; it somehow has an odd focus, half pop culture and half clinical.

logjam• 15 years ago

Article on single page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex...

russell_h• 15 years ago

    In its breadth, depth and frank embrace of sexuality as, what Vernacchio calls, a
    “force for good” — even for teenagers — this sex-ed class may well be the only one
    of its kind in the United States.

Up until this point I was thinking how much this class sounds like the "health" class I took in 8th grade. And my teacher taught barely beyond the curriculum, I sat in on another teacher's health class that probably violated all sorts of policies and went much further than this. If there were two such classes at my middle school, I can only imagine this isn't really that unique.

veyron• 15 years ago

The real problem here is that many parents have very strong opinions regarding teaching sex in school.

obligatory south park reference (nsfw): http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e07-proper-...

saulrh• 15 years ago

That's a pretty common problem all throughout education. http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/06/living/teachers-want-to-tell-p...

jbm• 15 years ago

I really want to sympathize with the teachers, but I do feel for the parents.

His mother chimed in and told me that it had been a horrible summer for them because of family issues they'd been through in July. I said I was so sorry, but I couldn't help but point out that the assignments were given in May. She quickly added that she was allowing her child some "fun time" during the summer before getting back to work in July and that it wasn't his fault the work wasn't complete. Can you feel my pain?

I don't feel her pain. Summer break isn't a period for extended homework - it's a chance to develop curiosity and self-development. The skills that "No Child Left Behind" leave undeveloped (self-guided learning) can only happen during the summer period.

I was reading fairly advanced books for my age, but I don't recall ever having a strictly enforced "summer reading list". Unless this was an enriched program with the pre-requisite clearly spelled out beforehand, I don't understand the attitude shown by the teacher.

More empathy is needed all around.

danbmil99• 15 years ago

Yep, parental furor is the core issue. Schools can't really teach anything that touches on social 'value' issues, including religion, sex, gender, ethics, morality -- even the strengths & weaknesses of capitalism vs socialism are basically off-limits in K-12. It's a sad state of affairs but unlikely to change given the diversity of opinions and the structure of public education in this country (US).

dannyh• 15 years ago

Dealing with the parent problem is just as important as what to say once you have their go ahead.

kahawe6• 15 years ago

It is the same with the "theories" (WTF???) of evolution and IMHO the duty of the government to offer open, proper, modern and beneficial education (based on recent scientific facts) to its citizens should clearly overrule this wish for individual and religious preferences.

"Intelligent" design, creationism and any other religious believes should have nothing to do with governmental education just as much as governmental education should offer the best possible sex ed. If you do not want any of this, opt out of the governmental school system and follow whatever cult and/or religious doctrine you prefer... but this has to be clearly separated from the open education offered by your government to everybody.

Unless, of course, your government is a theocracy.

Shenglong2• 15 years ago

I recently (well, a few years ago) went through sex education in schools. They don't really teach you sex, as much as why you shouldn't have sex. Even when they're teaching contraception, the consistent emphasis on only x% effective really cuts out student interest. It's almost like saying, "yeah we have a method or preventing HIV transmission, but it doesn't really work." While it might seem like a good idea at first, I found it to quickly invoke the I'm not listening anymore response.

Next, is the issue of effectiveness. Personally, I've been shown way so many gross images of venereal diseases, that I I won't even touch without knowing I have protection. Unfortunately, this doesn't follow through for a lot of other kids who went through the same education as I did. "I was drunk", "we didn't have any", "it doesn't feel as good", and "it's too much work" are all (yes I know it's sad) frequently cited responses among people I know.

Thirdly, and most troublesome of all, some people don't care that they're spreading diseases. I recently found out someone I knew was receiving treatment for Hep B. I asked her when she found out, believing this to be a recent development. "I've had it all my life," she responds. I walked out of the room. She's quite active, and her disdain for condoms is legendary. How anyone can exhibit that kind of carelessness is honestly, beyond me.

Rather than force education, I feel we might have to take a completely different approach. Teaching is great, but it doesn't work when kids don't want to listen or don't care. Perhaps we need to stress the why here, rather than the how.

