I recently (well, a few years ago) went through sex education in schools. They don't really teach you sex, as much as why you shouldn't have sex. Even when they're teaching contraception, the consistent emphasis on only x% effective really cuts out student interest. It's almost like saying, "yeah we have a method or preventing HIV transmission, but it doesn't really work." While it might seem like a good idea at first, I found it to quickly invoke the I'm not listening anymore response.
Next, is the issue of effectiveness. Personally, I've been shown way so many gross images of venereal diseases, that I I won't even touch without knowing I have protection. Unfortunately, this doesn't follow through for a lot of other kids who went through the same education as I did. "I was drunk", "we didn't have any", "it doesn't feel as good", and "it's too much work" are all (yes I know it's sad) frequently cited responses among people I know.
Thirdly, and most troublesome of all, some people don't care that they're spreading diseases. I recently found out someone I knew was receiving treatment for Hep B. I asked her when she found out, believing this to be a recent development. "I've had it all my life," she responds. I walked out of the room. She's quite active, and her disdain for condoms is legendary. How anyone can exhibit that kind of carelessness is honestly, beyond me.
Rather than force education, I feel we might have to take a completely different approach. Teaching is great, but it doesn't work when kids don't want to listen or don't care. Perhaps we need to stress the why here, rather than the how.
Lastly - I know this is really aside the point of this article, but schools should probably also teach how to have sex properly. Not using condoms, but common erogenous zones, sensing feedback, appropriate pressure, etc. It's kind of sad that we learn all these things by exploration, again and again, generation after generation. I think it's about time we standardized it. Everyone needs to (well, almost everyone) have sex one day, anyway. Might as well at least have fun.
She actually did disclose it to the OP. So I don't see the problem. He just doesn't like the idea of people with Hep B having sex, I suspect. But as per the facts we have, it sounds to me like she's doing the right thing.
The reason I asked is because I've had knowingly had unprotected sex with a Heb B positive person. I had had a successful vaccination (meaning the antibodies were detectable in my blood) and consequently never got infected from him.
He disclosed this to me before we had sex. I told him "no big deal" because I had the antibodies. So just because the girl is having unprotected sex and hep B positive doesn't mean she's irresponsible, as long as her partners have had a successful vaccination.
(It is important to verify that your vaccination "took" however, before having sex with a hep B pos person.)
The school gives this guy a great amount of latitude and it's great that they do because he's truly knowledgeable, does a lot of research and helps his students a lot.
But, for every one of him, there are many others that, given the same latitude, will instead foist their pre-conceived ideas on students and insist that their view of sexual life, however either perverted or abnormally repressive it may be, is the way to go.
It's a hard problem with no easy solution because it involves a great many number of humans.
I really wish all sex-ed could be as great as this school has but I feel like a pessimist when I say that if that amount of latitude was given to every teacher that there would be a regular and constant amount of disasters created.
(Though I do agree that we can do way way better than our current sex-ed curriculum which is absolutely abysmal.. we need something that will at the very least address and provide some counter-points to the vast amounts of hardcore pornography now easily accessible.)
> "will instead foist their pre-conceived ideas on students
and insist that their view of sexual life, however either
perverted or abnormally repressive it may be, is the way
to go"
And he's not? Or is it that you agree with his moral stance that you see it that way?
This particular instructor is an advocate for his standards, whether he intends to or not. He's gay, and according to the article approves of pretty much everyone being sexually active at 17 if they wish.
There are moral and emotional reasons to disagree with these, and I'm disappointed that the article doesn't highlight or speak approvingly of "waiting" or abstinence. To even suggest such things in this context makes one a pariah.
Yes, I agree abstinence-only education in public schools doesn't seem as effective as other curricular plans, particularly as it's usually not complemented by abstinence-only reinforcement at home. I'm pleased that he can discuss relationships, communication, and encourages students to think both long term and of those other than themselves. But all of that doesn't mean he's not advocating some moral stance.
I don't really see what specific stances he's taking in the article. The thing he seems to do and do well (from reading the article) is have open conversations about everything and let the kids have open dialogue in a controlled fashion.
He indicated that he may not have issues with 17 year olds having a healthy active sexual life but he wasn't preaching that they definitely should be.
Yes ... part of my point is our collective social morality is formed by whether (and which ones and how many) people agree with a particular philosophy. It's reflected in research on the stages of moral development (see, e.g., Kohlberg).
One can't help but advocate for things they believe in by the way they live their life. (As a corollary, trying to have independent journalists is an impossible ideal; compare NY Times and Washington Post.) Trying to suggest he's not advocating his view of morality is silly, just as someone suggesting I don't advocate for mine would be, even should I attempt to be even-handed.
But, for every one of him, there are many others that, given the same latitude, will instead foist their pre-conceived ideas on students and insist that their view of sexual life, however either perverted or abnormally repressive it may be, is the way to go.
Couldn't you replace "sexual life" with almost any other subject though? It's the same with all subjects that there are good and bad teachers and each one, the good and the bad, are going to influence their students.
Once we get into that discussion it's more about being able to find and retain the good teachers and being able to remove the inadequate one's which, I grant you, in the United States is definitely very hard to do.
