Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Monogamy

 Monogamy is not a description of a relationship. It is a description of a reproductive strategy.

 Polyamory is default for prepubescent children and non-adults and should be encouraged with the usual precautions for STDs.  Encouraging monoamory among non-breeders or deferred breeders is generally toxic. In societies where women breed shortly after puberty other standards apply but given modern contraception strategies for men and women polyamory should be the rule until parenting is contemplated.  I am not talking hetero only here especially prepubescent and early teen sexuality.  Sow your wild oats to your hearts content on any infertile ground of either gender to determine what kind of sexuality makes sense for ones settled years. 

 Most couples contemplating children hetero or homo are monogamous as a tried and proven stable environment for raising children. It is not the only way but polygamy as usually practiced one male several females is usually abusive and single parenting is outrageously difficult, but possible.

 If no children are planned monoamory may well be toxic. My generation gave the world the conceopt of going steady as early as high school, that is, dating only a single partner as long as the relationship lasts. The strain this puts on relationship building is overwhelming as sexuality, having fun on a date, and commitment to a single other who initially you may not know well does not work well.  Even more pressure is on the relationship if pregnancy before marriage is a violation of the norm as it was when contraception was limited to condoms.  Even with reliable contraception for women trying to combine sexuality, companionship, fun, and mental stimulation into a single relationship seems to put too much strain on both partners. 
 
 Sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partners. That means no sex until all partners think it is a good idea.  Recreational sex is no exception to this general moral precept and is complicated by the evolutionary and socially reinforced expectation by women especially to associate sex with a commitment to relationship building.  Relationship building is less important to men generally and women who plan to defer childbearing or eschew it altogether.  Nonetheless it should be considered by both partners in any sexual relationship. 

 Taking the next step to parenting means preventing pregnancy until again all partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting.u

I have recently been informed that a "Core tri" polyamorous is becoming a reasonable child raising alternative.  Since I am only perpherially in the polyamory world I can only make note of the comment.  







I don't see monogamy as genetic. I see it as a strongly reinforced social value. In other words nurture rather than nature. The fact that historically and prehistorically a two parent family seemed to be the only way most of the people could succeed in producing a replacement quota of adults strongly insured that the leaders who could afford to play around would preach monogamy, and believers would buy it, but as soon as the man can afford it he will play around in one way or another. They don't call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing. Or if you are rich enough you can hire massage therapists of one sex or another to accomplish the same purpose.

I am one of those preaching and practicing monogamy as long as dependent children are involved as I think that is still produces the best results as measured by high functioning adults. There are exceptions, but for every bootstrap street kid that makes it there are hundreds and maybe thousands that don't. If I were writing the laws marriage would be a commitment to any resulting children, natural or adopted, and in a divorce the only lawyer allowed would be an advocate for the children. Unfortunately the churches write the laws for both and the current disaster is the result.



However, for those who chose to accept responsibility for children whether in the usual way or by adoption, a stable family commonly reinforced by sexual bonding is an important value for society to reinforce.  Unfortunately both civil and religious mores are far behind the curve on this critical issue. 

I would like to see "marriage" as permission for sex completely thrown out of both civil and religious laws.  The state would create family unions to protect those who choose to form families for the purpose of raising children.  Religions might want to restrict "marriage" to those couples with a family union license from the state.  These unions would be structured to protect the family unity with a bias toward protecting the children in the event of a separation of the adults in the union. 

Social units not involving children can be handled better via contractual arrangements, pre-nups, visitation rights, wills, etc.  I doubt that religions would want to be involved in blessing such arrangements.  

I have no interest in solving the problem of irresponsible sexual behavior. All I am interested in solving is the problem of unplanned pregnancies and other STDs. It is quite clear that proper education in the advantages of contraception, monogamy or at least limited promiscuity, respect for ones sexual partner, and the importance of both partners being ready financially, emotionally, and socially for parenting, is effective in producing stable families, usually later in life. Teens will have sex. This is normal mammalian behavior. Giving them the information they need to have responsible sex is extremely effective in producing responsible sexual behavior.