Lastly - I know this is really aside the point of this article, but schools should probably also teach how to have sex properly. Not using condoms, but common erogenous zones, sensing feedback, appropriate pressure, etc. It's kind of sad that we learn all these things by exploration, again and again, generation after generation. I think it's about time we standardized it. Everyone needs to (well, almost everyone) have sex one day, anyway. Might as well at least have fun.

araneae2• 15 years ago

Was she having sex with you? She might be disclosing it to her partners, just not every random guys she knows, understandably.

ajross• 15 years ago

She actually did disclose it to the OP. So I don't see the problem. He just doesn't like the idea of people with Hep B having sex, I suspect. But as per the facts we have, it sounds to me like she's doing the right thing.

Shenglong2• 15 years ago

No, not me. I'm being a friend.

gaelian4• 15 years ago

I find myself somewhat agreeing with the general sentiment of your final paragraph. But "I think it's about time we standardized it" is really rubbing me the wrong way (honestly, not pun initially intended). Either you don't mean that how it sounds or you are massively underestimating the variety of sexual activities that humans engage in and enjoy.

Just with the examples you give (common erogenous zones, sensing feedback, appropriate pressure) there are massive differences between what one person might find enjoyable compared to another. Can you expand on what you would have in mind?

philwelch6• 15 years ago

The fully generalizable things you can teach would be communication, consent, and respect. But really, a standardized curriculum for sex sounds kind of weird. People would think they're dirty perverts for coming up with something that isn't in the standardized curriculum.

akmiller3• 15 years ago

I think it's less about pure education and more about a safe, controlled environment to have open and honest communication.

As you suggest it's a very complex subject with many questions having no generally applicable answers. However, being able to discuss such things between the sexes and with some mature guidance can remove a lot of humility and hopefully provide at least a little enlightenment.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure where this discussion should take place (i.e. is school the right place, I don't know).

learc83• 15 years ago

Addressing your last point--I don't think that would really be all that effective. It's like teaching a driving course without getting in a car. The best you can really do is go over the basic safety rules.

smokinn• 15 years ago

I wish it were this simple.

The school gives this guy a great amount of latitude and it's great that they do because he's truly knowledgeable, does a lot of research and helps his students a lot.

But, for every one of him, there are many others that, given the same latitude, will instead foist their pre-conceived ideas on students and insist that their view of sexual life, however either perverted or abnormally repressive it may be, is the way to go.

It's a hard problem with no easy solution because it involves a great many number of humans.

I really wish all sex-ed could be as great as this school has but I feel like a pessimist when I say that if that amount of latitude was given to every teacher that there would be a regular and constant amount of disasters created.

(Though I do agree that we can do way way better than our current sex-ed curriculum which is absolutely abysmal.. we need something that will at the very least address and provide some counter-points to the vast amounts of hardcore pornography now easily accessible.)

alttag4• 15 years ago

  > "will instead foist their pre-conceived ideas on students 
    and insist that their view of sexual life, however either 
    perverted or abnormally repressive it may be, is the way 
    to go"

And he's not? Or is it that you agree with his moral stance that you see it that way?

This particular instructor is an advocate for his standards, whether he intends to or not. He's gay, and according to the article approves of pretty much everyone being sexually active at 17 if they wish.

There are moral and emotional reasons to disagree with these, and I'm disappointed that the article doesn't highlight or speak approvingly of "waiting" or abstinence. To even suggest such things in this context makes one a pariah.

Yes, I agree abstinence-only education in public schools doesn't seem as effective as other curricular plans, particularly as it's usually not complemented by abstinence-only reinforcement at home. I'm pleased that he can discuss relationships, communication, and encourages students to think both long term and of those other than themselves. But all of that doesn't mean he's not advocating some moral stance.

akmiller3• 15 years ago

Couldn't you replace "sexual life" with almost any other subject though? It's the same with all subjects that there are good and bad teachers and each one, the good and the bad, are going to influence their students.

Once we get into that discussion it's more about being able to find and retain the good teachers and being able to remove the inadequate one's which, I grant you, in the United States is definitely very hard to do.

anamax• 15 years ago

> I think it's about time we standardized it.

