You would think that they'd recognize that when it comes to sex, masturbation is as benign as it gets and it would probably do good to not make teens ashamed of it.

Yeah. People like to pretend that the whole thing against Planned Parenthood in schools has to do with abortion, but it really, really doesn't. It's precisely because of stuff like this. They dare speak of sexuality as normal and natural, dare acknowledge different sexual orientations, the importance of pleasure, masturbation, and even that children have a sexuality of their own (i.e. masturbation, not that they are able to consent to sex, of course). The fact is, they're some of the best and most honest sex educators that I've ever seen (disclosure: I work for an affiliate). And that scares the shit out of people.

Has any read Tom Perrotta's "The Abstinence Teacher?" (Same author of "Little Children," which was made into Kate Winslet's most recent movie)...

I'm all for teaching seventh and eighth graders about condoms, date-rape, and the medical stuff, but I'll pick and choose my battles...if parents are weirded out by adults talking frankly about sexuality with them...enh.

My mom isn't a super-prude or in the dark about birth control, but I don't think she'd be thrilled to see me reading about masturbation when I was 12.

Kids experiment on their own--do parents or their surrogates in educators need talk know anything that doesn't have to do with their safety (or sense of safety/acceptance, if we're talking about non-heterosexual kids )? Can't they figure out the "pleasure" part themselves? Are the two battles of "teaching your kids to be safe/avoid and STOP sexual harassment or rape" and "teaching your kids to get off" enmeshed?

I guess I'M the prude.

They should just screen that scene in the "40 year old Virgin" where Nancy Walls talks about "Outercourse" (yeah, yeah, I know...SHE worked at PP, why should a movie have to do what actual flesh-and-blood adults do?

Amazing. I'm reading Tom Perrotta's new book, "The Abstinence Teacher," in which a high school sex ed teacher is vilified for stating that some people enjoy oral sex. Truth is even stranger than fiction.

And it is totally horrifying that a DOCTOR is opposing comprehensive sex ed. I bet he doesn't prescribe contraceptives, either!

Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be logical for people who don't want teenagers to have sex to encourage (or at least not discourage) masturbation? You can't get pregnant or an STD from touching yourself, after all.
Oh wait, I forgot, the anti-sex-ed people make no sense.

Kids experiment on their own--do parents or their surrogates in educators need talk know anything that doesn't have to do with their safety (or sense of safety/acceptance, if we're talking about non-heterosexual kids )? Can't they figure out the "pleasure" part themselves? Are the two battles of "teaching your kids to be safe/avoid and STOP sexual harassment or rape" and "teaching your kids to get off" enmeshed?

1. Teaching kids, particularly girls who are supposed to find sex dirty and ruining, that sex is normal and should be pleasurable helps them to establish sexual boundaries.

2. Teaching these same kids that sex is normal and not dirty helps them to be able to talk about sex, and therefore take more measures to be safe -- research shows that couples who talk about contraception are more likely to use it. And it should go without saying that those uncomfortable talking about sex are generally going to be uncomfortable talking about condoms.

3. I'm not really sure how much you can talk about affirmative consent without talking about pleasure. I got the "anti-rape" education stuff, too. None of it mentioned affirmative consent. If it had, I probably would have realized at 14/15 that I was being abused and gotten myself out of the situation, rather than waiting until 16/17 to finally fucking realize why I was so traumatized from the whole thing since, you know, I eventually gave in out of fear. If I'd known that I was supposed to want it and say so, otherwise it was wrong? . . . Wow. I can't tell you the difference that would have made in my life.

4. Though it's increasingly less common, women still get to college without knowing where their clitoris is or what exactly they're supposed to do with it. And yet, every man seems to know right where his penis is. This is not okay.

So. Yeah, teaching kids about sexual pleasure may not be at the top of our list. I'd rather kids learn about condoms and that rape is wrong without the whole sex is normal and should be pleasurable thing than have them not get it at all. But it's hardly a pointless endeavor. Also, teaching kids that sexual pleasure is an important part of life and something they should not be ashamed of is quite a far distance from breaking out some porn and saying "alright kids, now look at that technique!"

Ah, but Masturbation is a mortal sin - IOW, you can go to hell for putting your hands in your pockets or rubbing up against that desk, let alone getting a workout in the shower, IFF you know what you're doing is masturbation! Ignorance in this case may save your soul from H-E-Doublehockeysticks- Hell! You want those kids to go to Hell? Monsters!

Seriously, this *is* still official Church teaching, even if you'll never hear it preached of a Sunday in any parish (at least, I never have, even at the most conservative ones) for fear of the obvious questions...

"I'm against Abstinence programs, because I really consider Abstinence Only to be child abuse." - Dr. Joycelyn Elders, 15th Surgeon General of the United States

But it's hardly a pointless endeavor. Also, teaching kids that sexual pleasure is an important part of life and something they should not be ashamed of is quite a far distance from breaking out some porn and saying "alright kids, now look at that technique!"'-Cara

I have no problem if teens learn about sex in a positive, healthy way that focuses on mutual respect and individual well-being...but again, it might seem arbitrary, I can understand if parents aren't gung-ho if a stranger (substitute parent) is talking about masturbation with their 12 year olds.

...But it IS a pamphlet and that's slightly less charged than face-to-face discussion.

I would hope the teachers would also be the same sex as their students...I could get over a male teacher talking to me about masturbation, but no, I wouldn't see it as ideal.

Are kids (or girls) really ashamed of sexuality of MTV and Girls Gone Wild, where sexuality (unfortunately....VERY unfortunately) is a cartoonish (grotesque) puerile but all-out celebration?