This is why I mentioned the UU OWL curriculum. Our Whole Lives which has been around in earlier forms for over 30 years has been extremely effective in producing stable and loving families which produce planned children usually at an appropriate time in their lives. The pair bond is formed early, built on and stabilized with responsible sexuality. When the pair is ready for children they simply delete the chosen contraceptive. The stability of the pair bond is not an issue. It formed naturally at an appropriate age, survived the temptations of promiscuity, probably some tough times in the late stages of education when values and mores are tested, and survived. I can think of no stronger base for a family.

Teens and pre-teens who have used the curriculum have been followed and the results are noted above. It works. Abstinence is not part of the program but radical respect for sexual partners is. The result is monogamy and an incredibly stable pair bond. I know of a few families from the program or its equivalent who now have teenagers that they are encouraging to follow the same program. When it gets noisy in the bedroom, the parents get that "I remember that" look of great pleasure, and later there is frequently another noisy bedroom in the house. The teens are already discussing when the best time for children will be and planning their lives around that time. It is a given for them that the pair bond will last until then. It probably will.



  Abstinence absent masturbation is a joke. Abstinence with masturbation is unusual. Monogamy, while certainly a worthy ideal, is an unnatural aberration for males of most species, particularly the human species. Whores, rent-a-boys, and the new wife are so common as to be considered to be the norm. Throw porn into the mix and even regulators do it.

  It is called religious wishful thinking. There may be a few around who keep their penises dry, but even those who claim to do so seem to find ways of succumbing to their natural instincts.



  "Substantive lying to anybody is wrong. It injures the other and is a disaster for self image. One can't hurt self or society much more grievously."

Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.

Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."

Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing.


Sexual Morality
 "Every atheist I know has extremely well developed and usually fairly strict moral standards with regard to sex. Without trying to speak for all atheists, I only know a few well enough to discuss sexual morality, the common thread seems to be radical respect for the feelings and integrity of the partner, and an absolute prohibition of non-consensual sex. Most heterosexual atheists consider sex with the intent to create children to be a commitment to the family to remain together at least until the children are old enough to understand any separation.

Sorry, the problem here is that I do not buy into Paul's idea of sexual responsibility from 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Paraphrasing a bit: Since I am an ugly misanthrope who isn't getting any, nobody else is going to get any either, and if they take the marriage route they better not enjoy that.

For me sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until again both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.

This normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.

Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than denying the pair bonding efficacy of long term sexuality. And it works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

On Wanking


Would you please make a case that wank material is not healthy for your mental and physical well-being.  I might suggest that wanking is a relatively benign sexual outlet for necessary sexual release for both men and women that do not have a horny sexual partner available.  As the Lazarus Long wisdom aphorism says “Masturbation is cheap, clean, convenient, and free of any possibility of wrongdoing — and you don't have to go home in the cold. But it's lonely.”  R/A. Heinlein.

Let’s consider whoring? Dangerous, in most places illegal and therefore exploitative of women. True religions advocate a whore wife for all men, but headaches, pregnancies, and other problems may interfere.  Casual sex? Aside from the fact that most of it is de facto sexual assault,  At U Oregon  35% of women and 14% of men had non-consensual sex according to a 2014 survey.  It ain't gonna provide for one's daily needs. 

I suspect the problem in the Middle East is not being able to go to the mall or a billboard for a pulchritude fix, Only marginally religious.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Congregational Patriarchy and Inequality

beliefnet
It simply isn't accurate to say that patriarchy and inequality are intrinsic to the Abrahamic faiths.       Theist
 Questions:  Percentages please, estimates OK, choose a congregation you attend regularly.  Or have a friend answer who attends regularly. 

How many couples have pre-marital meetings with clergy?

How many couples have traditional wedding services?

How many men are preparing and serving at Coffee Hour?

How many men are teaching Sunday School?

How many men are teaching Sex Ed?