Great, more teaching to the test....

dxbydt• 15 years ago

I recently (well, a few years ago) went through functional programming in schools. They don't really teach you functional programming, as much as why you shouldn't program imperatively. Even when they're teaching functional programming, the consistent emphasis on only x% effective really cuts out student interest. It's almost like saying, "yeah we have a method for preventing destructive assignment, but it doesn't really work." While it might seem like a good idea at first, I found it to quickly invoke the I'm not listening anymore response. Next, is the issue of effectiveness. Personally, I've been shown way so many gross images of imperative spaghetti code, that I won't even open vim without knowing I have scala. Unfortunately, this doesn't follow through for a lot of other kids who went through the same education as I did. "I love ruby", "what about python", "it doesn't feel as good as C++", and "it's just too much work" are all (yes I know it's sad) frequently cited responses among people I know.

Thirdly, and most troublesome of all, some people don't care that they're spreading nasty interoperability impedance mismatching in their non-scalaz libraries since they haven't realized that variance annotations are not worth their use in the context of Scala’s partial support for Hindley Milner type-inferencing.

. I recently found out someone I knew was receiving treatment for coding in C. I asked her when she found out, believing this to be a recent development. "I've been coding in C all my life," she responds. I walked out of the room. She's quite active in the C community, and her disdain for scalaz is legendary. How anyone can exhibit that kind of carelessness is honestly, beyond me.

Rather than force Scalaz, I feel we might have to take a completely different approach. Scala is great, but it doesn't work when kids don't want to listen or don't care. Perhaps we need to stress the why here, rather than the how.Why fmap, contramap and xmap are (far) superior alternatives to annotated variances and covariances on map, for example.[2]

Lastly - I know this is really aside the point of this article, but Scala should probably also teach how to properly code using pure functional constructs. Not using Higher Kinded types in favor of Pimped Types, encoding algebraic structures of category theory, understanding type theory, (truly understanding, for real ) the benefits of static program verification, attempting a high (read: extremely high) degree of abstraction in the context of Scala’s limited laziness abilities, etc.

It's kind of sad that we learn all these things by exploration, again and again, generation after generation. I think it's about time we standardized it. Everyone needs to (well, almost everyone) use KleisliMA and FingerTrees one day, anyway. Lets just go one step further and relocate L3 programmers who don't understand (read:truly understand) applicative predictor monads, writer transformers lifted into a pointed functors and the Yoneda Lemma to a desert island in the Carribean and carpet bomb said island with B-32s until the last imperative mofo is subsumed by the dust. A Martin L3 is also known as Beginner Haskell Programmer. Might as well aim higher than Martin.

( Apologies etc. Dedicated to Tony Morris, my personal Haskell hero and Scala superhero 1. http://blog.tmorris.net/critique-of-oderskys-scala-levels/

2. http://scalaz.github.com/scalaz/scalaz-2.9.1-6.0.2/doc.sxr/s...)

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoneda_lemma

giardini• 15 years ago

They may not know how to do long division or compute an angular velocity but, by damn, American kids are going to know how to fuck properly!

I am pleased my tax dollars are so well spent. "Female ejaculation" - sheez...

mdda2• 15 years ago

Given the choice between 'computing angular velocity' and Sex Ed, your tax dollars would give a life-long benefit to the vast majority of the population if applied to the latter - and the value of people understanding the former is minuscule in comparison.

And what is so ridiculous about Female ejaculation?

hyperbovine• 15 years ago

> the value of people understanding the former is minuscule in comparison.

Do you have any quantitative evidence whatsoever to support such a claim?

madcaptenor• 15 years ago

I went to the school that the article talks about. It's a private school. It's not anybody's tax dollars. (And we did know how to do math.)

sheepshankl3• 15 years ago

Yes. I was struck by the definition given to the school by the Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FCS&defid...

BTW is that the past tense of the verb "know" as in "we _did_ know how to do math until we f*ed our brains out!"

Sorry, I'm just jealous because I have never met a girl who went to Friends Central School. Had I done so possibly she could have demonstrated the marvels of "female ejaculation". I'd keep my distance of course, just observing.

achiral• 15 years ago

This comment, in combination with the above comments about resentful virgins, does much to shed light on a rather unfortunate HN demographic.

JonnieCache3• 15 years ago

I'm sure in an advanced society such as this we can afford teach our children about both angular velocity and female ejaculation.