Probably younger kids, sure...and the notion of being a "slut" or (on the flip-side) being invisible (especially for girls) is used as a weapon in adolescent warfare.

How will teaching about masturbation help with that--of kids' use of sex, sexuality( all of which may be undertaken with a kid's crappy judgment, not an adult's) as a means of power-bartering? (I suppose there's a section in the pamphlet on peer pressure for both genders...hope so).

I'm on board for the affirmative consent part.

What scares me even more than the fear parents have and the education they prohibit their children from receiving is how it will affect their children who may become parents one day. How will the next generation treat this same issue? I fear that because they are not exposed to the realistic, positive, and empowering messages of educators like Planned Parenthood, we will be stuck in this cycle because they will fear providing that information to their children all over again.

I wish I'd known during the 12-15 age range that masturbation wasn't "wrong" so long as it was done privately. And yeah, it's a heck of a lot safer than experimenting with oral sex at the age of 12.

I think that teaching that sexual activity should be consensual and pleasurable is extremely important; if you aren't enjoying yourself what's the point?

(Okay, okay, I know the right wingers say "Procreation!!!!" but seriously why shouldn't you *enjoy* the procreative process even if that was the whole point, which it isn't)

I wish more adults would "get" why children should not be taught that sexuality is bad, naughty, dirty or sinful. I'd probably have less baggage about the whole thing if I didn't get the naughty-dirty-etc talk from authority figures (even from my mother, who told me that masturbation was wrong...but that she didn't think women HAD to be virgins until marriage).

Are kids (or girls) really ashamed of sexuality of MTV and Girls Gone Wild, where sexuality (unfortunately....VERY unfortunately) is a cartoonish (grotesque) puerile but all-out celebration?

Uh, yes. Because 1. many people still call these girls sluts and 2. many girls walk away with the message that your body and sex with you is about someone else's entertainment. Those things have nothing to do with female sexual pleasure, but everything to do with making women look more available for male sexual pleasure.

I have no problem if teens learn about sex in a positive, healthy way that focuses on mutual respect and individual well-being...but again, it might seem arbitrary, I can understand if parents aren't gung-ho if a stranger (substitute parent) is talking about masturbation with their 12 year olds.

I can understand why they might not be gung-ho, too. But I don't think most parents are all super excited when they find out/realize that it's time for their kids to learn about sex anyway (since most don't seem to recognize that sex education is a lifelong thing to be started gradually from a young age). Most parents aren't super excited to realize that they're kids are sexual beings. And that's precisely why the kids need this kind of education from other people. Because most parents aren't going to give it. Are the parents who are complaining here about masturbation being taught by a stranger going to talk to they're kids about masturbation themselves (and not in terms of it being a sin that will make you go to hell and give hairy palms)? I somehow doubt it. If the only things we taught in schools were things that parents didn't feel entirely comfortable with, a whole lot wouldn't be taught.

This is the school I went to 15 years ago, and it's the same problem I saw (and what caused me to become a sex educator in college). It's had the dubious honor of having one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the state (the highest outside of NYC, and we're talking a rural community) for the last 2 decades. They've had FIFTH graders get pregnant. And yet... NO sex ed of any kind. When I was there, special guests were not allowed to talk about condom use in AIDS assemblies! As a senior in HS, I wrote an editorial about condoms and got in trouble with the principal (thankfully, he was afraid of my mother). The extent of my sex ed there was limited to a spelling test ("Spell chlamydia") and an extra-credit anatomical chart where the answers were not provided.

It greatly saddens me that my home showed up here on Feministing as an example of what is wrong, but I have no solution to offer. The best I could do was educate myself and try to educate others.

Are the two battles of "teaching your kids to be safe/avoid and STOP sexual harassment or rape" and "teaching your kids to get off" enmeshed?

In my view, in fact, they are more closely related than is readily apparent.

The winger view, and the closet-puritan view that I think the majority buy into, is to teach that sex is fraught and dangerous and should be avoided, and push abstinence as a way to dodge STIs, pregnancy, rape (of course, it doesn't work that way, as we all know). But it's safe and comfortable for adults. They can just say, "just say no" and hope for the best instead of engaging their children as young, developing sexual beings. It's lazy, it's cowardly, it's the easy cop-out. It is not very effective, it provides kids no information to fall back on if they don't "just say no," and it is impossible to push sex as the locus of fear and shame but then also teach that the opposite becomes true once a magic piece of jewelry changes hands. (As an aside, I think it is possible to teach that sex is safer and better in a loving, committed relationship -- not necessarily my view, but a perfectly valid model -- but teaching that doesn't get the wingnuts where they want to go, as lots of teens are in loving, committed relationships ten years before they settle down and marry, and some with people they could only legally marry in two states).

So, a "just say no" approach, while it doesn't work, has wide support. But it cuts against the learning teens get from even the slightest contact with reality. They know desire and pleasure, and they know that having them in a safe and respectful environment is good and makes them want more. So in order to maintain the dour regime of foregoing all sexual pleasure to avoid the risks, it has to be a complete worldview. Teaching information that would assist them if they make the choice to be sexually active might make them curious. Teaching them that masturbation and sexual pleasure might make them want more. Teaching them anything might make them want more; the only safe course is to try to create an environment that hermetically seals them from pleasure.

There are alternatives, or course. Besides the information, parents can provide their children with values; and I mean ones that are different form the ones that the "values" lobby supports.