Do you even have Sex Ed?

What age does Sex Ed start?

Are Sex Ed classes mixed?

Are Sex Ed classes parent discretion?

What percentage of the clergy are women?

Please note these questions are concerned with 21st century practices not bronze age stories. 

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

How Contraception Affects Men.

beliefnet
Try as you will, you just can't get secular morality to come up with the rules about adult consensual sexual activity that religionists seem to find so necessary.
Perhaps the problem is less religion vs secular than pre vs post contraception controllable by women.  Women today have many opportunities for sexual gratification outside of the traditional Kinder, Kirche, Küche with a rich husband.  Kirche being redefined as socialization, usually in a church, but not necessarily so.  Since ~1975 women have been able to make choices about sexual activitiy that do not necessarily involve marriage, children, or even men. 

Old socialization is hard to break so most women buy into the find a good provider as a husband, ditch the contraceptive and take the mom track. Premarital discreet sex optional. But this is a choice not an obligation even for religious women.  Admittedly a strongly mandated choice for religious women.  But even religious women can choose a career track "celebate" that is not married, and keep the sexual activities in the closet bedroom.  Or less frequently be "celibate" until well established in the career track and find a partner willing to help with the kids. 

For secular women the choices are more open: sex, marriage, and children all totally unrelated choices.  And the partner(s) for each also unrelated.  Still some socialization for the mom track, but less pressure from one's society to choose it and more ways to get there and still have sex on the way. 

All of this freedom for women has left men, shall we say, unfucked.  Since ~1975 their manliness and suitability as a mate counts for little in the sex dance and they need to figure out other ways to get laid.  Unfortunately tradition has very little help to give in this regard especially religious tradition. Religious tradition is still stuck in the celibate till 18 (unless you can get any behind the woodpile, wink, wink.) then marry your H.S. sweetie and live happily ever after.  Sex is just animal rut anyway, but sweetie is always available and dependent on you so the animal needs are slaked.  'Tis better to marry than to burn with lust.  

But H.S. sweetie has other plans and other opportunities both for sex and independence. So what is a manly man to do?  The hormones are raging and society and many women are telling him male dominance isn't going to work any more.  Men have very little guidance from society and religion both of which are telling him to be celibate and no one is telling him how to unlock the closet bedroom door.  The answer is clear. You have to ask for the key, demanding it doesn't work any more, and it will be on her terms not the man's.  

Welcome to the world of women's absolute control over their own sex lives.  Anybody surprised that porn is ubiquitous? Religions say you can't do that either, but if praying doesn't help?

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

On Monogamy.

Ebon wrote on beliefnet:
It's especially a pointless question for humans because, unlike any other species, we have learned to decouple sexuality and fertility. In prehistoric times, it was in our biological interest for a child's parents to be committed to one another to ensure the survival of the child to adulthood and thereby, the continuation of the genes. In fact, the extended family was even better (and was, historically, the most common form of childrearing) for exactly the same reason.

But that's fairly irrelevent to us now. Since we have largely divorced sex from fertility, monogamy now becomes simply one option among many. For some people, monogamy comes naturally.

Interesting point.  But the term "monogamy" is linked not to sexual activity but child raising.  For the non-breeders, to use a gender neutral term, it seems to make little difference to the society what form of sexual expression is chosen. 

However, for those who chose to accept responsibility for children whether in the usual way or by adoption, a stable family commonly reinforced by sexual bonding is an important value for society to reinforce.  Unfortunately both civil and religious mores are far behind the curve on this critical issue. 

I would like to see "marriage" as permission for sex completely thrown out of both civil and religious laws.  The state would create family unions to protect those who choose to form families for the purpose of raising children.  Religions might want to restrict "marriage" to those couples with a family union license from the state.  These unions would be structured to protect the family unity with a bias toward protecting the children in the event of a separation of the adults in the union. 

Social units not involving children can be handled better via contractual arrangements, pre-nups, visitation rights, wills, etc.  I doubt that religions would want to be involved in blessing such arrangements.  

Saturday, January 26, 2013

How to Get Laid in a Society of Empowered Women

You don't.

There is no dearth of sex in the society, they like sex as much as the next woman.  But due to a very busy schedule time effectiveness means that the woman needs a reliable circle of men frequently only one available on short notice for an evening of pleasurable activities leading to sex.  This implies a relationship well established to ensure that the evening will well spent, and the sex a reward for both partners.  Yep.  That nasty relationship word again.  One must respect the choices the EW has made and fit into the range of interests other than sex to make that evening enjoyable.  Even in hot social environments of conventions one can expect several hours or even days of common enjoyable activities, before the evening that includes sex.   

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Empowerment of Women and the Rape Culture


not-so-good-men-project
 They're clearly trying to reach Regular Guys and the universe of gender politics
In response to this excellent post and other news including the public gang rape in New Delhi and numerous articles on women all over the world including India now being able to choose how many children they wish to have including none.  Add to that the empowerment of women in being able to choose the man that will be the father of those children.  And the woman's choices not only in sex, but in living, working, and self fulfillment.  It may be time to consider the implications of the title.

All of these have contributed to the fact that a large portion of the male population has been denied any opportunity for consensual sex, as they do not have the necessary respect to gain consent.  They are locked in the old culture where the man is the aggressor, and the woman is compliant.  There are women who remain in this culture as well, cultures change slowly, but contraception has given women a different kind of empowerment in that they can engage in casual sex without fear of the major consequence of pregnancy.   They can send those mixed signals and enjoy the resulting sex, preferably without rape, but in any event without consequences.  But where does that leave the men who for one reason or another always get the unmixed signal of  NO?  Sorry to say it is their fault, or at least the fault of the sexist culture they live in, but most women do not like the idea of being property even for the reason of having sex.  For those men the two choices are rape and internet porn.  Obviously the latter is preferable and commonly the only option, but opportunistic rape will still occur. 

Women secure in their empowerment generally have no interest in and avoid the rape culture.   They  send no mixed signals, they do not even go to places where signals can be mixed.  For them sex is a result of a relationship not a goal, and any man that doesn't understand that won't get any signals at all. 

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Atheist Sexual Morality

beliefnet
One of the reasons to side with the atheists in matters of sexual morality is that the atheist community is far superior to at least the Christian community in dealing with the modern fact, I use that term advisedly, that it is no longer the norm even among Christians for women to be married soon after puberty "To cleave only unto the husband" and spend her life barefoot and pregnant.  Women and men tend to seek partners with similar educational and vocational interests, which frequently means deferring marriage until mid 20's or later.  Perhaps a bit younger for women. 

Marriage or parenting vows, take your pick, are generally taken after considerable thought with little impetus from sex.  Indeed sexual compatibility is generally well proven by the time of parenting vows.  And the pair bond is well established usually through contraceptive monogamous sex long before the vow is taken and the contra lost.  The moral imperative is that the parenting vows are the binding ones and generally are anticipated to last through adulthood of the planned children.  No instant gratification or fashion involved.  It is a well thought out moral commitment. 

OK.  That takes care of the grown ups.  What about the horny teens? The Our Whole Lives program, a joint venture between UU and UCC, recognizes the fact that at an early age children and young adults will experiment with sexual activities.  OWL does not "Just say NO," that is a proven path to unwed parenthood.  Please note there are two unwed parents for every child born out of wedlock.  A much better moral standard is to understand that sex happens and that it is critical that when it does both partners are responsible, willing, and ready for it.  The common question "Your condom or mine?" is a simple way of insuring this moral standard.  Using this moral standard a sex act is no more (or less) significant than dirty dancing or if you prefer a formal Pas de Deux. 

Monday, November 26, 2012

Why men are losing

The war on men
By

Worth skimming to "Feminism serves men well: they can have sex ... with no responsibilities whatsoever."  after that it gets hilarious. 