Thinking about it, I reckon you could teach them both in the same class. That'd be one hell of a word problem...

firebones• 15 years ago

Good lord, I saw this headline on HN and thought it was going to be the ESR classic "Sex Tips for Geeks":

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/

joshu3• 15 years ago

why did you link that? now i have to wash my brain out with soap.

tintin2• 15 years ago

Some soap: Everything you've seen or read about sex is false. It is an (growing) experience between the ones who have sex which can not be learned from a book or video.

kahawe6• 15 years ago

Oh please just remove this link... eric is negatively legendary for obscenely proposing to pretty much any and all females wherever he shows up as if he was a combination of Appollo and Pan and god's gift to women.

dredmorbius• 15 years ago

Al Vernacchio, "How To Have the Talk" on YouTube, roughly 2 hour presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkUJdBkTDpE

winter_blue5• 15 years ago

For those if you who have never had sex, how does this (seeing this article) make you feel?

Please be honest. - I feel a combination of envy and hatred (but I wish I didn't feel like this.)

veidr• 15 years ago

That's interesting. Who on earth is the hatred directed toward?

winter_blue5• 15 years ago

towards those getting laid.. I know it's stupid, but I think in the past part of it arose from just knowing that they were doing it, and I as a geek was not going to get it.

I strongly thought in the past that because I was nerdy, I was automatically despised by girls. I know that's not completely true now, but there is a little bit of truth to it.

But to reiterate, I think what gave me this feeling, was thinking that girls hated me coz I was a nerd, etc.

om012• 15 years ago

What age range are you in?

I'm in my mid twenties and feel exactly the same.

winter_blue5• 15 years ago

I'm in my early twenties.

It's not a good feeling to have. Don't let it bother you. Nothing good ever comes out of it.

It automatically made me dislike people who've had sex; and until a couple of years, every single friend I had (in college) was a virgin. (I just wouldn't get close to a non-virgin, because of the feeling of hatred his/her's non-virginity brought.)

In any case, I would say try to get rid of the feeling as much as possible. At the same time - even though it may be hard; try to genuinely care about others and love others. Try to follow this advice: "Be genuinely interested in those people, their lives, needs, and desires. Be open about yours. Have real-world relationships, participate in real-world activities."

You'll be happier person not having these feelings and having true relationships with others.

True happiness comes from love & friendship (not just romantic love.) Having real friendships and being able to serve others and make others happy is what makes men truly happy.

And accept people for who they are; even if they have had stuff you haven't had. (On the same note, accept people who are not as "good" as you - perhaps in areas of skill, like coding, math, etc.)

Tichy2• 15 years ago

While the article starts out mentioning the students who have lots of sex, later on it explains that those were not actually the majority, and there even were some virgins in the course. And even the ones having lots of sex were also troubled by it.

Reading stuff about colleges in the US, sometimes it seems as if all those kids do is fornicate. I suspect the reality looks quite different.

Just saying that part of the envy might be directed towards a fantasy that never existed. But anyway, I know how you feel...

What stops you from having sex now (assuming you are out of high school)?

alttag4• 15 years ago

  > there even were some virgins in the course

An early part of the article said there was one. In my mind, neither the author nor the instructor he wrote about seemed approving of the choice, and went to lengths to cast it as non-normative. A decision for abstinence before marriage should be encouraged, not demanded, and not based on scare tactics. There are more people making that choice than the article suggests.

scelerat• 15 years ago

I still feel a twinge of envy many years later -- I'm twice as old as some of these kids and at this point have had plenty of experience.

An absolute no-sex-before-marriage upbringing led me to completely bind up and lock away a lot of urges I had as a teenager, to the point that I didn't really want to explore sexual feelings and experiences with someone: I knew what I wanted and just didn't want to deal with the impossibility of it all. I didn't really date or pursue anyone for this reason, to the chagrin of people who were attracted to me (and to whom I was secretly attracted, too).

I don't think that's a great way to feel, and yah I still feel envy when I hear from friends about their early experiences, especially when they are free of hangups and all about two people learning about each other and having fun.

Since I have no idea why you haven't had sex -- you sound like you want it -- I can't offer any advice other than this: Be honest with yourself, comfortable with yourself, and make friends and acquaintances. Be genuinely interested in those people, their lives, needs, and desires. Be open about yours. Have real-world relationships, participate in real-world activities. You're not going to get any by sitting at home alone stewing.

"Sex is natural, sex is good; not everybody does it, but everybody should," cheezy but true words by George Michael.