I find myself somewhat agreeing with the general sentiment of your final paragraph. But "I think it's about time we standardized it" is really rubbing me the wrong way (honestly, not pun initially intended). Either you don't mean that how it sounds or you are massively underestimating the variety of sexual activities that humans engage in and enjoy.
Just with the examples you give (common erogenous zones, sensing feedback, appropriate pressure) there are massive differences between what one person might find enjoyable compared to another. Can you expand on what you would have in mind?
The fully generalizable things you can teach would be communication, consent, and respect. But really, a standardized curriculum for sex sounds kind of weird. People would think they're dirty perverts for coming up with something that isn't in the standardized curriculum.
I think it's less about pure education and more about a safe, controlled environment to have open and honest communication.
As you suggest it's a very complex subject with many questions having no generally applicable answers. However, being able to discuss such things between the sexes and with some mature guidance can remove a lot of humility and hopefully provide at least a little enlightenment.
That being said, I'm not entirely sure where this discussion should take place (i.e. is school the right place, I don't know).
Very much agreed. But I also think we're looking at the problem in a somewhat more isolated context than would be required to effect true improvement. By which I mean, if we are to achieve a safe, controlled environment to have open and honest communication about sex that includes some mature guidance, then a more systemic change in English speaking society as a whole is required. So rather than changes being effected at school, or at home, or somewhere else, I would suggest that change is needed at school and at home and in a wider sense across society.
Looking to existing attitudes and models in Europe might be a good starting point. Because what they do (especially the Scandinavians) works a hell of a lot better than what we do ("we" being English speaking people in general terms).
The original link of this thread, which talks about the sex ed classes of a Mr Al Vernacchio, does strike me as a pretty detailed example of the kind of model that some European countries are practicing.
And I'll finish with another example from my own experience that illustrates the wider difference in attitude that I alluded to: I visited Germany about 6 or so years ago. One day we went to an area near Potsdam, I think it was Wannsee. This area has a lot of beautiful old architecture and park land and people can swim in some of these parks because they back onto a lake but this area is still very much a developed part of the Berlin/Potsdam area.
We went there with a small group of people, got lake-side and people started taking their clothes off to swim naked in the lake. This was a group of male and female people, almost none of which were in any kind of intimate relationship with each other. And in the middle of the day, with streets nearby and many people walking around the park and surrounding area. It wasn't specifically designated as a nude swimming area, it was just a swimming area and some people swam nude, some didn't and neither caused any issues for anyone.
This is one example that I noticed while in Europe but there were more of these situations where nudity or sex were treated in just a very mature and reasonable way. Not as something that should be shunned and feared out of some kind of puritan obsession with the subject; which in its self I think is fuelled by deeply unsatisfied sexual desires.
My partner of nearly 10 years is German and while I do feel that I've had a fairly long history of exposure to their culture through her, nor can I say that I am able to speak authoritatively on all Germans or all stratas of their culture. Certainly Germany and wider Europe are not made up of people who have an entirely homogenous attitude towards sexuality. And as you would of course know, it's not like you can just walk naked through any street in Berlin without causing a fuss. But having lived in Germany, I'm sure you understand the subtle difference in the European attitude that I'm trying to illustrate.
I think you're putting the horse before the cart. I'm pretty sceptical that anyone is 'fundamentally wired' any differently from anyone else. We're all products of our society and even if a certain set of social conventions are deeply baked into the history of a particular culture, that shouldn't mean that said social conventions should be mistaken for some form of innate attribute or that they cannot be re-examined if they are found to be detrimental. I'm not implying that this is necessarily what you meant, I'm just pointing out that its a slippery slope from 'fundamentally wired for X' to 'can't change X'.
Addressing your last point--I don't think that would really be all that effective. It's like teaching a driving course without getting in a car. The best you can really do is go over the basic safety rules.
I recently (well, a few years ago) went through functional programming in schools. They don't really teach you functional programming, as much as why you shouldn't program imperatively. Even when they're teaching functional programming, the consistent emphasis on only x% effective really cuts out student interest. It's almost like saying, "yeah we have a method for preventing destructive assignment, but it doesn't really work." While it might seem like a good idea at first, I found it to quickly invoke the I'm not listening anymore response.
Next, is the issue of effectiveness. Personally, I've been shown way so many gross images of imperative spaghetti code, that I won't even open vim without knowing I have scala. Unfortunately, this doesn't follow through for a lot of other kids who went through the same education as I did. "I love ruby", "what about python", "it doesn't feel as good as C++", and "it's just too much work" are all (yes I know it's sad) frequently cited responses among people I know.
Thirdly, and most troublesome of all, some people don't care that they're spreading nasty interoperability impedance mismatching in their non-scalaz libraries since they haven't realized that variance annotations are not worth their use in the context of Scala’s partial support for Hindley Milner type-inferencing.
. I recently found out someone I knew was receiving treatment for coding in C. I asked her when she found out, believing this to be a recent development. "I've been coding in C all my life," she responds. I walked out of the room. She's quite active in the C community, and her disdain for scalaz is legendary. How anyone can exhibit that kind of carelessness is honestly, beyond me.