I have young kids, both sexes. Here's my plan: we are already using proper terms for genitals. Penis, testes, vulva. We don't mock them, we don't discourage touching them. My oldest is a preschooler, and he knows that some things are done in certain places. We pee in the toilet, we touch our private parts in private; our bedroom or our bathroom. (He has a sense of privacy; when he wants to masturbate in the tub, he says, "Daddy, can you leave for a minute?" And of course I do.)

We pass on the values we believe in. Not all kids have a mommy and a daddy; some kids have two dads, some kids have just one parent. When our friends visit, we don't get all upset about explaining that two men are a couple like mommy and daddy; when they are teens, they won't be "introduced" to the existence of gays and lesbians and bisexual folks; they will already understand that these folks exist.

When it's time for them to decide whether they are ready for sex, I will provide them a better answer than "no." Because that doesn't work, and because it's not our view. Instead, since they will ultimately make that decision alone, without me standing over them, they need to know how to decide.

They need to know that they need to feel safe, know their limits will be respected, believe their partner sees them as an equal. They need to hear and respect their partner's limits and see their partner as an equal. They need to know that consent is not the absence of "no," that consent is the presence of "yes," it is affirmative, enthusiastic participation. Sex with a partner who is merely willing to acquiesce is wrong; if their partner is not into it, I expect them not to push.

If they can't talk about what both of their boundaries are, what they want to do, then they also will not be prepared to say when they are over their heads, moving too fast or want to stop. If they are with a partner who can't verbalize limits, how could they know if their partner is okay? The only way to make sure that both people are getting what they want is to know that both people are willing to actively say what they want. That's a high standard, but in my view it's a lot more realistic than "wait until marriage," and a lot more likely to lead to a lifelong healthy view of sex.

They need to know that they and their partner have the same view of what it means. Are they both in love? Is this a relationship or not? What are the rules of the relationship? If it's just play, are they both prepared to say that it means neither partner has any expectations of the other?

They need to know what precautions to take and be able to discuss them. If they can't walk into a drug store, buy condoms and lube and tell their partner they intend to use them, they are not ready.

When they are ready to answer those questions for themselves and resolve them with their partners, they con go ahead and do what they like; if they are not ready then they need a reason to say that, even when there are no authority figures there to wag a finger.

That's not to say that we want to encourage early sexual activity. We plan on telling them honest information about how teens nationwide stack up, to counter the rumor mill about who did what. We don't want them thinking they are late to the game if they are not sexually active at 16 or 17; they have a lot of company, though much of the culture would lead one to conclude that 14-year-olds are having intercourse in the hallways or school, it's not true. And we plan to de-emphasize intercourse: lots of women don't really enjoy penetration until they are older (though that's not universal), not everyone prefers intercourse to oral or manual stimulation, and it comes with a lot of risks that other sexual activities reduce.

There are alternatives to hysteria and denial. One such alternative is to teach our children from childhood, progressively, assuming that they will become adults who will make these decisions for themselves and preparing them to do so.

hi5 Thomas

in fact, the HIGHEST of fives

It's not really education if one is being kept in ignorance.

Cara, I agree with you in so many ways

Are you familiar with the organizations "Advocates for Youth" or "Women and Youth Supporting Each Other"? I think you'd dig them...

Great response Thomas. I don't understand why parents are so freaked out at even the word masturbation but it is evidence of the still very puritanical country in which we live. How many of these parents themselves 1)lost their virginity BEFORE marriage and 2)masturbate on a regular basis (men & women!) 3) Don't they remember what it was like for them in jr. high and high school? Most of these parents today would have gone through that in the 80s but for some reason when it comes to having kids a lot of parents will stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it's not going on (at least not with THEIR kid, even though they probably went through it themselves). Without the education to break the cycle it just keeps going and going.

For the parents who are uncomfortable having someone else talk to their 12 yr-old about masturbation, even if they try to talk to their child about it at some point themselves, they're going to transfer that discomfort for the topic onto their child.

Me? My parents never said the word "masturbation" until I brought it up at age 19. Instead, I got lots of kids in high school telling me how it was gross if girls did it, though boys "couldn't help themselves." And when I first became sexually active at 18, I was shocked to find out that it was more pleasurable than I expected, and I was still embarassed a lot and not good at setting boundaries, and my communication skills about it sucked. And I've talked to friends with similar experiences, and encountered varying levels of sexual abuse without realizing it was "wrong" -some of my friends' situations were much worse than mine.

But yeah, I think Cara lays out the reasons for comprehensive sex ed very eloquently and concisely...

Le sigh .....

Parse "Several Fonda-Fultonville school district residents", and "The parents said they had collected 163 signatures of residents".

Key word? Residents. These aren't parents objecting.

I'm prepared to bet any money that this is a coordinated assault on school sex-ed by a group of local fundy christians. Think of it as a kind of scout/guide camp out, and what you're looking at is the sing-a-long.

These people don't really care two hoots for kids. They care only about maintaining the illusions that bond them as a group.

Don't oppose them with reason. Reason won't work. Mock them!

"Oh, Debra Young. So you finally figured out what all the other girls were giggling about on sleep-overs those many years ago?"

"Dr Rochet! Surprised to learn that the birth canal isn't one way?"

I wish I'd known during the 12-15 age range that masturbation wasn't "wrong" so long as it was done privately.

Masturbation in the presence of others is perfectly fine too :).

Among my male friends at least more than one thought that masturbation led to impotency and/or infertility.

I dont really see how they can say "Schools routinely teach kids not to smoke or abuse drugs, period. They do not teach them how to do it “safely.� Why use that rejected approach when it comes to sex?" on their site. Its just ridiculous IMO.

