this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
881 points (98.5% liked)

196

4767 readers
1271 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] nyamlae@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

People talking about sex is not torture. Get a grip.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Iceman@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

You are torturing me with your username. Why do you want to harm me and the rest of Lemmy?

[–] jsqribe@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago

Haha was about to say the same thing, they be riding that high horse forgetting their roots

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago

You consented to read and interact with their comments at the moment you signed up and logged in. From then on whatever happened, you chose and made it happen

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

Argumentative comments trigger me, please stop torturing me. Ask for consent before speaking in this shared space.

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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."

That's true but that's also true for any number of topics. This is a general "how/when do I talk about potentially triggering topics" issue and has nothing to do with sexual consent.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

My dude, you set up the strawman argument of speech in a conversation about sexual consent. They were just trying to explain how they're not the same thing.

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago

No. I reacted to someone claiming that hearing about sex needs the hearing parties consent, the same as sex needs consent which I don't agree with.

Talking about sex needs to be done with some caution to not upset others, like many other topics. It's different from the consent needed for engaging in sexual activities with someone.

[–] daepicgamerbro69@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

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.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

account suspended?

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

Just engagement bait from xhitter, nothing lewd but more engagement bait in her profile

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Normalise sex by having it with me

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 12 hours ago

i just have a short nine-point questionnare

[–] WiseThat@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 hours ago

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.

[–] pappabosley@lemm.ee 8 points 13 hours ago

It's almost like paedophiles would benefit from people being too ashamed to talk about sex.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] VerbFlow@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Twitter user detected, opinion disregarded

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 76 points 23 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 18 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] zedgeist@lemm.ee 4 points 12 hours ago

me too thanks

[–] meathorse@lemmy.world 17 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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!"

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

"Normal" my ass.

Go on, mention to your other male coworkers that your going to dance classes. See how that goes.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Any man worth his weight in salt knows how to dance.

It has been like this for centuries

That's just basic science

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 39 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

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".

[–] ddplf@szmer.info 41 points 23 hours ago (16 children)

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

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 14 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

This is a disgusting comment

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

I could be wrong and I apologize if so but it sounds like you are confusing children being aware or witnessing the existence of sex with them being forced or coerced into taking part. Normally when people talk about or so research about child sexual abuse they are talking about the latter and not the former, so just looking up child sexual abuse research wouldn't be sufficiently specific.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

For real. Children cannot consent. Period

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 22 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

So, may I assume you never had the potty talk? Most people are made aware of that very early in their life.

load more comments
view more: next ›