Rather than force Scalaz, I feel we might have to take a completely different approach. Scala is great, but it doesn't work when kids don't want to listen or don't care. Perhaps we need to stress the why here, rather than the how.Why fmap, contramap and xmap are (far) superior alternatives to annotated variances and covariances on map, for example.[2]
Lastly - I know this is really aside the point of this article, but Scala should probably also teach how to properly code using pure functional constructs. Not using Higher Kinded types in favor of Pimped Types, encoding algebraic structures of category theory, understanding type theory, (truly understanding, for real ) the benefits of static program verification, attempting a high (read: extremely high) degree of abstraction in the context of Scala’s limited laziness abilities, etc.
It's kind of sad that we learn all these things by exploration, again and again, generation after generation. I think it's about time we standardized it. Everyone needs to (well, almost everyone) use KleisliMA and FingerTrees one day, anyway. Lets just go one step further and relocate L3 programmers who don't understand (read:truly understand) applicative predictor monads, writer transformers lifted into a pointed functors and the Yoneda Lemma to a desert island in the Carribean and carpet bomb said island with B-32s until the last imperative mofo is subsumed by the dust. A Martin L3 is also known as Beginner Haskell Programmer. Might as well aim higher than Martin.
How to tackle this well is a difficult question, so it's interesting to see someone trying. I think sex tends to fall along with personal finance into the category of things most people end up doing without learning anything about it first, or at least, not learning very well. About the most you can hope for in either case is a few don't-do-this rules of thumb being taught in school or via public-service ads, like "use a condom" and "don't rack up huge credit-card debts".
I assume it'd work differently for different students, but for a subject some people find awkward, non-classroom sources of information might also be useful to think about. The internet makes it so that few people are really strictly unable to access a huge range of information. But is the information out there good and well organized? Wikipedia, as often, is probably the least-bad high-profile thing out there, but I'm not sure that Wikipedia on sex-related topics is actually that helpful for a teenager; it somehow has an odd focus, half pop culture and half clinical.
It seems unwise to promote casual sex without fully understanding the consequences. And I don't speak of the overblown disease fears, but the far more serious effects of emotional desensitization. Sex elicits a chemical response much like cocaine or heroin, and is also prone to the build up of tolerance. Thus, casual sex with multiple partners leads to a severely diminished capacity for pair bonding and emotional fulfilment. It is no coincidence that the state of marriage in western nations is in shambles, while citizens report high levels of unhappiness as demonstrated by massively increasing antidepressant consumption [0].
Promoting a rapid change from tradition should be done so cautiously, for Occam's Razor suggests that the majority of the world's civilizations evolved strict marital practices (celibacy till marriage and fidelity thereafter) for good reason [1].
Research tends to show that "celibacy until marriage and fidelity thereafter" tends to be more of a lie that people all agree to believe rather than the truth. Pre-marital shenanigans and extra-marital affairs are extremely common, the latter especially among higher-status men, who in many other cultures are openly polygamous.
There are a number of things that are cultural universals. Every culture has music, or ritualistically disposes of their dead, or has taboos against murder. Monogamy and pre-marital celibacy are not two of these.
I wouldn't call it "a lie that people agree to believe," I'd call it an ideal that people may or may not live up to. All cultures have ideals, and they have a strong impact on the direction of a society even if people don't live up to them 100%. It's not hard to see the positive impact of monogamistic ideals when it comes to things like family formation, which is one of the cornerstones of society as we know it.
Social norms aren't arbitrary, even if they aren't human universals -- you'll notice that matriarchal, low-paternal investment cultures never seem to get off the ground. All of the most successful cultures have broad similarities in regards to their attitudes towards sex, even if there are some differences. Such is the extent of the impact of sexual culture on the structure of the larger society.
In less affluent times, when people's lives depended on it, it was obvious that family formation was more important than recreational sex. Even today, with the importance of the family being somewhat masked by the expanded presence of larger-scale institutions like the state, it remains a crucial element of a truly healthy society.
Human beings are adaptable, and in modern times we can probably afford a more permissive sexual culture. Nevertheless, I think we'd be profoundly better off if people were more aware of the value of sexual restraint. Hedonism should not be our only guiding principle.
These social norms were formed when people didn't have the wealth or the technology for effective birth control. Once that happened, the sexual revolution happened. Cultures are self-modifying based upon changing conditions.
>Cultures are self-modifying based upon changing conditions.
Yes, and like biological evolution, cultural evolution has no foresight. Birth control may have facilitated these cultural changes by removing the most obvious downside to promiscuous sex, but this has next to nothing to do with my argument. The point is that such radical changes in a culture can have unforeseen consequences for our psychology and society.
I don't pretend to know what the "ideal" sexual culture for our time would be, but people should be more critical of the all-accepting, hyper-individualistic direction we seem to be going in.
> The point is that such radical changes in a culture can have unforeseen consequences for our psychology and society.
The old order had unseen consequences for our psychology and society too. The strong taboo against divorce enabled a lot of domestic violence and unhappy marriages, gays faced a lot of serious problems, and infidelity was rampant. Sexual repression itself has psychological consequences. We're still seeing the knock-on effects of this today.