Maybe because sex isnt harmful to your body? Because it isnt addictive?
Because sex doesnt cause cancer or cause death? This comparison of two vastly different things they want teachers to preach "just say no" is laffable! LAFF!

I don't see how masturbation = sex.

Paul - you've got it exactly right. It's not just parents, it's the citizens. And it's not a majority, either. It's a very vocal minority, and always has been. These same people voted to block a Native American casino going in at the very outskirts of town - which would have brought in a ton of jobs and money to the county, both they desperately need - because they didn't want to encourage gambling. "Logic" has very little place in the county.

It's a very sad place to live. Notice that I now live 3000 miles away.

"I don't see how masturbation = sex."

Masturbation is a sexual activity. It's best, for the diverse society we live in with its many needs, to not define sex simply as penetration. In one of its broadest definitions, anything that causes arousal can be a sexual activity.

The older I get, the more I think, "WTF is the BIG DEAL about sexual pleasure anyway???"

I mean, certainly kids should be taught about STI's, pregnancy, and emotion when it comes to sexual activity, but what is the big deal about saying "Yes, sex feels good, yes masturbation feels good." I just don't get it. It's something our bodies are built to do, like eating or breathing or thinking. And it happens to feel good. What's so bad about that? I don't get it. There is no rational reason for grown adults to be so freaking scared of orgasms!

Ninapendamaisi, thank you! The definition I prefer to use for sex is as follows:
a reasonable attempt on the part of one person to produce orgasm in another by physical contact. That's of course debatable. One could consider cybering sex, and this excludes mutual masturbation. The whole exercise of what "counts" is a little silly anyway, but there is at least some benefit I think to saying that things "count" that are not penile penetration.

A penetrocentric view of sex is first heteronormative, of course. But it also supports a procreation-centered view of sex, when most people most of the time have sex for reasons other than procreation. Hell, even Catholic couples "open to the possibility of conception" mostly have sex most of the time for reasons of pleasure and intimacy, with the possibility of conception either a distant consideration or something they affirmatively hope will not happen. So, if we're mostly doing it for pleasure and intimacy, why center only that part of it that leads to only that thing that we hope happens either never or just a handful of times?

Thank god for parents like Thomas.

While I do think that optimally children should be taught sex ed at home, by their parents/ guardians, I understand that often that's not what happens. That's why schools have to take the lead, and educate kids, because most parents are too embarrassed to talk to them about it. However, these kids don't grow up in a bubble. They've all been exposed to sex in movies or on tv. The reason they need good sex education is to combat the misinformation they receive from the media.
People like Deborah Young are simply out of touch. While things might have been different "back then," (Although I highly doubt it) kids these days aren't growing up clueless. They are going to start experimenting, and the best way to experiment is SAFELY. Any parent who opposes teaching children how to safely handle an important part of their lives seriously needs to re-assess their priorities.

The headline says:
"Because sex should not be pleasurable under any circumstances"

Then highlights:

"suggested masturbation is a source of pleasure."

Now those two statements are contradictory hence my Masturbation = Sex comment.

I doubt seriously that the person who made the later comment actually agrees with the former.

De-privileging the sex for a moment... what would the reaction be if this group of residents was promoting a policy of deliberate ignorance in other spheres? Politics, religion, civics, history, literature, and so forth. I'd rather call their agenda ignorance-based, rather than abstinence-based.

That's the main reason why I think abstinence education is daft. In a school system where the main push is to educate the students, they're picking one major area of life to keep people ignorant of.

I guess I received a good amount of sexual education but I have never been encouraged by teachers to explore masturbation as a substitute for sex. That's probably why I get so squeamish now when someone mentions masturbation.

I don't know what it is but I've always thought of masturbation as something to be embarrassed about. I have nothing against people who do experiment with it I just have a problem with doing it myself. I guess it's a good thing that teens are being taught at an early age that it's okay to do it.

I only had THE sex ed during one semester my freshman year of high school. It was taught by the gym teacher, which was awkward, but he "said it like it was" and at the end of one class he said "Everyone should masturbate, its a good thing, sex can wait, masturbate!" We all had more respect for him after that.

"The headline says:
"Because sex should not be pleasurable under any circumstances"

Then highlights:

"suggested masturbation is a source of pleasure."

Now those two statements are contradictory hence my Masturbation = Sex comment.

I doubt seriously that the person who made the later comment actually agrees with the former."

The people the OP is paraphrasing/mocking with the headline are the people who /disagree/ with the bolded comment. So I guess you need to re-read the OP to understand...

Thomas- you are one cool human being, and one totally excellent parent. Your kids are really lucky.

Helen- Because any teacher could be closeted, it's both heteronormative and counterproductive to assume that a teacher can be trusted to do things right and not abuse their position of power just because they're the same sex as their student. As the cases of male priests raping young boys should have taught us...

I'd actually favour of teaching sex ed with both a male teacher and a female teacher working together. (because there are some questions that are simply most easily and thoroughly answered by someone intimidately familiar with them)

OMG, I can't believe people still think masturbation is wrong! I remember reading that it was a common belief in the 19th century that masturbation caused insanity. I'm surprised their not teaching this in abstinence only classes (or maybe they are). I would rather my teenager would masturbate than engage in regular sex. On the other hand, masturbation gives people an idea on what turns them on so they have an even more satisfying sex life because they can tell their partner what they like rather than expect their partner to have to guess. That said, I remember when a pop song came out when I was a kid, and how people were bitching about it. It had lyrics like "When I Think About You, I Touch Myself." I think thats the actual name of the song, but I can't remember. Anyway, my friends and I knew how true it was. Some people need to get a life.

