Actually runner, his comment was relativist rather than absolute. He said that your posting history is more shameful than those who have disclosed a healthier sexual outlook than yours. I agree with him, as it happens.

Nobody's talking about absolutes of shamefulness - but relative to open attitudes to sexuality yours is far more likely to evoke shame than others that have been expressed.

On topic, I think that Nina Funnell raises a very important issue when she talks not only about young people negotiating having sex, but also negotiating what kind of sex they have. There's a big difference between what used to be called 'heavy petting' and full-blown penetrative sexual intercourse. If some people confuse consent to a lift home with consent to sex, then I imagine they're even less sensitive to distinctions between the kinds of sexual activity that are OK under particular circumstances.

I agree that teenagers need to learn that there's much more to sex than the mechanics, and that such information should be available to them beyond that which they currently receive via family, school and elsewhere.

From the article:"they receive virtually no guidance on how to communicate about and negotiate the sex that they do want to have."

I was brought up with the notion that it is a woman's right to say "no" and a man's right to keep trying...

I was als brought up with the notions that "ladies don't swear", "decent men don't swear in front of ladies", "women and children first", "it is a woman's right to change her mind", "a man provides for his family" and lots of others, all to do with the cultural mores of the time (the 60s and 70s).

It is intersting to note that, largely thanks to feminism, most of those things no longer hold true in our culture today, yet there are two that persist and are pushed ever-more strongly by modern feminists, with laws being founded on the principles:
"women and children first" and "it is a woman's right to change her mind".

Now, I don't have a problem with either of those tenets, as long as there are corollaries that imply obligations for the beneficiary.

"A womans' right to change her mind" grew out of the fact that sex for a man is over in minutes, while the consequences for a woman can last decades. IOW, the responsibility implies the "right".

Today, the risk of pregnancy is almost entirely within the gift of the woman. Contraception and abortifacients have taken away the imbalance in post-coital responsibility, which has lead to the feministcreation of "woman as goddess" who has some ineluctable right to be undefiled which yet carries no responsibility to balance it.

What I'd like Nina's ethics training to include in the notion of responsibility for both genders. A girl who "prick-teases" is committing an assault just as much as a guy who "won't take no for an answer" and the one can lead easily to the other. Placing all the reponsibility on the male is not merely ethically bereft, it is not ever going to work, yet I suspect that is exactly what Nina has in mind.

Antiseptic I don't quite know where to begin with your comments. I was bought up in the same era as you with similar socialisation.

A young girl learning and discovering her own sexuality may be considered by some to be a "*rick tease" but rape or assault is a strong and unjustifiable punishment for immaturity or open sexuality. In my experience (for some men) you don't have to do much to be a *rick tease - sometimes just being pretty is enough for a small minority of men particularly under the influence of alcohol.

What a sad view you hold for your own gender. Most men I know have self control and the level of maturity to know the difference between right and wrong. For goodness sake it's not difficult to work out - rape is a criminal offence and ethically wrong. A gentleman knows the difference.

You ask Nina who sets these ethical standards for sex education yet you are quite happy to set the standard for where the line is drawn for what can only be defined as an 'incitement' of rape. Your line might be different to others - who decides in your world where rape is sometimes justifiable.

Nina
Great article. Sex education is not just about the mechanics but ideally should include discussions about ethical obligations, consent, respect and an understanding of expectations. It comes down to communication between two consenting parties.

Pelican:"you are quite happy to set the standard for where the line is drawn for what can only be defined as an 'incitement' of rape"

Huh? All i said is that the historical bases for the social mores no longer apply and that it places responsibility on both parties.

My daughter is 13 and quite attractive (even if I do say so muself). I watch her manipulating the boys with what seems a consummate skill and complete awareness of the power of her attractiveness. I can only point out to her that such power carries responsibility and hope that she doesn't end up in a situation she finds hard to extract herself from. It is only too clear that within the next couple of years her "right to say no" is going to be tested, probably to destruction. If it turns out that her decision is forced, I'll be very sad for her, but it wouldn't be a surprise.

You seem to be saying that she bears no responsibility for inciting the boys. I disagree, but that doesn't mean the boys bear no responsibility for exercising their own self-control. In the law there is the concept of "contributory negligence" and I believe it is entirely appropriate that it should be available as a mitigating defence in a rape case, since to do otherwise puts all the responsibility on the man and absolves the woman of all responsibility for her behaviour whether hormonally influenced or merely wilful

Bettina Arndt's recent research, though maybe not completely scientifically and statistically based, seems to indicate that women in long term relationship tend to not want to have sex as much as their male partners. Many husbands would agree with the findings.

Dworkin asserted that all heterosexual sex is rape, and I haven't heard too many feminists shouting her down. They may disagree with her detail, but agree with her thrust, so to speak.

The article that started this thread is about young people negotiating sex, but is there any reason to believe that sex and young people is any different to what Arndt and Dworkin have wrote about?

It seems to me that the solution is blindingly obvious. Make it a criminal offence for a male, any male, to initiate or attempt to sexual activity with a female, any female, including their wives etc.

Men should have all sexual power removed from them by law.

Make it known to men and boys that all power in heterosexual sex should be in the hands of women. Forget concepts of 'consent', and make the level of proof higher. Add to this the responsibility, on the male, to make sure that the female was not drunk or otherwise adversely affected.

Men should welcome the certainty that when sex is offered it is really what the woman wants.

Suzionline

,Runner, I never said I had any sexual experiences as a teenager '

If you read through the posts I never suggested you did. In fact it was the one you called a Gentleman who did.

I am sorry the nuns taught you a perverted view of your body. I too got brainwashed by Catholicism. They have a lot to answer for. The only thing worse is the brainwashing by secularism that having sex with multiple partners is not harmful spiritually and physically. The fruit of the secular teaching is obvious. More porn, more teenage rape, more stds more divorce just for a start. One would have to bury your head in the sand not to observe the outcome of our permissive educators. Many times people who have totally failed in their own relationships want to push their garbage on to our kids. No wonder people are leaving the secular schools in droves.

CJ

Are you absolutely sure about that?