Sex Rule

My parents were pretty open talking about sex and positive and it. They wouldn't let us watch too violent movies as kids, but movies with nudity were ok after we were like 12. I saw Blow-up before I saw Alien haha.
I think that's a big part of why Americans treat sex as a weapon and shame it, they teach you young that it's literally less socially acceptable than murder.

The goal of the anti-LGBT relious nuts is to force people into straight marriages because that's all that matters to religious zealots.
They know that if kids practice safe sex they won't get pregnant and 'shot gun marriage' rates will go down.
They know that if kids discover their gender or sexual identity is non-cis, non-het, or non-monogamous that they might not wind up having a traditional marriage.
The know that people who only have 1 partner in their lifetime are much, much less likely to successfully leave an abusive partner, meaning there's a higher rate of divorce if people learn that having multiple partners in your life is normal and okay.
They know that kids who are educated about healthy sex and consent in relationships are less likely to go along with a child marriage or an assigned marriage.
They know that removing sex ed means more teen pregnancy, more intimate partner abuse, and more child-rape. For religious people whose only goal is to get young women into marriages, those are good things.
Example: An actual elected official in the state of Missouri defending his stance that "Parents Rights" includes the ability to marry off their kids to adults at age 12, because "Do you know any kids that have been married at age 12, I do, and guess what, they're still married". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6UJ-uCrgc
These people legitimately believe that it's morally correct to kidnap a 12 year old girl and force her to be entirely subserviant to, and dependent on, some pedophile husband who controls everything they do, because them being trapped in that awful situation means that there's one more marriage in the world.
- And then they have the nerve to lecture us about morals and drag queens!

Normalise sex by having it with me
- i just have a short nine-point questionnare

Dicks out for haram baes
- Omg i love this and stealing this from you!
- No, my dick was reserved only for Harambe.
  I will reconsider for haram Harambes tho.

It's almost like paedophiles would benefit from people being too ashamed to talk about sex.
- I think a society that is afraid to talk about sex is even more afraid to argue about what is actually a reasonable age of consent and assume whatever is the current answer is the right answer. That's generally the purpose of making people afraid to talk about a topic. Blind acceptance of a current answer.
  
  It's more than that. They're willing to go into moral panics about it and to trust those who act authoritative about it

Yes and no.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn't good for their development. That doesn't mean you can't start sex ed very early, it just means that what you teach is important.
For example, the first thing kids should be taught is the proper name of all their body parts. Call a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina. It's also important to teach things like "Let mom and dad know if someone wants to see your penis/vagina". It's also important to start the concept of consent early "You don't have to give a hug or let someone touch you if you don't want to" and extended to "Ask first before giving a hug, it's ok if someone doesn't want a hug."
As kids get older, you should absolutely be having frank conversations about what sex is. You should further have frank conversations about adults soliciting sex from kids "Jerry Seinfeld was a huge creep that raped a high school teen. That wasn't ok".
- Exposing kids to sex too early isn't good for their development.
  Can you elaborate on negative aspects of early sex ed? You only provided the positive examples, and I'm curious now
  
  I hope they reply, but personally I don't see any reason to keep children ignorant of biology besides our religions making us feel like sex is taboo and unnatural.
  Obv we can't teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren't at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
  
  I'm not the original person, but I was interested and did some digging myself, so here's what I found. I'm primarily citing this paper which seemed to cite a lot of other papers to back up its claims, compared to many others, that just utilized a single survey's results
  The paper specifically mentions education all the way down to the preschool level, whereas many other studies didn't do anything below middle-high school.
  Parents, teachers, families, neighbors and the media all have important roles in the sexual education of children and give children sexual education from birth without even noticing that they are doing so. Studies have confirmed that sexual education is a lifelong process that starts at birth.
  This is the key point: Sexual education is already effectively taught in many ways in non-educational settings, often with traditional heterosexual norms instilled. (e.g. general discussion of relationships and attraction, consent, mentions of people "trying to have a baby," things like that) This is education that the respondents themselves did not consider to exist (the majority said they believed sex education of any form did not begin early in adolescence)
  However, most of the general resources I can find around how official sex education curriculum are developed, how parents bring up these topics to their kids, and what kids are actually comfortable with discussing themselves, seems to point to an age-appropriate level of education, based on what they're likely to encounter at their given age range. (e.g. a very young child may be taught to say no if someone asks to see their privates, whereas a young adult may then be taught how to properly use various forms of contraceptives, with the context of different sex positions, because that's the age within which they're most likely to engage in those different positions.)
  It seems like the age-adjusted measures work best not because they necessarily bring harm if taught to younger individuals (although there's significantly lacking data on this specific age range and being taught a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum) but rather that it's more possible to teach it to students as they get older, because they form a larger body of existing knowledge around the topic from peers/media/family, that provides the context required to be more easily taught, and they become more comfortable discussing such topics as they grow older and have a larger existing understanding of them.
  You could try teaching an extremely comprehensive sex ed curriculum to students who are much younger, but they would probably just be too uncomfortable to actually care/pay attention/truly learn, is what the evidence I can find seems to point to.
  
