15 ms·

Teaching Good Sex

181 points by c0riander 15y ago

_delirium 15y 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 15y ago
Article on single page: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex...
russell_h 15y 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 15y 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-condom-use http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e07-proper-...
- saulrh 15y ago
  That's a pretty common problem all throughout education. http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/06/living/teachers-want-to-tell-parents/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/06/living/teachers-want-to-tell-p...
  - jbm 15y 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.
    - sigzero 15y ago
      I would flat out tell the teacher "Sorry, summer is family time and not your summer reading list time."
    - alttag 15y ago
      > Summer break isn't a period for extended homework - it's a chance to develop curiosity and self-development. Yes, but for most socio-economically challenged students, it doesn't work that way. Research out of Johns Hopkins shows "summer learning loss" is greater for certain populations, and over time leads the the "achievement gap" we see in high schools. (To the extent that comparable students after Kindergarten have a one-year learning gap by middle school.) Schools are disparaged because of a problem that occurs as a consequence of their schedule and students' home lives. IT's natural they'd want to do something about it. I agree, summer homework may not be the best solution, but it's what they have now; it's the current limit of what we as society allow them. (No, I might not make my kids do homework over the summer either, as I offer them other learning experiences. But then again, I might.)
Shenglong 15y 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.
- araneae 15y ago
  Was she having sex with you? She might be disclosing it to her partners, just not every random guys she knows, understandably.
  - ajross 15y 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.
giardini 15y 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...
- JonnieCache 15y 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...
- mdda 15y 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 15y ago
    > the value of people understanding the former is minuscule in comparison. Do you have any quantitative evidence whatsoever to support such a claim?
    - roryokane 15y ago
      I don’t see how it’s possible for mdda or you to have quantitative evidence either way. I doubt that there are any surveys or studies that include questions on all of the following: whether people can compute angular velocity, whether they know how to have sex, whether their life is a success. I’m guessing mdda arrived at eir conclusion that understanding sex is more important than understanding how to compute angular velocity by reasoning that far more people have sex (as evidenced by children) than get jobs necessitating angular velocity calculations. I’m not sure how useful understanding the equations for angular velocity in daily life really is, because I don’t know those equations myself. I can say, though, that I feel like I intuitively understand angular velocity well enough and that knowing the equations wouldn’t help my life much. And I would guess (based on personal experience and observation) that people have sex more often than they have to deal with something spinning around quickly.
firebones 15y 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/ http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/
- joshu 15y ago
  why did you link that? now i have to wash my brain out with soap.
  - tintin 15y 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.
    - nickik 15y ago
      I disagree. You can always better yourself in everything. Learning from books, videos and other sources works in every other field, why should it not in sex? Its the same as with everthing else on the internet (and of the internet for that matter) you have to always think critically, even if the content is wrong you can still learn. If you listen to Fox News for example you can learn alot about what technics the media uses, because Fox uses them totally obviously.
    - kahawe 15y ago
      Centuries of everything from sensual, artful to downright obscene and even religious pornography, guidelines, texts and other scriptures, statues, china and other works of art beg to differ.
    - epo 15y ago
      I'm sure it doesn't apply to you but that sounds like it was written by someone who never really had sex all that often. "The Joy of Sex" became so popular (in an era in which sex was widely seen as a leisure pursuit and before the scares over HIV) because many people actually did need to be told what to do. It concentrated on the emotional as well as the physical aspects. Poor analogy time: owning a car does not make you an instinctive driver, suggesting you just keep taking it round the block until you figure it out is the kind of thing that only a non-driver would say.
dredmorbius 15y ago
Al Vernacchio, "How To Have the Talk" on YouTube, roughly 2 hour presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkUJdBkTDpE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkUJdBkTDpE
winter_blue 15y 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 15y ago
  That's interesting. Who on earth is the hatred directed toward?
  - winter_blue 15y 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.
    - lukifer 15y ago
      I remember that feeling well. Took years to shake even after the first time. Without writing a novel on the subject, it helps to take a perspective lifted from evolutionary biology, and embrace your inner beast. It's possible to be too much of a nice guy.
      - winter_blue 15y ago
        I don't think that's the right way to go. I think it's better to _change_ yourself in such a way you are more comfortable in talking/interacting with women. AND most importantly to _stop_ thinking they'll hate you just coz your a nerd. Because there's an interesting effect in play here (this applies to both men/women): if you think other people don't like you, then the way you act towards will possibly cause that to be reality. On the other hand if you actually take an interest in others and try to get to know them, even the ones who were initially repulsed by you will have change of mind.
FD3SA 15y 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 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm 1. http://darktriumvirate.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/the-cancer-of-western-civilization/ http://darktriumvirate.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/the-cancer-o...
- philwelch 15y 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-photonic 15y 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.
philbarr 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.