FD3SA3• 15 years ago

It seems unwise to promote casual sex without fully understanding the consequences. And I don't speak of the overblown disease fears, but the far more serious effects of emotional desensitization. Sex elicits a chemical response much like cocaine or heroin, and is also prone to the build up of tolerance. Thus, casual sex with multiple partners leads to a severely diminished capacity for pair bonding and emotional fulfilment. It is no coincidence that the state of marriage in western nations is in shambles, while citizens report high levels of unhappiness as demonstrated by massively increasing antidepressant consumption [0].

Promoting a rapid change from tradition should be done so cautiously, for Occam's Razor suggests that the majority of the world's civilizations evolved strict marital practices (celibacy till marriage and fidelity thereafter) for good reason [1].

0. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm

1. http://darktriumvirate.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/the-cancer-o...

philwelch6• 15 years ago

Research tends to show that "celibacy until marriage and fidelity thereafter" tends to be more of a lie that people all agree to believe rather than the truth. Pre-marital shenanigans and extra-marital affairs are extremely common, the latter especially among higher-status men, who in many other cultures are openly polygamous.

There are a number of things that are cultural universals. Every culture has music, or ritualistically disposes of their dead, or has taboos against murder. Monogamy and pre-marital celibacy are not two of these.

m-photonic4• 15 years ago

I wouldn't call it "a lie that people agree to believe," I'd call it an ideal that people may or may not live up to. All cultures have ideals, and they have a strong impact on the direction of a society even if people don't live up to them 100%. It's not hard to see the positive impact of monogamistic ideals when it comes to things like family formation, which is one of the cornerstones of society as we know it.

Social norms aren't arbitrary, even if they aren't human universals -- you'll notice that matriarchal, low-paternal investment cultures never seem to get off the ground. All of the most successful cultures have broad similarities in regards to their attitudes towards sex, even if there are some differences. Such is the extent of the impact of sexual culture on the structure of the larger society.

In less affluent times, when people's lives depended on it, it was obvious that family formation was more important than recreational sex. Even today, with the importance of the family being somewhat masked by the expanded presence of larger-scale institutions like the state, it remains a crucial element of a truly healthy society.

Human beings are adaptable, and in modern times we can probably afford a more permissive sexual culture. Nevertheless, I think we'd be profoundly better off if people were more aware of the value of sexual restraint. Hedonism should not be our only guiding principle.

FD3SA3• 15 years ago

Food for thought:

http://tinyurl.com/7erlzzn

darklajid• 15 years ago

The saddest thing is that you seem to be serious about this, even trying to make it 'legit' or somewhat sensible by invoking Occam's Razor.

No facts (a link to general antidepressant consumption and a random blog w/ exactly three posts). Everyone move along, someone just posted a (traditional, right-winged/conservative) private opinion on life and family values with a healthy dose of conspiracy FUD (marriage .. shambles .. unhappiness .. antidepressant).

FD3SA3• 15 years ago

An ad hominem attack with a dash of appeal to authority...enlightening. If you require proof of sexuality's impact on human behavior, I recommend reviewing the extant literature. Here are some examples:

1. http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/00...

2. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psyc...

JadeNB• 15 years ago

> celibacy till marriage

This is like practicing hunger until eating; there's no alternative. As Carlin memorably puts it, the ‘no-nookie clause’, which is what I think you meant, is called chastity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence

Aside from the linguistic nitpicking, anyone who cites all the world's agreement on matters of sex and morality related to marriage hasn't studied any history, or, for that matter, the actual state of the present-day world.

philbarr• 15 years ago

What's this: "If there’s grass on the field, play ball" ?! I think you'll find the actual phrase is, "if there's grass on the wicket, let's play Cricket."

The American-ized version doesn't even rhyme!

Goladus• 15 years ago

"Play ball" is a popular baseball phrase, commonly shouted by the umpire after performance of the National Anthem. In fact I would say the American-ized version is less clumsy and more poetic.

HilbertSpace• 15 years ago

The article is pushing, pushing HARD, on a particular point of view: "Sex is normal and okay and should be enjoyed well before marriage and age 18".

Well, in the US in this year 2011, heavily this point of view is in actual fact DANGEROUS.

Before explaining some of the danger, notice, the article is EXTREME: To see how extreme, just look at the picture where the girl is somewhere between age 9-12, my guess would be 10 or 11. Below I will illustrate a little of why 9-12 is, here in the US in 2011, so extreme.

