[ExI] sex again
atymes at gmail.com
Fri Dec 13 21:01:16 UTC 2019
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:38 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> I see in the sports section where an ice skater is accused of sending a
> picture of his penis to an underage girl.
> We have gotten to where we think that this can scar the girl for life and
> the guy needs to go to prison.
I wonder if there are any studies on whether social expectations that this
should scar the girl, is itself what causes psychological distress
(especially long term) for the girl, as opposed to actually seeing
> Well, this is what you get when you have a repressive society that is hung
> up on sex. Why are they hung up? because their parents were and so on
> back to the jungle where wearing animal skins was mandatory. Or to Eden if
> you like that story.
> Study after study shows that kids who get rational sex ed have fewer
> problems - lower pregnancy rates, lower sexual activity, greater use of
> pregnancy preventatives if sex occurs, lower sex disease rates, lower
> anxiety rates,and so on. Yet we refuse in many states to have sex ed at
> any level. Some in biology but no showing of genitals, esp. erect ones.
> Result - unbelievable sexual ignorance which I documented when I taught a
> college course in human sexual behavior.
Quite. Just this week I saw a meme using a certain Pokemon to illustrate
the existence of the clitoris (I won't link it here, but if you're curious,
look up images of Cloyster and consider its top-central horn), and praise
all around as to how reminding men of this could save countless marriages.
> Now I realize that humans are not very rational, but facts are facts and
> if people want fewer sex problems in society there are clear answers which,
> apparently no one wants to implement.
Not no one. Rather, a large segment of society does not want it
implemented, as they are locked into the misunderstanding that educating
their children about sex will make them more likely to engage in sex with
consequences (psychological as well as STDs and pregnancy), when the
opposite is true. It's the old "Things That People Were Not Meant To Know"
It's almost as if education about education would be a very useful thing to
give new parents. And yet, people are afraid that if the government gets
involved at all in parenting, it will quickly slide from just providing
education to mandating requirements in the name of some social good (see:
the problems that eugenics movements have demonstrated in practice,
regardless of their theoretical aims - as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics puts it, "negative eugenics" such as
limiting who can breed with who, and prohibiting politically unpopular
people from having children at all).
> side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full
> operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were
> psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not
> need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work
> well for them.
Personal anecdote - the few I know who went through the whole process seem
quite happy with the result. I know, anecdotes are not data; this only
shows that the success rate is non-zero.
That said, in all such cases, there was much psychological counseling as
part of the process, apparently in part to screen out those for whom gender
reassignment would not solve their problems, despite their belief that it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat