...I don't even have the words...
May. 4th, 2011 08:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thessalianSo I've had the flu, and still have the flu, and now want to bludgeon people. With be-condomed cucumbers, or something.
Nadine Dorries says that teenage girls alone need lessons in saying no.
...Look, I felt queasy enough before this. And yes, I admit that girls are being sexualised too young - padded bras for seven-year-olds, sweatpants for preteens with 'Juicy' written in glitter across the butt, stuff like that. However, that's the fashion industry, not to mention the music industry. What people don't get is that generally with pop bands, the age of the average fan is around 7 years younger than the age of the star in question. So yes, you get your younger (or younger-looking) teeny-bopper girlie star and her fans are, like, ten. So they will emulate how she dresses, or want to. The fashion industry cashes in on that fact, and the fans will either hoard their allowance or beg and badger their parents (who, rather unfortunately, tend to be so disinterested that they will give in rather than having to do anything difficult like parenting) and will buy these kinds of clothes. That's a problem.
However, I don't care how old you are - how you dress does not in any way constitute an invitation to sex. What you say? Is. And if girls are being taught to 'just say no', so should boys. What lessons apply to one gender should apply to both, and frankly, both genders need to be taught that applying pressure on someone for something they aren't ready for is wrong. End of statement, none of this gender segregation bullcrap, and no implying that you can solve the teenage pregnancy problem by getting teenage girls to say no and not teaching boys any kind of responsibility at all.
(And apparently, teaching girls to apply condoms to their boyfriends is unnecessary, where I personally think that it's a good way of turning a thing that some guys complain about ["But I can't feel anything through a condom; it's not as nice!" blah blah blah shut up"] into foreplay. So that can bite me.)
Y'know the lessons I really think should be taught in sex ed? It goes a little something like this:
"Wanting sex is not wrong. Not wanting sex is likewise not wrong. Sex is not a bad thing. Just keep in mind that sex leads to consequences, not only for you but for your partner as well, and might have consequences with others, depending on circumstances. Be sure it's what you want. Be sure that it's what your partner wants. Say no if you don't want it, and respect it when your partner likewise says no, at any point in the proceedings. Sex is good, but it is best in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, respect and mutual enjoyment. Here is how to protect yourself from disease. Here is how to protect yourself or your partner from pregnancy. And here is how to stop vilifying yourself for wanting sex, or for not wanting it. Take control of your sexual destiny. Have a nice day."
...Is that somehow wrong? Is this somehow a bad message? Tell me, because I honestly want to know.
Nadine Dorries says that teenage girls alone need lessons in saying no.
...Look, I felt queasy enough before this. And yes, I admit that girls are being sexualised too young - padded bras for seven-year-olds, sweatpants for preteens with 'Juicy' written in glitter across the butt, stuff like that. However, that's the fashion industry, not to mention the music industry. What people don't get is that generally with pop bands, the age of the average fan is around 7 years younger than the age of the star in question. So yes, you get your younger (or younger-looking) teeny-bopper girlie star and her fans are, like, ten. So they will emulate how she dresses, or want to. The fashion industry cashes in on that fact, and the fans will either hoard their allowance or beg and badger their parents (who, rather unfortunately, tend to be so disinterested that they will give in rather than having to do anything difficult like parenting) and will buy these kinds of clothes. That's a problem.
However, I don't care how old you are - how you dress does not in any way constitute an invitation to sex. What you say? Is. And if girls are being taught to 'just say no', so should boys. What lessons apply to one gender should apply to both, and frankly, both genders need to be taught that applying pressure on someone for something they aren't ready for is wrong. End of statement, none of this gender segregation bullcrap, and no implying that you can solve the teenage pregnancy problem by getting teenage girls to say no and not teaching boys any kind of responsibility at all.
(And apparently, teaching girls to apply condoms to their boyfriends is unnecessary, where I personally think that it's a good way of turning a thing that some guys complain about ["But I can't feel anything through a condom; it's not as nice!" blah blah blah shut up"] into foreplay. So that can bite me.)
Y'know the lessons I really think should be taught in sex ed? It goes a little something like this:
"Wanting sex is not wrong. Not wanting sex is likewise not wrong. Sex is not a bad thing. Just keep in mind that sex leads to consequences, not only for you but for your partner as well, and might have consequences with others, depending on circumstances. Be sure it's what you want. Be sure that it's what your partner wants. Say no if you don't want it, and respect it when your partner likewise says no, at any point in the proceedings. Sex is good, but it is best in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, respect and mutual enjoyment. Here is how to protect yourself from disease. Here is how to protect yourself or your partner from pregnancy. And here is how to stop vilifying yourself for wanting sex, or for not wanting it. Take control of your sexual destiny. Have a nice day."
...Is that somehow wrong? Is this somehow a bad message? Tell me, because I honestly want to know.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 09:02 pm (UTC)My son's dad handled the mechanics of sex, I handled the ethics, particularly in terms of self-respect and respect for his partner.
To me that seems like a frightfully important message, and one far too often overlooked.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 11:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 11:41 pm (UTC)I am, of course, absolutely, positively, not unbiased in this matter.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 11:38 pm (UTC)But no - it's not a bad message (are you sure you're not being rhetorical about wanting to know - you sound fairly sure of your premises) - and it would be helpful to those who feel bad about their latex allergies too : )
no subject
Date: 2011-05-05 07:08 am (UTC)And suck about the latex allergy. Yes, the non-latex ones should probably be comparably priced to the latex ones, but I assume that's never going to happen because there's not enough demand because latex allergies are rare and thus they'll likely take a loss on the unsold ones that go off. Capitalism explains many things but is not helpful to the minority at all. *hug*