What the author ignores is that all such sex is sterile.  Just enjoyable gymnastics, some good exercise, and the prick removes himself from the gene pool.  No loss.  If the woman wants to contribute to the gene pool there is no problem finding men with good genes to provide them and the prick might find himself living with a baby that is not his.  He may leave, but there will be others who will trade sex for living space with or without children.  It is that "They want to provide for and protect their families--its in their DNA."  The DNA doesn't know or care where the y came from.  She may imply that the sex is not sterile, but only she knows for sure. 

However, the norm will be that men not threatened by the half the population that is intellectually and economically equal will find equal partners in the procreation business, sharing all the joys and work of bringing up a child in their own image.  Neither will be virgins, but adolescent sterile gymnastics will have long since lost their allure.


It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DLIzIa
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DLIzIawc
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DLIzIawc

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Retroactive Culture Change - Fail.


The Kissing Sailor, or “The Selective Blindness of Rape Culture”

The kissing sailor, Greta Zimmer Friedman, George Mendonsa
Most of us are familiar with this picture. Captured in Times Square on V-J Day, 1945, it has become one of the most iconic photographs of American history, symbolizing the jubilation and exuberance felt throughout the country at the end of World War II.
http://cratesandribbons.com/2012/09/30/the-kissing-sailor-or-the-selective-blindness-of-rape-culture-vj-day-times-square/


Retroactively trying to change a culture or even using a past culture to criticize a current culture is a fool's errand.  I grew up in that culture and never imagined that the sailor asked for prior informed consent of the nurse.  Sailors at liberty from an all male environment were expected to be aggressively promiscuous as were most single men at the time.

It was in fact a male aggressive culture, a reflection of the dominant religious culture of female submissiveness.  Ask any cheerleader at the time about the victory parties.  Or the loss parties for that matter.  It was an article of manliness dogma that if you could get a woman in a compromising position good for you!  The then current excuse for the man was if the woman didn't want to be molested she should have stayed home.   Directly related to the current Muslim attitude to women.  It isn't the man's fault if the woman is alone and improperly dressed. 

Better to focus on examples of current non-consensual sexual contact which have a better chance of changing current culture than bitching about the past. 

Lets fight about this shit:
 http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story

excerpt:
I often ride the Metro when I commute from North Hollywood to Long Beach in order to save money.  I bring a book, pointedly wear a ring on my ring finger to imply I’m married (I’m not) and keep to myself.
Without fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes.  The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows.  Sometimes an overly friendly arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in close to talk to me as if we are old friends.  Without fail, the man or boy in question will lean to close and ask me
What are you reading?
Is that a good book?
What’s that book about?

Monday, June 25, 2012

Miniver Cheevy: Consent

Miniver Cheevy: Consent
Thinking about the rules of the game of Lets Get Laid.
The following comment appearing there is dependent on that post and comments.

I think the major problem for both men and women is "Getting laid." That is there are two types of sex. The patriarchial patterns are based on men sowing their seed wildly in their youth and (theoretically) more responsibly in their maturity. But in any event the woman is always a rapee. Willing or not.

The idea of getting laid, that is recreational sex with no seed sown either due to infertility or a barrier of some sort is a very recent phenomenon. As recently as my youth (1950's) there was no such thing. Both men and women have learn the new rules of recreational sex. The most important part of Niki's post was the last line "Still, I think all people must face that shame and confusion and embrace the awkward confusion that sexual communication creates." Learning the rules of a new game particularly when they are being written over the rules of the oldest games in The Book are never easy, and communication is the key. A lot of empathy helps also.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Get Your NBA Cheerleader Out of My Kid’s School

Facebook: "Remington Stone via Susie Rodriguez
Get Your NBA Cheerleader Out of My Kid’s School
blog.pigtailpals.com
Don’t try and tell me that I’m being uptight, or ashamed of the human form, or discriminating against women. What I’m doing is raising the bar, and demanding more. I refuse to settle for the patronizing, sexualized options offered to my daughter.