We need a fact of life, mostly about politics and religion and not just about sex: In the US, there is an extremely strongly held and very restrictive norm and a significant fraction of the population that believes very strongly in this norm and wants very much to have this norm ENFORCED on others and to bring serious, severe, even lifetime, public retribution to anyone who violates that norm. The norm is close to the traditional teachings of some religions, especially Roman Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, that sex should be ONLY within marriage. The idea that sex should be 'fun' between two people, like, say, playing tennis, is frowned on. That's the norm. To enforce the norm, there can be various cases of 'religious police'.

Now on to the danger: Anyone in the US who is publicly accused of violating the norm can be in very deep trouble in their job or marriage or legally.

E.g., without a doubt, one of the greatest dangers to the career of a politician is an accusation that they violated the norm. That is, there is a long list of once powerful politicians who, just because of accusations that they 'fooled around', were thrown out of office or had their political careers seriously hurt. Forgot Governor Spitzer? What about Chairman Wilbur Mills? The Little Wiener Representative Weiner? The news media is talking more about Herman Cain's (A) 999 plan or (B) he said-she said?

Outside of politics, there is a great danger of a person being accused of being a 'sexual predator' and, thus, having to 'register' for the rest of their life.

Violations of the norm can be taken more seriously than robbery or even murder. I.e., some people who follow the norm are REALLY 'uptight' about sex.

There are so many people who believe strongly in the norm, especially in Texas and the Bible Belt, that the Republicans toss out little hints about abstinence-only sex education, leaving sex education to the parents and holding down any role in sex education in the schools, repealing Roe v. Wade, etc. and get some significant election advantage.

Any suggestion or hint of improper behavior about sex at work can result in law suits, being fired, etc.

One of the crimes taken most seriously is rape, but, if sex were just like a game of tennis, then why lock people up for years because of rape? Because according to the norm, sex is very much NOT just like a game of tennis.

If the boy is in college and the girl in high school, then have to do some careful calculations about their birth dates and state laws to decide if the boy should be locked up.

Heck, the people with the norms don't even like standard sex within marriage: E.g., why in the US has there been a long tradition of June brides? Because it was long standard that a girl would get married in her first June after high school graduation. Then there was a good chance that she would be a "teen mother", married but still in her teens. But the people with the norms keep screaming about the evils of "teen pregnancy". Gee, Princess Di was a "teen mom". The norms are so UPTIGHT about sex they don't even want a married woman of 18 or 19 to be a mommy.

Heck, some of the laws enforced as desired by former US Attorney General John Ashcroft would have most of the US male population in jail -- literally. E.g., just take a picture at the beach where the picture has a girl under 18 and let a digital version of the picture get distributed at all. JAIL. According to Ashcroft, even a cartoon image would do. We're talking UPTIGHT. By the way, parents: No baby pictures!

For the case of the picture with the article, the public repercussions, especially for the boy, from any suggestion that that couple, with the girl likely well under age 13, even engaged in just some 'touching' could be horrendous. E.g., if the boy's father were a politician, then the news media could go wild for weeks.

The news media knows very well about the norms and how uptight many people in the US are and takes huge advantage to 'sell newspapers' or, now, get eyeballs for ads.

Sex outside of marriage, any touching related to sex, just talking about sex can have consequences that can ruin lives. At work, a woman can get a man fired, and his career ruined, just by complaining "He looked at me in a way that made me feel uncomfortable.".

Net, in our society, sex, nearly anything about sex, outside of marriage is DANGEROUS -- politically, legally, financially, etc.

The article is ignoring the strong norms and pushing a very 'liberal' view of sex maybe more like in, say, Sweden. At one time in the US, the age of consent was 10 -- NOT NOW. Maybe the US should return to the age of consent 10 or have something like Sweden (or maybe not), but currently that is very much NOT how the US is.

As dangerous as sex has been in the US, now with DNA testing it's much more dangerous. E.g., consider the DNA testing of the stain on the little black dress of that White House Intern during the Clinton Administration. Then consider how that stain was the 'seed' of a full impeachment process with all of the US Federal Government seriously distracted for months. Clinton was seriously throttled in what he could do as the leader of the US. We're talking SERIOUS and DANGEROUS.

Teaching Good Sex

Related Stories