There is Patriarchy, Libertine Patriarchy, and the Third Way

Read See More.  The best discussion of patriarchal systems that I have seen.


 The third way is largely invisible, as women take control of their Own Whole Lives* with men as simply partners in whatever they wish to do with their lives sexually, reproductively, and economically. There are enough men around who understand that women are whole humans and respect that to make it work.  They may also understand that for many desirable women men must buy into the whole woman to even have a chance at a sexual relationship.  Evident especially at high achieving universities where Grad School is a given for both men and women.  While the Mrs. is still a fall back for some, it is not the aspiration that got them into the university. 

 I was an early adopter of the concept and married a woman who from high school made it clear that a professional career was a higher priority than any man.  We both had demanding professionally careers, and shared child raising with both of us doing more than half.  While professional couples is my social milieu, I have made it a point to notice the woman driven change in other segments of the society.  Due to the vicissitudes of preparing for a dual career lifestyle and supporting a professional in a misogynistic profession I have lived in many social strata.

 The third way was made possible relatively recently with reliable contraception enabling women to finish whatever training or education they feel is necessary without worries about chastity or pregnancy.  At any point they may partner with a man for sex, rent, or companionship but dependence is not part of the package.  The gender of the partner is probably less important than the human respect, but heterosexuality is the norm so most of the partners are men at all stages of life.  At top universities co-ed living is now the norm. There is even a fraternity at Stanford that shares a co-ed house with two sororities.   

 Once settled these third way couples make a point of being invisible to their patriarchal neighbors.  The only observable difference is both cars leave in the morning.  Any children involved may be in either car.  On the weekends they may host a griller or tailgate to watch their favorite team, maybe even their kid's team, but frequently only one partner is hosting.  The other is "busy."  


 *Blatantly stolen from the OWL curriculum which teaches boys and girls how to take control of their Own Whole Lives, especially sexually but also relationships, and learning. 

Is Internet Porn Ruining Our Next Generation? Is Censorship the Answer?

beliefnet

Thanks for considering the children.

Nice social conscience.IamGreatest

Most computers, smart phones and even home routers have controls to exclude unwanted internet content.  Parents who think porn is bad can filter it.  Social controls (your conscience) is not the answer. 

But if you really want to consider the children teach them early and often "About your Sexuality" or its successor "Our Whole Lives" curriculum from UU and UCC which treats sexuality as a natural part of the human existence.  If you don't teach them they will learn it from advertisements and TV reality shows.  Or their porn loving friends. 

Education always works.  Censorship never does.  

I read a study a few months ago about young boys and the effects of viewing porn (as a mom of two boys, I was curious) and it focused on the fact that porn skews a person's view of sex and of 'normalcy.' In the study, the boys interviewed thought all girls looked like the girls in porn and if they didn't then that was weird (i.e., all girls were fully shaved, etc). It also discussed how the sex in porn is not even realistic and so it causes young men (and young girls that view it) to have unrealistic expectations. IMO, porn is not harmless and it's not something that should be viewed by children.christiangirl

If young boys and girls don't know what normal is, of course porn will skew their view of sex and 'normalcy.'  If they are kept in the dark of "we don't talk about that" and the only light is porn, guess what, light is normal. I was given a sex education book as soon as I learned to read, about 4 or 5.  '40s. It was as might be expected poorly written and obscure but my parents encouraged me to ask them or my older sisters about anything I didn't understand. Needless to say I was a trouble maker in grade school as other kids knew I had answers to questions their parents wouldn't talk about.  

Mammals have sex at puberty and are interested in it far before that.  Humans are mammals.  They will figure it out one way or the other. 

And, yet, grown men have their views on sex skewed by porn. It's not just about whether or not a kid is taught about 'normal' sex prior to their viewing porn. ...watching too much porn desensitizes us to 'normal' sex. Studies back me up...christiangirl

I suspect that none of those studies included grown men that didn't learn about sex from the church (sex is sin, and the missionary position while still sinful is excusable for procreation.) Or in the military: FFF&F. 

I know and have followed many children both boys and girls that were taught properly about sexuality pre-puberty and most of them find kinky porn to be a stupid waste of time. Most had good relationships with the opposite sex through early puberty and later in life.  None of them had unwanted children. This is confirmed by follow up studies on children that were exposed to the About Your Sexuality and Our Whole Lives curriculums both by UU and UCC research.

Are you actually suggesting that parents take an active roll in raising their own kids? You're asking way too much.mountain_humanist

Liberals think it is the governments job, i.e. "it takes a village."Seraphim

Since religious parents and many others have shown they can't do the job of teaching sexuality and defusing porn, perhaps the village stepping in is not a bad idea.