@Ninapendamaishi :
No, I think I read the above post and the linked article correctly. This Deborah, objected to the discussion of masturbation as a source of pleasure.

The post headlines:
"Because sex should not be pleasurable under any circumstances."

Which is not supported by the bolded quoted text.

I know the bloggers here love to have sarcastic headlines. They're good for a few laughs, but seriously the headline really misrepresents the argument.

They're good for a few laughs, but seriously the headline really misrepresents the argument.

It only misrepresents the argument if you think sex = Penis In Vagina intercourse.

For me, masturbation = sex with myself. Ergo, masturbation = sex.

You're assuming that sex is a narrowly defined word. For most people, especially on this blog, it isn't.

I think maybe she means that these people think that sex should be pleasurable only in the context of heterosexual marriage? It's possible, but it's obvious that they don't want sex to be pleasurable for teenagers in school, ever. Ergo, I don't think the headline was that off...

I think the issue the community members have is more with Masturbation in particular, and not with the idea of sex being good/bad.

And it's just as ridiculous as claiming it's wrong to be gay. bah.

I have a good friend who says she was very sexually aware (and had a healthy relationship with masturbation) when she was younger. Somehow she got labeled as the "school slut", but she had graduated before she ever had PIV intercourse.

Masturbation just encourages a sense of comfort with your own body. It does not make anyone a "slut".

"I think the issue the community members have is more with Masturbation in particular, and not with the idea of sex being good/bad."

No, b/c they don't want Planned Parenthood doing /any kind/ of sex education that talks about sexual pleasure. They just cited the masturbation quote as one reason why the PP curriculum was so bad...

"Okay, okay, I know the right wingers say "Procreation!!!!" but seriously why shouldn't you *enjoy* the procreative process even if that was the whole point, which it isn't"

In some cases out there the idea seems to be that if she enjoys sex with her husband then she enjoys sex with men and will seek sex with other men too but if she grimly endures sex with her husband then she will be a faithful wife.

"De-privileging the sex for a moment... what would the reaction be if this group of residents was promoting a policy of deliberate ignorance in other spheres? Politics, religion, civics, history, literature, and so forth."

That's already happening in geology and non-sex-ed biology.

Virago, that's "I Touch Myself" by the Divinyls, who I believe were Aussie.

Thomas I hope there are more parents like you and I wish you and your family well.

That said--how many of you actually learned about sex from parents/family? It never came up with my parents--and I'm glad. They are overall supportive parents but I don't think they'd want to know about my sex life (lack thereof, really...still in college and a virgin).

But what I know about STI's, female masturbation, and everything to counter the howling of the "abstinence only" crowd that equates conception with abortion (both with unforgivable infanticide...except for them, occasionally) and the world of "Girls Gone Wild" came from discussions with friends, sites like this, magazines that assumed the audience was sexually active/adult, (sometimes even the most nauseating of teen magazines have articles on teen pregnancy and basics about sex and sexual pleasure, and I am always glad to see it),movies,TV, and high school biology.And probably sources I couldn't identify off the top of my head.

Maybe I'm unaware of some untapped ignorance because I'm a virgin and have never actually unrolled a condom, but I think my chances of using protection and expressing my limits have been helped.

Thomas, thanks I couldn't remember the title or who sang it. Have to get a copy.

xxhelenxx:
That said--how many of you actually learned about sex from parents/family?

I know my parents didn't talk that much about it, but my mother didn't have negative attitudes toward masturbation at least. It was just something normal you do in private to her. On the other hand, I had comprehensive sex ed in school, and I'm glad. They didn't get everything right, but at least they tried unlike this abstinence only crap. I wasn't sexually active in high school, but at least I had the basic facts down when I was ready to have sex. Not everyone who learns about birth control and abortion in sex ed is having sex like the abstinence only crowd wants you to think.

"Ah, but Masturbation is a mortal sin - IOW, you can go to hell for putting your hands in your pockets or rubbing up against that desk, let alone getting a workout in the shower, IFF you know what you're doing is masturbation! Ignorance in this case may save your soul from H-E-Doublehockeysticks- Hell! You want those kids to go to Hell? Monsters!

Seriously, this *is* still official Church teaching, even if you'll never hear it preached of a Sunday in any parish (at least, I never have, even at the most conservative ones) for fear of the obvious questions..."

Um, actually, it is not "official Church teaching", if you are referring to the Catholic Church, which I assume you are from the random assortment of Google links.

"Mortal" sin in Catholic Theology refers to a serious breach of the relationship between oneself, G-d, and creation. In order for it to be "mortal"--that is, enough to cause the death of the soul because of the breach of relationship-- a number of elements have to be in place, *some of which can not be judged by anyone, including "the Church", which says so itself.*

Mortal and venial sins are not well understood anymore because of a cultural shift away from the old lists that used to be given to people who wanted some way to negotiate their own salvation. But the teaching is, the state of one's soul is always impossible for anyone other than G-d to completely determine, and a sin can be more serious for one than another, depending on other factors.

Eh, I could write more but I just thought I would point out that, no matter how you feel about the Church's teaching on sexuality, you should really understand what the theology means, or not talk about it. I know that's perhaps not a popular view around here; lots of people think they understand what various religions teach...but really, not always.

Farhat said:

"Masturbation in the presence of others is perfectly fine too :)."

