"Socio-sexual co-habitation practices in neo-Pacific mythology"

by Prof. Reginald Bygges-Bottomley

http://byggesbottomley.blogspot.com/

Sexuality, including the way sex is had and with who and all attitudes towards sex is created by our total social environment, school, family, T.V. internet, peers and all too often sexual assault and abusive sex education too.

It is too late to say lets surround our children with positive and empowering sexual images, that is simply not how our world is. We have to create relevent images, and attract their attention to it,

The public debate has all too often been between pornography and censorship,with little public discussion about the nature of healthy public images of sexuality, only about how much sex is acceptable in terms of censorship classifications and public advertising protocols.
Football cheerleaders with costumes, and often breasts, designed for men's titillation are considered acceptible images of sexuality on T.V. as long as they keep their tops on. Similarly all the very short and intense matcho/submissive sex scenes on T.V. that might show only some thigh and shoulder, are the models of sex that our society publically promotes including to our young, who cannot but feel disapointed at first sexual experience because there was no simultaneous orgasm within 30 seconds like on t.v..

The answer, or part of it anyway, is to promote strong, free, real sexual imagery everywhere - including at school in anatomy text books, realistic condom demos, life models (proffessional adults) in art class etc - without fuss. but not just at school - everywhere, Remove the guilt element that causes so much denial and escapism, and be open about sex including redifineing censorship classifications to avoid violence and powerless sexual images rather than erotic images.

Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" would have been powerfull if she defended the beauty of her breast rather than apologising for her obscenity. Public culture is sex education - especially the music industry, good and bad alike. Janet's breast is obscene but the plethora of wiggling bums and tits that provide visual imagery for male popstars, footballers and advertisers goes to our children daily..

Information without guidlines leads to an 'anything goes' mentality.

The debate about sex education is incomplete unless the moral ingredient is thrown in the mix.

We can say it is the parents role or the school's but who decides what's best for the child moraly? We teach them how to do it but not the real consequences of their acts.

Pregnancy and/or STDs - as devastating as they may be - are the least of our long term problems... believe you me.

Society has distorted all aspects of decency and moral values in the name of freedom, political correctness, and self expression to a point where educators and parents alike can't recognise the difference between the good and the bad anymore.

Afterall if they teach our children that they came from a monkey... how can we expect them to behave as humans?

Sex education, data and advice?
Step one. Remove sex guilt make the morality apply to the behaviour not the sex or belief system. The reverse seems easy enough the Iraq killings resulting from a depraved desire for domination and involving perversion of truth and the requirements of Democracy, or the AWB scandal resulting from trying to exclude the Americans gaining access for Australian wheat
Step two. Remove the idea of God’s image being an object of obscenity
Step three. Broaden the idea of love from sex gratification which our hormones impose on us, to shared experience which may lead to a deeper relationship, but is unlikely to do so when sex carries the load for love, even if in the view of some it is the initial mechanism of pair bonding Actually the neuroscientists tell us the more desire to please the other the greater the serotonin surge = more fun!
Step four. Remove the stereo male patriearchy and replace with education about how males and females differ and how they are similar. Shakespeare’s shylock might clarify the point do not Jews bleed etc. Many of the differences are hyped and used for selling. Period pads but one example, skin blemish another
Step five Teach basic principles of health and disease transmission and that morality demands we do not transmit however high the sexual urge
Step six Parents can but usually don’t leaving it to the few books lying round, to be read under the bedclothes, widen the scope. How can sex education destroy the parental role excepting the parent wants to teach some proscribed role for sex?
Step seven Stop using sex as a means of selling if the customer wants the goods sex has little part.
Step eight Value children as humans needing security love as well as potential economic ciphers.
I feel sure there are more and admit that sex education has improved since I first learnt any some forty years ago but there is backlash growing which would place sex out with the fairies again talked of in tones of enjoyable righteous indignation!

Well, yabba-yabba-yabba...

A perusal of the good Senator's previously published forays into "How to brainwash and influence people" on this page, reveals previous writings about sex education. Clearly the woman is obsessed with it.

In my circle of friends and Internet chums, sex education is not a topic we talk about much, except when it's raised by zealous advocates like Lyn Allison here. But why is this such an overwhelming topic for her and, as the leader of the Democrats, that party too?

The argument supplied here has little to commend it to call for an official Federal Government inquiry when there are much more significant national matters to contend with. Great swathes of the population aren't beset by sexual ignorance, nor are there any ravenous pandemics of sexual diseases causing people to drop dead in the streets like flies. So why is this of such importance to her?

After all, it isn't a terribly complicated subject. Thousands of preceding populations don't seem to have had any problem with it. The world is literally crawling with humans. Obviously somebody knows what they're doing. First there's consent, then you put that bit into that bit, wiggle it around a bit, and the next thing you know - bang-bang - babies.

There are of course a couple of variations and diverse flavours, depending on individual taste, but what the heck - it isn't even as complicated as using a computer and most people can manage to do that without taking lessons. So why do we need lessons in what just comes naturally?

It's simple - we don't.

No. There's a deeper agenda to Allison's push. It just can't be as straight forward as she's presented here. No way. There's got to be more to it. There's got to be a lot more to it. And there is, isn't there Lyn? Something to do with political ideology and social engineering. Indoctrinating kids into being liberal thinkers and thinking only inside that square. Tell us all about that Lyn.

But no, she won't.

The abscence of STI's doesn't necessarily mean you have good sexual health. If you want to paint those who don't care about STI's as irrational, irresponsible or unimformed (perhaps just plain 'mad') then you are no better than those fundamentist Christian groups.

Oh, and if sexual health education doesn't (yes, you read correctly) encourage early sexual activity, then I'm opposed to it.