 In subjects like sexual mores that have such an important impact on peoples "village" I think the government and schools should stay entirely out of the picture. Government and schools will fall to the lowest common denominator usually "Just say no" as unrealistic as that is for sex or anything else. 
First and most important are the parents, supported either by their church or secular resources, eg, charitable organizations providing information and contraceptives for those choosing that route, or the many "Sex Ed" books available at the library, some written at the child's level of development.  Amazon has a whole section in children's books>Growing Up and Facts of Life.  As noted earlier put a few on the child's bookshelf and encourage questions.  When the child needs them hesh will find them. 

Perhaps surprisingly I think the child's church should be the choice for parents who do not choose to be involved.  Make sure your church school has a sexuality resource center no matter what the doctrine is.  The child will have to live with the consequences of that doctrine so they had best know what it is.  Note that child is pre-pubescent.  If they learn before the hormones kick in they are more likely to make better choices. 

The worst choice for parents who don't want to be involved actively is unfortunately porn.  Make sure the door is open to talk about it.  They will see it.  Banned or not.  If they can't talk to parents and mentors, they will learn from peers and porn stars.  

Still,  education simply cannot satiate curiosity,  it won't.  Your 12 year old is still going to want to see what he can see on the internet.   After all I have seen and even done I still have curiosity myself from time to time.

That is where things can get weird,  even with eduation kids are still forming impressions and still forming connections and can get things sadly wrong with some of the stuff they can see online.

I almost ( I said almost, not quite)  think you should do some porny web surfing with kids to be there to correct where things are wrong and where it is not realistic.   But I also believe in strong boundaries and can't imagine doing something like that myself. Funderey

There is a difference between education and indoctrination.  Education is open inquiry where questions and issues are invited and welcome.  When a 12 year old surfs some disturbing porn, either they will hide it if indoctrinated and get things wrong, or if educated ask a trusted mentor what the hell is this?  But they have to know what "Normal sexuality" is in their culture before they can ask about "Abnormal sex"   

I still find you wildly unrealistic and out of touch here.   NO, your average run of the mill - NON indoctrinated, not even religious 12 year old is not going to be totally up front and honest about the porn he or she surfed. They will talk to their friends if it is particularly weird. funderey

One of the early activities in a sexuality education curriculum is defusing taboos.  A bunch of taboo words are written on a sheet of butcher paper, and the kids are asked to write synonyms under them and cross out any wrong synonyms.  Then the fun begins.  "What is wrong with that crossed out word?" asks the facilitator. The kids begin to argue and all sorts of taboos see the light of day.  But the kids learn that they can discuss anything at all, and they do.  One thing they usually argue about is whether a word is nice or not, and the facilitator smiles.  Sexuality education has just sprung up unannounced.

I may be out of touch with the real world, but I have been asked questions by pre-pubescent kids that I had to research to answer.  And I told the kid just that.  Not that it was wrong, just that I didn't know. 
 

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.

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."

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.

Sexuality Education in Schools, cont

Theist responsible - Beliefnet

I don't really believe that a "Papal Bull" would suddenly Solve-the-Problem-of-Irresponsible-Sexual-Behavior ...
teilhard

I have no interest in solving your 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.

Sexuality Education in Schools

Theist responsible... - Beliefnet

I believe that your Assertion is not Fact-based, but instead reflects your Anti-Church Feelings ...
teilhard

My assertion is fact based and is responsible for my anti-church feelings on this issue. Unplanned pregnancies and abortions are some of the most serious issues facing the US today. The “Just say No!” campaign and the prevention of meaningful sexuality education in the public schools which should be isolated from toxic religious influences has been led by a few religious organizations headed by the Catholic Church.

I say toxic purposely as these policies kill people and fetuses, and result in the tragedy of way too many single parent families. Sure most of the moms (it is always the mom) make the best of a bad situation, but an unplanned pregnancy is a preventable tragedy encouraged, and in fact mandated by church doctrine. The Pope could solve this problem simply by issuing a Bull that the UU OWL curriculum or the equivalent be taught in all schools Catholic and public. The Baptists can go to Hell in their own way by pulling their kids out of the public schools.

They are already doing so, dooming their children to non-competitiveness in the modern world. But evolution has never been kind to non-competitive species or subspecies in this case. I suspect that Homo Sapiens Religiosus will be extinct in my grandchildren's lifetime. I just hope it doesn't get too ugly. We already are seeing random killings by the losers, but so far it is other losers that are bearing the brunt of the damage. My hope is that fast food, soda pop and beer will keep them anchored on their couch, and Fox entertainment will be more interesting than getting their asses up even for sex. I will gladly contribute my share of the welfare checks to keep them there.