Well I meant more along the lines of "Don't hump your chair in the middle of class" ;)

I will also say that I do not like the idea of anyone teaching ANY special "messages" in sex ed other than lots and lots of facts. As a pp said, why do we need to teach them "masturbation is good?" They can figure that one out for themselves. The idea that some poor sap might get to age 19 without finding her clitoris doesn't really move me. There's LOTS of access to info out there, and the trade-off is not worth it.

My thoughts are that I am opposed to "teaching" most things. I think that children shouldn't be told what to believe, but rather given information and resources, along with the structure and freedom that strengthens the mind to do its work--
how about sex ed WITHOUT some moralizer offering lots of commentary-- whether it is from the abstinence-only OR the Planned Parenthood crowd...it's all dumb, AFAIC.

- As a pp said, why do we need to teach them "masturbation is good?"

How about letting them know at least, performed with a little discretion (e.g., not in public), there is no reason to be ashamed of it? Not only are some (like Bible believers) conditioned to believe that it is dirty or sinful, they may not have an interest in their sexuality at all. This could cause problems in possible later sexual relations with other humans. Satisfaction could be a problem if a person does not know how to achieve it themselves.

That said--how many of you actually learned about sex from parents/family?

My family is pretty relaxed about sexuality, but I never got the full-on sex talk from my parents. They slipped a book on "where babies come from" on my shelf when I was eight or so, trusting that I'd pick up any new book I saw. They let my school fill in the basics of protection in middle or high school, I don't remember which. When I was fourteen or so my dad asked if kids I knew were sexually active, along with a few other questions, and then told me that when I felt ready for it, whatever felt right for my partners and I probably would be, so long as I was safe, and that in his experience you didn't have to be in love but it was nicer when you were. When I was maybe sixteen, my mom gave me another "be safe" reminder and then told me that if anything did go wrong I should tell her and we'd figure out what to do about it.

I got a lot more "sex is scary and bad" messages from other kids and from school (stressing the "abstinence is the only way to be SURE" message over all else, with the exception of one day where someone came in from Planned Parenthood) though, so I did have some issues to get over when I started having sex. Thankfully, though, I also had the memory of my dad saying, "sex is awesome" to remind me that all that fear and shame was totally irrational.

I have known a few people in college whose parents did talk frankly and openly and progressively with them about sex, along the lines of what Thomas is doing, and maybe it's happenstance, but these happen to be some of the most well-adjusted individuals I've known when it comes to how they dealt with relationships.

That approach certainly doesn't seem to /hurt/ childhood development, at any rate...

Cara and Thomas, you are both made of awesome.

"That said--how many of you actually learned about sex from parents/family?"

My parents didn't tend to initiate any conversations about sex, but they always answered my questions as accurately as they could -- eg. when I asked, "Where did I come from?" my mother said, "You grew inside my womb". Since my family watched a lot of science programs, they'd sit me down in front of one of those "miracle of life" programs every so often. However, just what it was that I had been watching didn't really click until I got my first school sex ed class, in fifth grade.

In ninth grade, I got another sex ed class, as part of the gym unit. It was okay; didn't cover everything, but at least they tried. Though I found out later that the boys' class barely got taught anything other than male reproductive anatomy.

Side note: for anyone looking for a good sex ed handbook, I highly recommend It's Perfectly Normal. And yes, it discusses masturbation in a positive light.

Any: If I say I will not talk to you under ANY circumstances, it means there are no circumstances in which I will speak to you. It's not happening.

If someone says sex can't be pleasurable under any circumstances, then that means there are no circumstances in which sex should/can be pleasurable.

But if the parents object to masturbation being pleasurable, then it cannot be implied that they think all sex should be pleasurable.

Hence my objection with the Masturbation = sex. Masturbation may be considered a form of sex (and argument I'm not getting into), but by no means is it equal to sex as the title and bolded quote make it out to be.

If you don't want people making assumptions as to what you or I think sex is or is not, you should at least give other people the same courtesy.

That's fair right?

I have a question for those
of you who mock parents for
being 'puritanical' or 'winger'. What is wrong
with not being comfortable
with a stranger teaching my
child about masturbation?
Perhaps I would rather be the one to teach that to my
child. I personally would never have any trust in
anything that Planned Parenthood is involved in anyway... I am raising my
children to be open and honest about their sexual-
ity. Having qualms about who teaches my children sex
ed does not a prude or a
'winger' make.....

kenyatticee: I'm going to take a cue from the article linked to here the best way to handle your child seeing or hearing material you're not comfortable with, whether from the mass media or from an educator, is to promote more discussion: talk to your kid about what his or her teachers tell him, ask questions that encourage them to think about what they're taught in a different light, and offer your own thoughts.

Refusing to let an educator speak about particular sexual topics won't solve any problems; kids won't be any less curious, and instead of hearing about, say, masturbation in a controlled environment from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, they'll absorb ignorant opinions about it from an unfiltered source, such as the schoolyard or the TV.

What these petitioners are doing is trying to eliminate discussion. That approach doesn't solve problems; it just exacerbates them.

"4. Though it's increasingly less common, women still get to college without knowing where their clitoris is or what exactly they're supposed to do with it. And yet, every man seems to know right where his penis is. This is not okay."

Which reminds me, how many of the parents out there who don't want sex ed to tell their daughter where the clitoris usually is are afraid of their daughter learning that many other girls still have their clitorises...?

I think a lot of parents like abstinence only as it's an easy option for the parents - they get to pretend that their kids are safe, will remain 'moral' and 'pure' and that their children will always remain innocent. It lets them bury their heads in the sand and ignore their responsibilities in preparing their kids for the world. It lets them pretend that their little girl will always be the seven year old cute kid. It's nice. It's comfortable. It's easy.