  Oh I think you've added an "ed" where I didn't (and didn't intend to). Early sex ed is a positive. Early exposure to sex is not. Sex ed isn't just about sex and there are aspects of it that can (and should) be taught quite young (like I outline above).
  IE, you shouldn't be educating your 5 year old on the finer details of what a blowjob is. You should be working with them on the proper names of their genitals and the difference between good touch and bad touch. Both of those are sex ed that should eventually be taught to everyone before they become adults. However, age matters.
  As to the negative consequences of exposure to sex acts. I'll point you to a page talking about child sexual abuse. Exposure is sexual abuse (and often a precursor to rape).
  https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/interim/nature-effects-child-sexual-abuse/effects-child-sexual-abuse.html
- Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.
  Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with 'yes, probably' as the closest answer to accurate).
  If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.
  Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.
  
  If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably
  There is NO "probably" about it. We have brain scans and decades of research proving it is EXTREMELY HARMFUL to children. There are children who've been in sex cults, including in the 70s, who have been interviewed as adults regarding this (to say it profoundly negatively affected them). The most common environmental factor for DID is childhood sexual abuse, and the severity of the DID is usually correlated with the severity of the abuse. Suicide is also extremely common in children with a sexual abuse past, as is heavy substance use in children.
  Sexual abuse results in automatic behaviors like bedwetting recurrence after being potty trained, defecating in odd places or playing with feces, masturbating in front of others, dissociation, depersonalization, UTIs and other urinogenital issues... So much so that mandated reporters look for these signs in non-communicating (disabled) kids as signs they've been sexually abused to trigger investigations. No one has ever told these kids how to respond to sexual abuse - their bodies automatically do it. It is automatically harmful at a human instinctual level.
  It's 100% absolutely harmful and that has been proved by DECADES of research. I'm disgusted by that sentence, and the fact that you haven't bothered to research that but researched THIS:
  Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy.
  Why the FUCK did 14 people up vote this shit, Lemmy?
  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effects+of+sexual+abuse+on+children&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
  Go do some fucking reading, you absolute pieces of shit
  And OBVIOUSLY we should teach kids age-appropriate sex ed.
  
  This is a disgusting comment
- Ask first before giving a hug
  Yes, please do. I volunteer in a 1st grade class and I've had 3 kids just randomly hug me from behind.
- I don't know why you thought about kids when the conversation about normalizing sex came about. Are you ok? No one wants to talk to 5 year olds about sex but 15 and 16 year olds should know about it...
  
  Oh because I'm well informed enough to know that when talks about sexual normalization come up there's always going to be at least a few people that think that means normalizing it for very young children. It may seem obvious to you and I, it's not to everyone.
  Take for example, this guy:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kentler
  Normalizing sex is something that needs at least some nuanced discussion about what that means.

Guys...one important thing to know is that jacking off is super easy and free. Having sex with a partner is way much more energy intensive, gets you tired, it's expensive if you want privacy and protection etc...hotel house, marriage, kids, clothes diapers etc. And there are huge risks like marrying the wrong person because all you can think of is sex or because you got pregnant or got her pregnant. There's also the risk of STI including HIV AIDS. Its scary. So I agree let's be lewd so we can talk about it.
- This guy goons
  
  me too thanks

I can't really disagree with this. Sex and sexuality are integral parts of life and as such should be viewed as just another topic for being openly talked and taught. Perhaps if such approach came to be, maybe it would cause a shift towards true liberation.
- Sex is such a minuscule part of the majority of peoples lives. Technically "ideally" everybody would only need to have sex 1-2 times (i.e have 2 kids or more) throughout their entire lives to keep our species going.
  Most people shit themselves more often than that and there's no talk about normalizing that.
  
  I don't think we need to keep the species going. Honestly, what do humans even have to offer anymore that AI won't be able to do better at some point? Humans just aren't worth the harm they cause.
  
  This is a very weird thing to say. Have you considered that maybe it's only not important to you? Because it sure seems important to everyone else. Maybe you are asexual or something, which is totally fine, but it doesn't mean everyone else is.
  
  I think you might be asexual friend. That’s entirely okay, but you are on end of the spectrum. Some of us have an “ideal” of 1-2 times per day.
  
  So, may I assume you never had the potty talk? Most people are made aware of that very early in their life.

It could become as normal as talking about dancing:
"I went to dance class last night, only my second week so I still get nervous but it's good fun and great exercise!
They taught the newer students a new dance and we had to partner up with someone we hadn't danced with before. I got a lovely older lady and OMG - she was so agile she almost broke MY hip! I'm soo sore but going back tomorrow!"
- "Normal" my ass.
  Go on, mention to your other male coworkers that your going to dance classes. See how that goes.
  