You're making a cultural evolution argument as well, and my counterargument is that cultural evolution doesn't capture everything that we want to have in our society. Societies can function with the repression of women and minorities, with domestic violence, with marital infidelity. But all things considered, wouldn't we rather live in a society that functioned without those things, and with more satisfying sex to boot?
Furthermore, with the modern state of technology, the old order is probably unworkable anyway, even from the standpoint of cultural evolution. The old order was patriarchial and oppressive to women. It was always wrong, but in a time when women didn't work outside the home it was at least sustainable. In our modern economy that's no longer the case.
I don't deny that past eras took their hidden psychological tolls as well -- for example, "the problem that has no name" that Betty Friedan wrote about. However, the fact that women's self-reported happiness levels have declined considerably between then and now seems to indicate that our own time may be worse for them in the aggregate. I also question the assumption that all those extra marriages ensured by the non-acceptance of divorce were necessarily unhappy. I've never heard anything about domestic violence or infidelity being more common back then (unlike, say, prostitution, which has experienced a precipitous decline due to the easy availability of casual sex).
Whether or not the old order is unworkable today depends on what you mean by the old order. The culturally-enforced economic dependence of women on men probably would be unworkable, but that's not what I'm arguing for. I just think that people would be happier in a society more oriented towards family formation than our current one. We do have some control over things like this, and part of that control comes in the form of the values we choose to teach to our children -- which, as you may recall, is what this thread's original comment was about.
I'm not saying that the past was better than the present or that I'd like to return to it. I do think that we should stop seeing the past as irredeemably tainted by its oppression of women and minorities (or whatever) and assuming that it has nothing to teach us. All I'm doing is criticizing our present time and its prevailing values.
(This is getting rather long and tangential. Would you be interested in continuing it via email? My address is in my HN profile.)
> women's self-reported happiness levels
There's that word, "self-reported". There are a lot of pitfalls to self-reported data, and many of them apply here. Women used to be openly discouraged from displaying negative emotion because it would make them unattractive, or bad wives.
Arguing in the alternative, it's also inconsistent that you mention this point in the first place, because of your earlier criticisms of "hedonism". Career-focused today might be lead busier, more stressful lives compared to the lives of housewives, which is a loss for hedonism and perhaps a loss for "self-reported happiness", but doesn't it fulfill higher virtues?
> I also question the assumption that all those extra marriages ensured by the non-acceptance of divorce were necessarily unhappy.
I don't think they were necessarily unhappy either, but there was simply no good, acceptable outlet for the ones that were abusive or unhappy.
> The culturally-enforced economic dependence of women on men probably would be unworkable, but that's not what I'm arguing for.
One of the reasons women can have careers is because they can delay marriage, and one of the reasons women can delay marriage is because there are socially acceptable sexual outlets other than marriage.
> I just think that people would be happier in a society more oriented towards family formation than our current one.
Among people I've known, the ones who were having premarital sex between 16 and 25 still got married and had kids between 21 and 30. Having kids seems to be something people naturally want--you don't have to trick them into it by trying to withhold sex from them.
I guess you could add social pressure for people to have kids, so people who didn't actually want kids felt forced into having them anyway. But I've known people who were raised by parents who didn't actually want kids, and they seem more adamant than me that people shouldn't have kids unless they really want them. That's what it's really about--personal freedom.
> All I'm doing is criticizing our present time and its prevailing values.
No, see, you're criticizing it from the perspective of the past, and you are saying the past was better at least in some ways if not in others. I'm trying to show that the "bad" things about the past--the things we can agree were bad--are intricately linked with what you think are the "good" parts. And I'm criticizing our present time and its prevailing values too, but from the perspective of a possible future where everyone is perfectly okay with consenting adults safely doing whatever they want with each other.
I dispute the idea that marriage stability in and of itself is a metric we should seek to maximize. Some marriages should end in divorce.
All that you're really doing is showing that one form of social conservatism is correlated to another form of social conservatism. That doesn't actually illustrate anything.
Also, it's not even a correlation between orthogonal variables. Presumably, if you're already in a stable marriage for a longer period of time, there was less time for you to have premarital sex in the first place.
Aside from the linguistic nitpicking, anyone who cites all the world's agreement on matters of sex and morality related to marriage hasn't studied any history, or, for that matter, the actual state of the present-day world.
The saddest thing is that you seem to be serious about this, even trying to make it 'legit' or somewhat sensible by invoking Occam's Razor.
No facts (a link to general antidepressant consumption and a random blog w/ exactly three posts). Everyone move along, someone just posted a (traditional, right-winged/conservative) private opinion on life and family values with a healthy dose of conspiracy FUD (marriage .. shambles .. unhappiness .. antidepressant).
An ad hominem attack with a dash of appeal to authority...enlightening. If you require proof of sexuality's impact on human behavior, I recommend reviewing the extant literature. Here are some examples:
Some soap: Everything you've seen or read about sex is false. It is an (growing) experience between the ones who have sex which can not be learned from a book or video.
I disagree. You can always better yourself in everything. Learning from books, videos and other sources works in every other field, why should it not in sex?