Guess what? PARENTING IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EASY (shouting is for the abstinence only followers, not everyone else here). It is hard, it is difficult, it involves facing up to the fact that your kids will grow up, they probably will have sex, they probably will drink, they probably will try drugs. They wont be cute seven year olds forever. They will need honest advice from their parents, they will need parents who won't make them feel shitty about themselves, they need parents they can trust, they need parents who will look out for them if they make a mistake rather than judge them. Abstinence only is the exact opposite - it teaches kids that what they are doing is wrong, that they are bad people, that their parents will judge them and condemn them, that their parents don't trust them - it's the worst parenting style possible. It's stupid and perversely while it claims the high-ground it is hugely immoral.

"...It is hard, it is difficult, it involves facing up to the fact that your kids will grow up, they probably will have sex..."

Which reminds me, how many of the parents who don't want their kids to learn about safer sex also want to be grandparents someday? How many want to dote on a few grandchildren per daughter or son? How many call that eugenics and instead want to stretch their time and energy thinly over a rapidly increasing number of grandchildren while their married daughters and sons don't know any birth control besides premarital abstinence?

Scary masturbation...who'd want to have an orgasm with no risk of pregnancy or STD...aaaaah

So, kenyatticee, ARE you going to teach your kid about sex?

Because my parents didn't, not to me, not to any of my brothers and sisters. It has not been a good thing for any of us - lots of guilt, shame, premarital pregnancy and unreported sex abuse by family friends.

All in the name of "protecting" us and keeping us "pure" - my parents vehemently opposed sex ed in schools, too.

So, kenyatticee, ARE you going to teach your kid about sex?

Because my parents didn't, not to me, not to any of my brothers and sisters. It has not been a good thing for any of us - lots of guilt, shame, repressed desire, denial, premarital pregnancies and unreported sex abuse by family friends.

All in the name of "protecting" us and keeping us "pure" - my parents vehemently opposed sex ed in schools, too. They were ALL about leaving it to the parents...

...with what consequences, I have described above. And our family was far from the only one in the conservative Catholic community with such a history, such an outcome.

So colour me terribly unimpressed by the Whiny Parents' Brigade: I don't know a one of you who has the guts to actually TEACH your children anything except "God hates your bottom because it's dirty and sinful and doesn't want you to think about it let alone touch it except to wipe and wash (and not too much then either), until you get married when it becomes a magic wonderful happy baby machine!" and just ignores all the suffering caused thereby, in the interest of maintaining YOUR fantasy "purity" in your own minds.

Ignorance !-- innocence.

Nor will it protect your children from predators, disease, OR taking sexual pleasure regardless of your silence.

Please note that the Fonda-Fultonville school district mentioned in this article isn't even in Schenectady County. Schenectady has a bad enough rap already.

Did you read all of my comment bellatrys???? I said that I was raising my children to be open about sex and their sexuality. That means that I WILL TEACH THEM ALL THEY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT SEX...sigh..I don't believe in keeping my children ignorant about sex
I still have a right to feel uncomfortable about PP
or any stranger teaching my children about mastur-
bation or anything else.

kenyatticee: Glad to hear you're teaching your kids about sex. But what about other people's kids?

There are, as you know, parents out there who won't teach their kids about sex, who teach them that having a desire to touch themselves or to touch a member of their own sex means that they're going to burn in hell, who tell them that condoms don't work and the pill kills fetuses. Hearing the proper facts could save the sanity and perhaps the lives of those kids.

Also, Planned Parenthood provides birth control to young people, and that saves kids' health.

So, even if you don't think your kids need to hear a health professional talk to them about masturbation, other kids do.

Silly question: why is it that married women enjoy sex more than unmarried women?

Silly question number two: if the right-wingers are so intent on ensuring that women don't enjoy sex, then why is it that married, Bible-belt, Protestant women are the most likely to orgasm, each and every time?

(Citation: 1994 University of Chicago study, 3,500 adults surveyed.)

Silly question number 3: If religious nutjobs hate sex so much and don't want women to enjoy it, why is it that Protestant pre-marital counseling includes a discussion of how to make sex pleasurable for women and even a discussion of sexual positions?

Silly question number four: why is this not limited to the Protestants? Why does "Theology of the Body" command husbands to ensure that their wives enjoy sex?

Oh, wait... that blows your "conservatives don't want women to enjoy it" theories straight to hell and back.

Try this theory on for size: Conservatives want women to enjoy it. They want women to get sex ed. They just think that the proper parties to such a discussion are parents, religious leaders, and the spouses in question. For some reason, it's a system that works better than yours - at least in terms of results (i.e. female sexual pleasure).

Now I'll wait for the flames to start.

No flame here oenophile...you'll soon be
mocked though. One can be
conservative and also be pro responsibe sex ed.....

A favorite quote by Butch Hancock of The Flatlanders Band seems appropriate here -- he said:

"Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: one is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell; the other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth and you should save it for someone you love."

BAC

Oenophile - looking up this survey I found this summary of it:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981624-2,00.html

Some comments:

1. It demonstrates that people clearly lie on surveys. It is impossible for men to average 6 partners in their lifetimes and women to average 2. Well - not impossible, but it requires huge numbers of men (tens of millions) to frequently have sex with women outside of the US.

2. The stat you are refering to seems to be the one summed up as " Married couples have the most sex and are the most likely to have orgasms when they do. Nearly 40% of married people say they have sex twice a week, compared with 25% for singles."