  Any man worth his weight in salt knows how to dance.
  It has been like this for centuries
  That's just basic science

What? Humans talk about sex all the time even with all their puritanical taboos and restrictions. Do zoomers think they're the first generation to have raunchy language? Sharp difference between obscenity and regarding oneself as a complete sexual being.
- nah, there are very stuck up puritannical religious people out there.
  in my country they segregate themselves a little bit and keep to their own churches but they are out there in big numbers still.

The foundation of sex is consent. If consent (including hearing about it and discussing it) is absent, then it is torture.
And I literally mean rape and sexual assault should be considered torture, because they are and they have the same effects on the brain as classic forms of torture, and indeed both SA and rape are used as a form of torture in war. Look at the mass rapes in Ukraine. It's not for sexual gratification, it's to torture people, and they also happen to get off on it.
People have different boundaries around what they discuss, especially personal info. It's important to respect that.
If you want to experience a less inhibited place, I recommend checking out a sex club.
- People talking about sex is not torture. Get a grip.
  
  It is if it's not consensual.
  Verbal and emotional abuse are still abuse, still count as harm, and psychological abuse is so effective it is used in psychological warfare.
  Physical abuse is to physical torture, what verbal&emotional abuse are to psychological torture.
  Maybe learn a little about consent so you stop harming others. I've already given you an example of why someone may not want to discuss sex (past trauma), but also, given your personality- they may find YOU distressing to talk with and not a safe person. And by your own words, you aren't.
- The foundation of every activity people do together is consent. That doesn't mean I need the consent of everyone in the room to talk about something.
  The second paragraph has my full support, the first one seems weird to me.
  
  No, and your sex ed is incomplete if you don't understand this.
  No, not every activity is consensual. What consent is, is a deeper question and interaction than what you're making it out to be.
  Consent is the foundation of sexual education and sexual interactions.
  Freedom of speech is separate, and no, you don't "need the consent of everyone in the room to talk about something," but then you're operating outside of consent, and you may violate emotional boundaries. That includes triggering survivors who may not have expected you to violate social norms and who would have told you, "hey, I don't like talking about sex in front of people because I get panic attacks."
  These interactions, being between more than 1 person, require the input of the other people. It's not a great look to force people into accepting sex as you see it or want it.

Twitter user detected, opinion disregarded
- That's called the genetic fallacy.
- Could be pre Xwitter
  
  Still Twitter, opinion still disregarded

account suspended?

I support her journey.
Closely.

Some of these comments are way too straight for my gay ass to understand

Just engagement bait from xhitter, nothing lewd but more engagement bait in her profile
- Perhaps she is lewd outside of the internet.

Um, my parents were entirely sex talk averse, but I've always practiced safe sex (condoms, birth control, spermicide, sober consent, etc).
This isn't the only way to promote safe sex. I learned safe sex as a 5th grader in my sex ed class, and I lived in the bible belt. Let's not pretend like just b/c some ppl don't want to talk about sex that it has some sweeping effect. This is an entirely disingenuous argument.
Not to mention, some ppl have a point not to let just anybody introduce sex to their kids. Sex needs to be framed appropriately so that it's consequences (and joys) are put in proper context. She has no standards of conveying the concept of sex she lives by other than to be "lewd". I don't want kids, but I wouldn't just introduce the concept of sex using just any medium or "representative". That's dangerous.

Ok riddle me this. How can we normalize sex, if women have to walk on egg shells because any sign of platonic affection or romantical availability (in their eyes) will be met with unwanted approaches from certain parties.
- How about we also normalize men being okay with being told no?
  
  Look, I was trying to come up with some good hearted explanation for men's behavior (something about not being able to put themselves into womens shoes) because I didn't want to get downvoted to shit again, but frankly I don't care anymore.
  Because it mostly comes down to women being fucking horrible communicators and having chronic indecisiveness.
  Figure your shit out.
- well in theory if sex is normalized people won't be so weird about it.
- What if we only normalise gay sex?
  
  Nice try Italy, we're not doing ancient Rome again.
- honestly "normalising sex" does sound silly, but i'm for shunning the shitheads.

People that make posts like this clearly don't understand what "normalizing" means. It doesn't mean being blindly accepting of everything that would be the exact opposite of "normalizing". It rather means we as a society decide, what "is regarded as normal" and what "isn't regarded as normal". In that sense sex is already normalized. The overwhelming majority of all people are straight, who also mostly engage in recreational and procreational sex. And this is what is also considered the "norm".
We don't have to go out of our way to find excuses to make specific kinks and fetishes out as "normal", because they will mostly never matter to the average persons life. And it's also widely accepted as normal, that if you want to get "kinky", you do it on your own time, not everybody else's.

And yet this self satisfied intellectual stance on sex happens to be a huge fucking turn off
- idk I'm into it
  
  More power to you
- it's very clearly tongue in cheek
  
  Sorry being a kill joy is my kink
- lots of fluid transfer involved. also humor. science helps. intellectuals can be hot too, it's not just a slur.
  
  I get my rocks off by mildly annoying internet denizens so no hard feelings