Its the same as with everthing else on the internet (and of the internet for that matter) you have to always think critically, even if the content is wrong you can still learn. If you listen to Fox News for example you can learn alot about what technics the media uses, because Fox uses them totally obviously.
I'm sure it doesn't apply to you but that sounds like it was written by someone who never really had sex all that often. "The Joy of Sex" became so popular (in an era in which sex was widely seen as a leisure pursuit and before the scares over HIV) because many people actually did need to be told what to do. It concentrated on the emotional as well as the physical aspects.
Poor analogy time: owning a car does not make you an instinctive driver, suggesting you just keep taking it round the block until you figure it out is the kind of thing that only a non-driver would say.
GP's point is that the best advice on how to please someone comes from that person, no book can give complete insight into the way their body works.
To torture your analogy some more, imagine a car capable of explaining to you how to drive/maintain it perfectly. Like a less whiny KITT. Would it not make sense to ask the car rather than to pore over generic car manuals?
Centuries of everything from sensual, artful to downright obscene and even religious pornography, guidelines, texts and other scriptures, statues, china and other works of art beg to differ.
Oh please just remove this link... eric is negatively legendary for obscenely proposing to pretty much any and all females wherever he shows up as if he was a combination of Appollo and Pan and god's gift to women.
I still feel a twinge of envy many years later -- I'm twice as old as some of these kids and at this point have had plenty of experience.
An absolute no-sex-before-marriage upbringing led me to completely bind up and lock away a lot of urges I had as a teenager, to the point that I didn't really want to explore sexual feelings and experiences with someone: I knew what I wanted and just didn't want to deal with the impossibility of it all. I didn't really date or pursue anyone for this reason, to the chagrin of people who were attracted to me (and to whom I was secretly attracted, too).
I don't think that's a great way to feel, and yah I still feel envy when I hear from friends about their early experiences, especially when they are free of hangups and all about two people learning about each other and having fun.
Since I have no idea why you haven't had sex -- you sound like you want it -- I can't offer any advice other than this: Be honest with yourself, comfortable with yourself, and make friends and acquaintances. Be genuinely interested in those people, their lives, needs, and desires. Be open about yours. Have real-world relationships, participate in real-world activities. You're not going to get any by sitting at home alone stewing.
"Sex is natural, sex is good; not everybody does it, but everybody should," cheezy but true words by George Michael.
While the article starts out mentioning the students who have lots of sex, later on it explains that those were not actually the majority, and there even were some virgins in the course. And even the ones having lots of sex were also troubled by it.
Reading stuff about colleges in the US, sometimes it seems as if all those kids do is fornicate. I suspect the reality looks quite different.
Just saying that part of the envy might be directed towards a fantasy that never existed. But anyway, I know how you feel...
What stops you from having sex now (assuming you are out of high school)?
An early part of the article said there was one. In my mind, neither the author nor the instructor he wrote about seemed approving of the choice, and went to lengths to cast it as non-normative. A decision for abstinence before marriage should be encouraged, not demanded, and not based on scare tactics. There are more people making that choice than the article suggests.
I thought the virgins from the article were simply people who never had sex before, not abstinence advocates. I wholeheartedly disagree with your abstinence ideology, but I don't think HN is the place to discuss that.
If 70% of all American teenagers have had sex by the time they are 19, I'm not at all surprised virginity is not the norm in a open no-holds-barred class on sexuality. The class targets is audience, as it should.
towards those getting laid.. I know it's stupid, but I think in the past part of it arose from just knowing that they were doing it, and I as a geek was not going to get it.
I strongly thought in the past that because I was nerdy, I was automatically despised by girls. I know that's not completely true now, but there is a little bit of truth to it.
But to reiterate, I think what gave me this feeling, was thinking that girls hated me coz I was a nerd, etc.
Such feelings are natural. It used to bother me a lot too that others were getting laid, and I wasn't. Then, after some trial-and-error, I was able to "crack" the womens' code, in the sense that I was able to understand where they were coming from, and be very comfortable around them. That led to the pendulum swinging (pardon the pun) to the other extreme: I was getting more tail than any of the jocks I knew. It helped that I got into a better shape, dressed better and was able to hold a conversation with a woman without stuttering.
Just like any other complex system, it takes time and effort to figure out women (and I say this with all the respect to women, from a male nerd's viewpoint). It also involves a lot of failure and disappointment in the beginning; but one does (and must) get used to that in order to make progress. Don't let rejection dampen your enthusiasm.
I know it sounds bad, but it is the truth: as very rational people, we find it a bit hard to understand women. And I say this as a person who has many more close women friends than guy friends!
I remember that feeling well. Took years to shake even after the first time.
Without writing a novel on the subject, it helps to take a perspective lifted from evolutionary biology, and embrace your inner beast. It's possible to be too much of a nice guy.
This is a classic nerd's reductionist view of interpersonal interaction. You are not either a nice guy or a bad boy. Your personality has many more degrees of freedom than this. If it doesn't, then that may in fact be your problem.
I don't think that's the right way to go. I think it's better to _change_ yourself in such a way you are more comfortable in talking/interacting with women. AND most importantly to _stop_ thinking they'll hate you just coz your a nerd.