Tara Dresbach That's an interesting article. On the one hand, there is a push to get cheerleading to be considered a sport in it its own right. On the other hand, a visit from a pro sports team's cheerleading squad doesn't feel quite right.

J'Carlin While it may be true that sports/religious fanatics that dehumanize women should not be permitted to exist in a reasonable world, they do and there is nothing we can do about it. They outnumber us. As long as women of all ages are indoctrinated into being sex objects, what does it gain to prevent them from doing it as well as they can?

J'Carlin Reality check. What do you think of a ballerina?

Suzi Anvin carlin - have you ever LOOKED at a ballerina? I fear gay men are more likely to be attracted to the long, lank, smooth form than straight ones :-P OMG the muscles...

[deleted]
Suzi Anvin
question for you all.... OK would you consider it weird if male pro sports teams visited a high school to talk to promote athletes of their sport? or is it just cuz its cheerleaders? Double standard cuts both ways, both in the sexualizing, AND in the rampant DAMNING of the sexualizing that this response blatantly plays right into. "You have to be sexy but its WRONG BAD WRONG" is not the message we should be reinforcing. You really, truly, will NOT stop the first as long as teens have hormones, so reinforcing the second is really NOT helping...

Suzi Anvin that's their professional uniforms. Would you expect Olympic swimmers to not wear their speedos ever at a school?

Suzi Anvin what you're saying is 'oh, ew, cover up the form, its bad bad bad to be that sexy' the double standard is a real bitch to fight, exactly because it is a DOUBLE standard. its very hard to fight both halves at the same time.

Susie Rodriguez
This is not a case of athletes. There are cheerleaders who are athletes and these aren't them. These are essentially exotic dancers. If you read the article, toward the bottom is a side by side pair of photos that illustrate the difference nicely. That this is what they wear to work does not automatically make it appropriate to display to small children in school. The kid whose mom brought this up? He was six. This isn't about teen sexuality, this is about small children having adult sexuality flaunted at them at a public school.

Tara Dresbach For me, it's the pro without context or prior knowledge. Also, if it somehow could have been a competitive cheerleading team that wasn't attached to to a pro sports franchise I would have felt better about it.

Lori L Foster A pro sports cheerleader is no more an athlete than a college athlete is a student. Their skills in those areas are irrelevant. As to the ballerina question: I've known a lot of (straight) men, and I never once heard one say of a ballerina, 'She's hot!' nor have I heard one praise the grace and skill of an NFL cheerleader.

Remington Stone The issue isn't even their professional uniforms, Suzi. Check the picture of the poster the kid brought home halfway down. That's a lot closer to underwear, to my eye.

Remington Stone On the other hand, don't even -say- gay in school. But highly heterosexualized mascots are all right?

[Deleted]
Kathleen Gabriel
Did you look at the poster that the first-grade boy was given? It was a bunch of grown women looking sexy and pulling at their clothes to display their boobs better. If my (fictional) first-grade daughter was visited by grown men who gave her a similar poster of those men looking all sexy and pulling at their shorts to give more attention to their junk, yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off.

It's not so much about the fact of cheerleading, but of marketing to elementary school kids in a sexual context.

J'Carlin ‎@Suzi Re Ballet. Ballet is acknowledged to be the most demanding of sports but it is a celebration both of the human body and sensuality. If you appreciate an athletic body over boobs and cut pecs, ballet is the ultimate for any gender preference, on both sides of the pas de deux I might add.

J'Carlin @Suzi Re ? As noted different strokes for different folks. I find pseudo-warriors as bad as the cheerleaders. I would hope society has moved beyond this view of males and females. But as long as it is being celebrated by many groups the damning for control is necessary. Otherwise you are going to have a bunch of pregnant cheerleaders after every season.

Jack Pryne ‎@Suzi- I cannot possibly express to you in words how appealing the right ballerina is.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Pair bonding.