181 points by c0riander 15y 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 15y ago

Article on single page: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex...

russell_h 15y 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 15y 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-condom-use http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e07-proper-...

saulrh 15y ago
That's a pretty common problem all throughout education. http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/06/living/teachers-want-to-tell-parents/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/06/living/teachers-want-to-tell-p...
- jbm 15y 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.
  - sigzero 15y ago
    I would flat out tell the teacher "Sorry, summer is family time and not your summer reading list time."
  - alttag 15y ago
    > Summer break isn't a period for extended homework - it's a chance to develop curiosity and self-development. Yes, but for most socio-economically challenged students, it doesn't work that way. Research out of Johns Hopkins shows "summer learning loss" is greater for certain populations, and over time leads the the "achievement gap" we see in high schools. (To the extent that comparable students after Kindergarten have a one-year learning gap by middle school.) Schools are disparaged because of a problem that occurs as a consequence of their schedule and students' home lives. IT's natural they'd want to do something about it. I agree, summer homework may not be the best solution, but it's what they have now; it's the current limit of what we as society allow them. (No, I might not make my kids do homework over the summer either, as I offer them other learning experiences. But then again, I might.)

Shenglong 15y 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.

araneae 15y ago
Was she having sex with you? She might be disclosing it to her partners, just not every random guys she knows, understandably.
- ajross 15y 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.

giardini 15y 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...

JonnieCache 15y 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...
mdda 15y 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 15y ago
  > the value of people understanding the former is minuscule in comparison. Do you have any quantitative evidence whatsoever to support such a claim?
  - roryokane 15y ago
    I don’t see how it’s possible for mdda or you to have quantitative evidence either way. I doubt that there are any surveys or studies that include questions on all of the following: whether people can compute angular velocity, whether they know how to have sex, whether their life is a success. I’m guessing mdda arrived at eir conclusion that understanding sex is more important than understanding how to compute angular velocity by reasoning that far more people have sex (as evidenced by children) than get jobs necessitating angular velocity calculations. I’m not sure how useful understanding the equations for angular velocity in daily life really is, because I don’t know those equations myself. I can say, though, that I feel like I intuitively understand angular velocity well enough and that knowing the equations wouldn’t help my life much. And I would guess (based on personal experience and observation) that people have sex more often than they have to deal with something spinning around quickly.

firebones 15y 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/ http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/

joshu 15y ago
why did you link that? now i have to wash my brain out with soap.
- tintin 15y 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.
  - nickik 15y ago
    I disagree. You can always better yourself in everything. Learning from books, videos and other sources works in every other field, why should it not in sex? Its the same as with everthing else on the internet (and of the internet for that matter) you have to always think critically, even if the content is wrong you can still learn. If you listen to Fox News for example you can learn alot about what technics the media uses, because Fox uses them totally obviously.
  - kahawe 15y ago
    Centuries of everything from sensual, artful to downright obscene and even religious pornography, guidelines, texts and other scriptures, statues, china and other works of art beg to differ.
  - epo 15y ago
    I'm sure it doesn't apply to you but that sounds like it was written by someone who never really had sex all that often. "The Joy of Sex" became so popular (in an era in which sex was widely seen as a leisure pursuit and before the scares over HIV) because many people actually did need to be told what to do. It concentrated on the emotional as well as the physical aspects. Poor analogy time: owning a car does not make you an instinctive driver, suggesting you just keep taking it round the block until you figure it out is the kind of thing that only a non-driver would say.

dredmorbius 15y ago

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

winter_blue 15y 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 15y ago
That's interesting. Who on earth is the hatred directed toward?
- winter_blue 15y 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.
  - lukifer 15y ago
    I remember that feeling well. Took years to shake even after the first time. Without writing a novel on the subject, it helps to take a perspective lifted from evolutionary biology, and embrace your inner beast. It's possible to be too much of a nice guy.
    - winter_blue 15y ago
      I don't think that's the right way to go. I think it's better to _change_ yourself in such a way you are more comfortable in talking/interacting with women. AND most importantly to _stop_ thinking they'll hate you just coz your a nerd. Because there's an interesting effect in play here (this applies to both men/women): if you think other people don't like you, then the way you act towards will possibly cause that to be reality. On the other hand if you actually take an interest in others and try to get to know them, even the ones who were initially repulsed by you will have change of mind.

FD3SA 15y 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 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm 1. http://darktriumvirate.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/the-cancer-of-western-civilization/ http://darktriumvirate.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/the-cancer-o...

philwelch 15y 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-photonic 15y 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.

philbarr 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.