Because there's an interesting effect in play here (this applies to both men/women): if you think other people don't like you, then the way you act towards will possibly cause that to be reality. On the other hand if you actually take an interest in others and try to get to know them, even the ones who were initially repulsed by you will have change of mind.
I've been reading a book called "Falling in love: Why we choose the lovers we do". It's a fascinating book, and it mentions how studies have been done to show that when people believe that other people like them, they behave in a way that actually makes other people like them.
And, as the old saying goes (maybe it's not old, but I've seen it many times), the best way to be loved by people is to love people.
I don't know how old you are, but be prepared to battle this for much of your life. At 32, I would have hoped to excise the latent misogyny and distrust of former jocks that my adolescent experiences burned into me, but it has not abated. I expect this to last a lifetime, and my only defense is to continue working on discarding cached thoughts( per the LessWrong folks )whenever they are recognized.
The real kicker is that if you have a successful startup exit, it gets much worse. My own cynicism grew enormously after witnessing the dramatic change that money brought into women's attitude toward me. The day you realize a woman is sleeping with you merely as a chore to gain access to resources - well, let's just say that's not a very good day.
>My own cynicism grew enormously after witnessing the dramatic change that money brought into women's attitude toward me.
This isn't necessarily because these women are after your money, though I'm sure that's true for some of them. The other factor is that your success in business is evidence of your innate qualities, which makes women more attracted to you.
The day you realize a woman is sleeping with you merely as a chore to gain access to resources - well, let's just say that's not a very good day.
It only makes sense that women are genetically programmed to seek males who can be good providers for their children. You are to be complimented for your success. You must take measures (i.e., condoms, etc.) to ensure you are not entrapped however.
If you desire offspring, you should seek a woman who will not pursue sex outside your relationship. A woman who falls in love with you is, of course, most suitable. But make no mistake, your success will enhance your attractiveness to any women seeking a mate, even one who falls in love with you.
I am sorry for what you had to go through, I can relate in a way. I will recommend the same I recommended to winter_blue: consider (behavior) therapy and work through whatever pain and/or toxic shame might be left in you from the past.
And on gold-digging women: they should be sufficiently easy to spot and just decide whether the sleeping-with-you and her presence is worth it to you or not. There are also great girls out there who are having just as much a hard time with some dumb male partner who would be happy to be with someone honest and hard working. Don't give up and more importantly, work through whatever pains you from the past.
Oh heavens no, I don't even aspire to match half of the social and manipulative skills women seem to be so born with. One thing I think I have figured out is weighing actions vs. words. And the real gold-diggers usually reveal themselves rather quickly because it is only efficient for them to get things to "being paid" mode as soon as possible. But it will take (lots of) reflective thinking to see it for what it is, that is true.
Honestly, consider taking (behavior) therapy if any of this toxic shame is left inside of you now! Work through this.
Oh and, chances are you are a hacker with a good amount of money at your disposal. Nothing wrong with making up for lost experiences in the here and now. If you feel you missed out, there are gorgeous escorts way more lovely than those dumb girls in high school you lusted after and it might just help you polish your confidence a bit. It is up to you if you want to go down that road and try it but hey, more power to you if you do and come to realize that while sex is great, it isn't THAT important once you start having it.
Finding a loving and honest, trustworthy partner will be so much more rewarding.
It's not a good feeling to have. Don't let it bother you. Nothing good ever comes out of it.
It automatically made me dislike people who've had sex; and until a couple of years, every single friend I had (in college) was a virgin. (I just wouldn't get close to a non-virgin, because of the feeling of hatred his/her's non-virginity brought.)
In any case, I would say try to get rid of the feeling as much as possible. At the same time - even though it may be hard; try to genuinely care about others and love others. Try to follow this advice:
"Be genuinely interested in those people, their lives, needs, and desires. Be open about yours. Have real-world relationships, participate in real-world activities."
You'll be happier person not having these feelings and having true relationships with others.
True happiness comes from love & friendship (not just romantic love.) Having real friendships and being able to serve others and make others happy is what makes men truly happy.
And accept people for who they are; even if they have had stuff you haven't had. (On the same note, accept people who are not as "good" as you - perhaps in areas of skill, like coding, math, etc.)
What's this: "If there’s grass on the field, play ball" ?! I think you'll find the actual phrase is, "if there's grass on the wicket, let's play Cricket."
"Play ball" is a popular baseball phrase, commonly shouted by the umpire after performance of the National Anthem. In fact I would say the American-ized version is less clumsy and more poetic.
Yep, parental furor is the core issue. Schools can't really teach anything that touches on social 'value' issues, including religion, sex, gender, ethics, morality -- even the strengths & weaknesses of capitalism vs socialism are basically off-limits in K-12. It's a sad state of affairs but unlikely to change given the diversity of opinions and the structure of public education in this country (US).
I really want to sympathize with the teachers, but I do feel for the parents.
--
His mother chimed in and told me that it had been a horrible summer for them because of family issues they'd been through in July. I said I was so sorry, but I couldn't help but point out that the assignments were given in May. She quickly added that she was allowing her child some "fun time" during the summer before getting back to work in July and that it wasn't his fault the work wasn't complete.
Can you feel my pain?