Nails in the Religious Coffin: Sex, Drugs, and Contraception - Beliefnet

The thing that religions generally do not recognize is that reproduction in humans is not just popping a litter out and seeing who survives. Reproduction in humans is a long term investment if the zygote is going to get to puberty. One of the main evolutionary purposes of pleasure in sex and the evolutionary reason for the hidden estrus in humans is that the pair bond is essential for reproductive success, that is getting a reproducing offspring into the world. Religions generally accept the fact that sex after the first rape will result in a pair bond, which is one of the reasons they insist on marriage prior to sex. But this pair bond is dysfunctional for the church since the loyalties of the pair will be to the family rather than to the church. Therefore the restrictions on eg contraceptive sex which might make the pair bond more important than the church.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Unusual Sexuality

BDSM? - Beliefnet

As long as the principle of dignity and respect is part of the game I would agree with Dot. No harm, no foul is as applicable in sexuality as any other area of life.

That said, if you feel uncomfortable with either role, you might find that your minister or a UU counselor might be able to help root out the religious roots of your fascination with the role playing, and as usual light drives out darkness. One of my major beefs with Abrahamic religions are the dysfunctional sexuality doctrines that linger long after everything else has been relegated to the mythbasket.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Sexual Maturity

Christian Preschool and Daphne: - Beliefnet :

"Perhaps the confusion is the focus on sexuality. That is the focus of any relationship being on whether or not the pants come off. If the focus is on gender preference, that is who you want to party with for whatever reason, I think the distinction still holds whether or not sex is a consideration or even a possibility.

I will admit that there are many, usually men, for whom the only purpose of a relationship of any kind is sex, testosterone is a powerful driver, a male dog will try to mount a pillow. But part of socialization in humans should be the ability to have relationships where sex is not the driver. In business or community activities sex, as in getting the pants off, had better not be in the picture at all.

In casual relationships one generally sees the heteros gravitating to the opposite gender, and homos toward their own gender whether or not sex is on the horizon. In most cases where testosterone is not the driver, the focus of most casual relationships is developing trust and empathy, perhaps with a closer friendship in mind, and maybe even eventually sex, but the sex would be the icing on the cake. Not the focus of the whole meal. One might call it social maturity. Getting past the puberty rut."

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Lust, Commitment, and Morality

Question about Actions and Consequence - Beliefnet :

"The difficulty here is that unfortunately bullying is one of the social contract enforcement mechanisms. This does not excuse it, but it is up to the people who are establishing the social contract to insure that bigotry is not a part of it. I think in Tyler's [Clementi] case the bullying was independent of the nuanced definition of sexual immorality I was discussing. It was pure homophobic bigotry. The nature of the relationship other than the homosexuality was immaterial.

I think in Paul's moral teaching he was trying, clumsily, to differentiate between lust, that is sex for gratification only with sex in a committed relationship (marriage.) As an amusing aside it would be interesting to question Paul about the morality of the relationship between the Centurian and his pais.

I would find it a major advance in social morality if people did look down on others who have lustful sex, particularly heterosexual lustful sex, which I hope was clearly the point of my post. A few of the homosexuals I knew well enough in the NYC arts community to know their relationship status were in committed relationships and did in fact 'look down' on the gay bar scene.

'Tis a dream of course. Until the churches and other 'tight' communities are inclusive enough to provide relationship incubation for all, the bar scene will be well patronized by all gender preferences, lust is too powerful to be thwarted by Paul or any mortal."

I have often wondered if choirs would have any males at all if they weren't relationship incubators for gays. Or dance groups. I don't know about other arts groups, but those groups seem to have more than their demographic share of gays.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Abstinance

Protest the Pope - Beliefnet:

So ... you think that The Bishop of Rome is WRONG about 'Abstinence' ...
teilhard


"Completely, unequivocally, and disastrously wrong. Abstinence advocacy causes more social dysfunction than any other Christian concept. Abuse of children is only a minor side effect of the doctrine. There is no good reason for saying sex, any and all kinds of consensual sex is wrong. Paul and the Pope want it to be sin so everybody is a sinner. But their need to sell their savior does not justify in any way the doctrine that sex is sin."

