Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ironically, you're fighting against ideas that were not presented by the OP or in the comments;and, in doing so you brought up the topic that you complain about seeing.
I agree with your position, but the OP was talking about in general society.
Obviously there are edge cases (developmentally challenged people are another example) but, in general, treating sexuality as a taboo subject causes a lot of harms that are not necessary.
I'm getting ahead of the argument and laying out what I think is the reasonable position. I'm not really complaining, just want to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes being sexually open.
Some well meaning people have damaged kids because they try and push sexuality too young from mistaken notions of what it means to remove the taboos of sexuality.
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.
Some of these comments are way too straight for my gay ass to understand
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.
honestly "normalising sex" does sound silly, but i'm for shunning the shitheads.
I support her journey.
Closely.