--
I don't feel her pain. Summer break isn't a period for extended homework - it's a chance to develop curiosity and self-development. The skills that "No Child Left Behind" leave undeveloped (self-guided learning) can only happen during the summer period.
I was reading fairly advanced books for my age, but I don't recall ever having a strictly enforced "summer reading list". Unless this was an enriched program with the pre-requisite clearly spelled out beforehand, I don't understand the attitude shown by the teacher.
> Summer break isn't a period for extended homework - it's
a chance to develop curiosity and self-development.
Yes, but for most socio-economically challenged students, it doesn't work that way. Research out of Johns Hopkins shows "summer learning loss" is greater for certain populations, and over time leads the the "achievement gap" we see in high schools. (To the extent that comparable students after Kindergarten have a one-year learning gap by middle school.)
Schools are disparaged because of a problem that occurs as a consequence of their schedule and students' home lives. IT's natural they'd want to do something about it.
I agree, summer homework may not be the best solution, but it's what they have now; it's the current limit of what we as society allow them.
(No, I might not make my kids do homework over the summer either, as I offer them other learning experiences. But then again, I might.)
It is the same with the "theories" (WTF???) of evolution and IMHO the duty of the government to offer open, proper, modern and beneficial education (based on recent scientific facts) to its citizens should clearly overrule this wish for individual and religious preferences.
"Intelligent" design, creationism and any other religious believes should have nothing to do with governmental education just as much as governmental education should offer the best possible sex ed. If you do not want any of this, opt out of the governmental school system and follow whatever cult and/or religious doctrine you prefer... but this has to be clearly separated from the open education offered by your government to everybody.
Unless, of course, your government is a theocracy.
In its breadth, depth and frank embrace of sexuality as, what Vernacchio calls, a
“force for good” — even for teenagers — this sex-ed class may well be the only one
of its kind in the United States.
Up until this point I was thinking how much this class sounds like the "health" class I took in 8th grade. And my teacher taught barely beyond the curriculum, I sat in on another teacher's health class that probably violated all sorts of policies and went much further than this. If there were two such classes at my middle school, I can only imagine this isn't really that unique.
The article is pushing, pushing HARD, on a particular point of view: "Sex is normal and okay and should be enjoyed well before marriage and age 18".
Well, in the US in this year 2011, heavily this point of view is in actual fact DANGEROUS.
Before explaining some of the danger, notice, the article is EXTREME: To see how extreme, just look at the picture where the girl is somewhere between age 9-12, my guess would be 10 or 11. Below I will illustrate a little of why 9-12 is, here in the US in 2011, so extreme.
We need a fact of life, mostly about politics and religion and not just about sex: In the US, there is an extremely strongly held and very restrictive norm and a significant fraction of the population that believes very strongly in this norm and wants very much to have this norm ENFORCED on others and to bring serious, severe, even lifetime, public retribution to anyone who violates that norm. The norm is close to the traditional teachings of some religions, especially Roman Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, that sex should be ONLY within marriage. The idea that sex should be 'fun' between two people, like, say, playing tennis, is frowned on. That's the norm. To enforce the norm, there can be various cases of 'religious police'.
Now on to the danger: Anyone in the US who is publicly accused of violating the norm can be in very deep trouble in their job or marriage or legally.
E.g., without a doubt, one of the greatest dangers to the career of a politician is an accusation that they violated the norm. That is, there is a long list of once powerful politicians who, just because of accusations that they 'fooled around', were thrown out of office or had their political careers seriously hurt. Forgot Governor Spitzer? What about Chairman Wilbur Mills? The Little Wiener Representative Weiner? The news media is talking more about Herman Cain's (A) 999 plan or (B) he said-she said?
Outside of politics, there is a great danger of a person being accused of being a 'sexual predator' and, thus, having to 'register' for the rest of their life.
Violations of the norm can be taken more seriously than robbery or even murder. I.e., some people who follow the norm are REALLY 'uptight' about sex.
There are so many people who believe strongly in the norm, especially in Texas and the Bible Belt, that the Republicans toss out little hints about abstinence-only sex education, leaving sex education to the parents and holding down any role in sex education in the schools, repealing Roe v. Wade, etc. and get some significant election advantage.
Any suggestion or hint of improper behavior about sex at work can result in law suits, being fired, etc.
One of the crimes taken most seriously is rape, but, if sex were just like a game of tennis, then why lock people up for years because of rape? Because according to the norm, sex is very much NOT just like a game of tennis.
If the boy is in college and the girl in high school, then have to do some careful calculations about their birth dates and state laws to decide if the boy should be locked up.
Heck, the people with the norms don't even like standard sex within marriage: E.g., why in the US has there been a long tradition of June brides? Because it was long standard that a girl would get married in her first June after high school graduation. Then there was a good chance that she would be a "teen mother", married but still in her teens. But the people with the norms keep screaming about the evils of "teen pregnancy". Gee, Princess Di was a "teen mom". The norms are so UPTIGHT about sex they don't even want a married woman of 18 or 19 to be a mommy.