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Modern teen sexuality

How do atheists deal with sexual morality - Beliefnet
Abstinence education has been a total failure even among the most fervent believers not only because of peer pressure and cultural conformity, which are powerful drivers for sex. But in prehistory and until recently marriage was defined as having sex, and for women it normally happened shortly after puberty, for men a little later, probably because they had to compete with all of the successful men in the community for the available young women. But when you add breeding instinct to peer and social pressure, the only moral response is to teach responsible, contraceptive and prophylactic sex however you want to define responsible sex. Forget abstinence it is not responsible sex it is unnatural, anti-social, and anti-peer.

Responsible sex by my definition is informed consent by both partners, radical respect for the health, emotional needs and wishes of any sexual partner, (if you have sowed any wild oats, that means prophylactic sex until medically proven to be STD free six months after last oating) and an intent to form a pair bond leading to marriage and children at an appropriate time. It does not mean waiting for the appropriate time to have sex, it means contraceptive sex until then.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Sexual morality for Churches.

How do atheists deal with sexual moral(s) - Beliefnet

"I think the message from all churches should change from no sex until marriage, to no children until marriage. The fact of the matter is that kids have sex and no church or God will change that. You might remember that God's instruction was "Be fruitful and multiply." Hesh didn't say when or how. But then it wasn't until recently that anyone had any control over the when and how."

"It is interesting to me that kids with the proper training in the benefits and responsibility of sexual activity as well as the knowledge and means to prevent pregnancy and STDs are down right prudish about casual sex." They know that when they find the right partner that sex will be wonderful, safe, loving and bonding. Most important it will allow them to pair bond as nature intended, at the age when pair bonding is most effective and defer children as desired for educational needs or simply getting established in a career before taking on the added responsibility of parenting. They chose their partner for first sex very carefully with the full intention of establishing a strong pair bond for future children.

"However, they are well aware of the emotional bonding of sexual activity, and generally don't want to risk bonding with a jerk. A roll in the hay with an anonymous stranger or even a classmate loses all allure, as it is not forbidden, just stupid. I know a few sexually active kids well enough to talk about it, and to hear them talk about their friends having casual sex will blister the paint on the room they are in."

Monday, May 31, 2010

Reality in sexual morality

How do atheists deal with sexual moral dilemmas? - Beliefnet

A few important reality checks having to do with sexuality.

1. Modern medicine in developed nations, or developed areas of some nations insures that a conception can be reasonably assumed to generate a reproductively capable adult.

2. A financially and emotionally stable pair bonded couple is generally the preferred parenting paradigm.

3. Mammals have sex at every opportunity past sexual maturity.

4. Humans are mammals with concealed estrus and continual receptivity for sex of the female.

5. Sex is an effective and natural pair bonding activity.

6. Teens tend to pair bond at a relatively early age, but the pair bonding is tentative.

In the Our Whole Lives curriculum of the UU church there are a very few rules for sexuality but there are two that are basic. The first is that sexual activity must never be coerced. Respect for one's partner demands nothing else. The second is that conceiving a child is a 30 year commitment for both parents that should never be an accident.

The result which we see commonly acted out in high schools today is that pair bonding is common, generally taken quite seriously and is reinforced with contraceptive sex. Children in their early teens are earnestly discussing a life together considering educational aspirations, parenting aspirations and timing for same.

I find this to be a very encouraging trend. Kids will enjoy their "friend with benefits." They may or may not pair bond on the first try, although biology will help if they have been somewhat intelligent in their choice. If they do pair bond it is not just getting rocks of for either of the partners. If they do it makes it easy to wait until they are ready for parenting make an informed choice to do so, knowing that the pair bond has been tested and not found wanting. They have their replacement 2.2 children, when they are ready, and can see the maternity break window clearly.

I see this as a much better program than the quick trip to Vegas, then another in a week or so when the sex turns out to be not what they expected, or in a year or so when dad decides he doesn't really want to be one.