I read that and thought 'DUH!' When you consider that single people don't have someone to be having sex with a lot of the time it's not a shock that couples in relationships are having more sex and more orgasms than those who are for the large part not with a partner.

Hell - if single women don't have a regular partner they're doing well to have sex twice a week. And over long terms this also kinda flies in the face of "women average 2 partners in their lifetimes" - if they're single then who the hell are they having these orgasms with? One regular partner over the course of a large number of years? It's be about the only way for them to average 2 partners and still have regular sex... and seems an odd definition of 'single'.

There is also a strong self-reporting issue with face to face surveys when you want them to confess things they might not be keen on expressing, which might explian the low level of self reported adultery and the low level of self reported homosexuality.

A final point - I got married in a protestant church, there was not a single word said about sex at any point in the pre-marital counseling.

Sure, I'm willing to believe that a lot of married women are happier. Studies do show that people, especially women, have the most satisfying sex inside trusting, bonded relationships. (Of course, I'm also willing to bet that, like the vast majority of Americans, most of the couples polled physically consummated their relationships before the wedding.)

Having your bonded relationship recognized by your community is deeply important to most people. And yet American conservatives refuse to allow marriage to all consenting adults who desire it.

What else do people need to be sexually happy?

They need to have the means to prevent disease and pregnancy, and they need to know how to employ these means properly.

They need to be able to look after their health, and that of any children they might have, without having the fear of bankruptcy hanging over their heads.

They need the tools to be able to make informed choices about their sexual lives, which means they need to understand what their bodies do, and to have a basic education concerning sexuality and consent.

They need these things whether they're rich or poor, male or female, straight, gay, or bisexual. Young people need these things whether their parents are tight-lipped and disapproving, knowledgeable and approachable, or well-intentioned but ignorant.

Sure, I can believe conservatives want happiness for people -- but only for people who are just like themselves.

Not so fast, Steve.

First of all, the 2 to 6 statistic is very likely real. I don't feel like giving you a statistics lesson on why this is the case, but the quick run-down is as follows:
*With 3,500 adults surveyed, not all Americans, there is no closed sample pool, which is a requirement for the 1-1 match-up
*Median, mean, and mode. All of those are "average."
*Even if you use the mean, which you are presuming was used, you still throw out outliers. I am very willing to bet that most women in the survey had 0-3 partners, while a handful had dozens.
*One word: prostitution. How many men counted sex with prostitutes, who were uncounted in the survey (presumably)?
*Another word: rape. Wold a woman count date rape as a sex partner? (Personally, I hope not - to me, that's rape and not sex.) Would a man? Probably.

You know that people aren't single for a large number of years in all parts of the country, right? I have friends who married in their teens or early twenties. I have friends who married the only man they've ever slept with.

When you consider that single people don't have someone to be having sex with a lot of the time it's not a shock that couples in relationships are having more sex and more orgasms
Again, not so fast! It's not total number of orgasms - it's orgasms per sexual act. So "more" sex doesn't matter - if a married woman has sex 150 times a year, she'll have to have 150 orgasms to check the "each and every time" box. That's the same for a woman who has exactly one one-night stand, one orgasm, and checks the box.

It's be about the only way for them to average 2 partners and still have regular sex... and seems an odd definition of 'single'.

As opposed to what - "married"? Npw you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Kenya,

One can be
conservative and also be pro responsibe sex ed.....

Care to explain? I mean, last time I checked, American schools are doing a crappy job of teaching academics. Am I supposed to believe that kids ought to be forced to listen to sex ed, against their parent's wishes? (The First Circuit held that parents don't have a right to be forewarned about sex ed classes and to remove their children.)

I simply do not believe that it is the proper role of the State to teach kids about sexuality. While it may be convenient or give liberals the warm fuzzies, it's not the role of the government to talk to kids about sex.

Silly question number two: if the right-wingers are so intent on ensuring that women don't enjoy sex, then why is it that married, Bible-belt, Protestant women are the most likely to orgasm, each and every time?

Because, the greater the stigma you attach to being sexually experienced and knowledgeable, the lower the likelihood that you actually know what an orgasm feels like.

And before we start idealising marriage, what of the studies that show that, while married men are less likely to experience physical and mental illness than their single counterparts, the exact opposite is true of married vs. single women?

First of all, the 2 to 6 statistic. People lying about sex on surveys is nothing new. If the sample size is too small to get the averages to be the same (and the mean is the only sensible average in this case) or even remotely similar, even accounting for prostitution and rape as you suggest would not even begin to explain a three fold difference in results, the how do we expect it to be big enough to give meaningful results when comparing smaller sub-sets of the groups surveyed? If the survey is in fact big enough to give meaningful results when comparing smaller subsets of the survey then this would heavily indicate that people are lying heavily about even the most basic questions given the two largest sub-sets are in total disagreement with each other over a number that should closely match.

Incidently - another point - you seem to be grouping "married" and "protestent" as being "conservative" - which is a bit of a stretch. With regards to this survey I wonder how they judged "protestant", there are a lot of non practicing protestants who are Liberals who given the choice between 'none' and 'protestant' would tick the 'protestant' box.

"As opposed to what - "married"? Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel."

Would you describe someone who is with a partner for several years as being "single"?

"1. It demonstrates that people clearly lie on surveys. It is impossible for men to average 6 partners in their lifetimes and women to average 2."

Not at all. Maybe on average, two guys are having sex with the same six women, i.e., guys get around, even if women behave more conservatively. Or the survey sample was not so random or representative.

Also, according to the TIME article on the report, "watching partner undress" = "sex act"? WTF. Maybe guys watch their partners undress more often than women care to watch their men.