Heck, some of the laws enforced as desired by former US Attorney General John Ashcroft would have most of the US male population in jail -- literally. E.g., just take a picture at the beach where the picture has a girl under 18 and let a digital version of the picture get distributed at all. JAIL. According to Ashcroft, even a cartoon image would do. We're talking UPTIGHT. By the way, parents: No baby pictures!
For the case of the picture with the article, the public repercussions, especially for the boy, from any suggestion that that couple, with the girl likely well under age 13, even engaged in just some 'touching' could be horrendous. E.g., if the boy's father were a politician, then the news media could go wild for weeks.
The news media knows very well about the norms and how uptight many people in the US are and takes huge advantage to 'sell newspapers' or, now, get eyeballs for ads.
Sex outside of marriage, any touching related to sex, just talking about sex can have consequences that can ruin lives. At work, a woman can get a man fired, and his career ruined, just by complaining "He looked at me in a way that made me feel uncomfortable.".
Net, in our society, sex, nearly anything about sex, outside of marriage is DANGEROUS -- politically, legally, financially, etc.
The article is ignoring the strong norms and pushing a very 'liberal' view of sex maybe more like in, say, Sweden. At one time in the US, the age of consent was 10 -- NOT NOW. Maybe the US should return to the age of consent 10 or have something like Sweden (or maybe not), but currently that is very much NOT how the US is.
As dangerous as sex has been in the US, now with DNA testing it's much more dangerous. E.g., consider the DNA testing of the stain on the little black dress of that White House Intern during the Clinton Administration. Then consider how that stain was the 'seed' of a full impeachment process with all of the US Federal Government seriously distracted for months. Clinton was seriously throttled in what he could do as the leader of the US. We're talking SERIOUS and DANGEROUS.
Given the choice between 'computing angular velocity' and Sex Ed, your tax dollars would give a life-long benefit to the vast majority of the population if applied to the latter - and the value of people understanding the former is minuscule in comparison.
And what is so ridiculous about Female ejaculation?
I don’t see how it’s possible for mdda or you to have quantitative evidence either way. I doubt that there are any surveys or studies that include questions on all of the following: whether people can compute angular velocity, whether they know how to have sex, whether their life is a success.
I’m guessing mdda arrived at eir conclusion that understanding sex is more important than understanding how to compute angular velocity by reasoning that far more people have sex (as evidenced by children) than get jobs necessitating angular velocity calculations.
I’m not sure how useful understanding the equations for angular velocity in daily life really is, because I don’t know those equations myself. I can say, though, that I feel like I intuitively understand angular velocity well enough and that knowing the equations wouldn’t help my life much. And I would guess (based on personal experience and observation) that people have sex more often than they have to deal with something spinning around quickly.
Putting the Sex Ed classes into a broad category of 'improving people's mental health' may give quantifiable estimates of benefit[1]. The monetary benefits of regular education (most directly measurable at the university level [2]) are an order of magnitude less valuable (on a happiness-per-dollar basis).
Normally, I'm not really a fan of the 'soft' subjects (compared to the hard sciences). But giving people at least a minimum level of knowledge about something as basic to life as sex (or understanding depression, for instance) should (IMHO) be a priority.
BTW is that the past tense of the verb "know" as in "we _did_ know how to do math until we f*ed our brains out!"
Sorry, I'm just jealous because I have never met a girl who went to Friends Central School. Had I done so possibly she could have demonstrated the marvels of "female ejaculation". I'd keep my distance of course, just observing.
You and the poster you're replying to both seem to need to put female ejaculation in quotes, presumably to imply that it's some nonsense that either doesn't exist, or doesn't merit discussing. The fact that so many people reach adulthood without knowledge of even the existence of this basic biological function indicates to me the need for more education of this type. But you seem happy with your slut-shaming, so, carry on.
Like most people, I've always been fascinated by human sexuality. But unless you're over 50 years of age, I've read of and studied reports of "female ejaculation" since before you were born. There's never been any solid scientific basis for believing "female ejaculation" is anything other than involuntary urination.
Next, is the issue of effectiveness. Personally, I've been shown way so many gross images of venereal diseases, that I I won't even touch without knowing I have protection. Unfortunately, this doesn't follow through for a lot of other kids who went through the same education as I did. "I was drunk", "we didn't have any", "it doesn't feel as good", and "it's too much work" are all (yes I know it's sad) frequently cited responses among people I know.
Thirdly, and most troublesome of all, some people don't care that they're spreading diseases. I recently found out someone I knew was receiving treatment for Hep B. I asked her when she found out, believing this to be a recent development. "I've had it all my life," she responds. I walked out of the room. She's quite active, and her disdain for condoms is legendary. How anyone can exhibit that kind of carelessness is honestly, beyond me.
Rather than force education, I feel we might have to take a completely different approach. Teaching is great, but it doesn't work when kids don't want to listen or don't care. Perhaps we need to stress the why here, rather than the how.
Lastly - I know this is really aside the point of this article, but schools should probably also teach how to have sex properly. Not using condoms, but common erogenous zones, sensing feedback, appropriate pressure, etc. It's kind of sad that we learn all these things by exploration, again and again, generation after generation. I think it's about time we standardized it. Everyone needs to (well, almost everyone) have sex one day, anyway. Might as well at least have fun.