What If We Admitted to Children That Sex Is Primarily About Pleasure?

[Saint Frankenstein]

prob why I didnt have kids, didnt find the right girl that I was sure it would last, didnt want to raise kids in broken homes too, I didnt know my dad either.
LOL, even have half brothers and sisters that I could pass on the street and not even know who they are.
Thats pretty screwed up.
used to dream I fell in love with a girl and turned out she was my sis :run:

My dad ran off. We haven't seen him since 1996. I have 5 half siblings (that I know of) and I'm only kinda in contact with one of them. So I know how it is. I knew right away what kind of person I didn't want to be. I would never subject a child to a broken home.

 

[kashmir]

My dad ran off. We haven't seen him since 1996. I have 5 half siblings (that I know of) and I'm only kinda in contact with one of them. So I know how it is. I knew right away what kind of person I didn't want to be. I would never subject a child to a broken home.

Maybe it why I am so vocal in this thread.
I hate being that way, people take it so personal and I dont mean it that way.

BTW< I am looking into having a half sex change, getting myself pregnant, then marrying myself, my left side will be the mom and the right side the dad :sarcastic

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Maybe it why I am so vocal in this thread.
I hate being that way, people take it so personal and I dont mean it that way.

Maybe you should take some cues from me, then. Watch and learn, grasshopper.

BTW< I am looking into having a half sex change, getting myself pregnant, then marrying myself, my left side will be the mom and the right side the dad :sarcastic

Lol!

 

[Madhuri]

That is what some seem to be saying.
That is what the title says.

Plus, I gave a pretty long speech about a ton of my friends from childhood.
Clearly those who view others as someone just to have sex with, almost always hurt the other person and leave them feeling used and in those cases, kids without a dad.

As I said, the fact is, kids almost already know sex involves pleasure.
So instead of giving them the ok to have sex just to get off, teach them respect for their own bodies and the bodies of people they care about.
They will figure out the rest.
To me teaching them that its ok just to have sex with someone they really don't care about and its all about pleasure, changes everything about how they view sex.

I don't know a married couple that will say that sex is the primary thing that keeps them together, so why teach kids that sex is to be treated as meaning nothing but pleasure?

I am completely bored, this is just a debate and in the end, people can teach their kids what ever they want.

I think people take me too seriously, as if I am trying to be a drill Sargent of life...

I agree with most of what you've said here. But I didn't interpret the OP to mean that we should teach kids to go have fun meaningless sex. I also did not interpret it to mean that sex is more important than love in a relationship. I only interpreted that people are driven to sex because of the pleasure factors. To me, love and respect are incredibly important. I strongly dislike casual and impersonal sex. But the fact remains that I only want sex in the first place because it feels good. If it didn't, I would never have it.

 

[kashmir]

I agree with most of what you've said here. But I didn't interpret the OP to mean that we should teach kids to go have fun meaningless sex. I also did not interpret it to mean that sex is more important than love in a relationship. I only interpreted that people are driven to sex because of the pleasure factors. To me, love and respect are incredibly important. I strongly dislike casual and impersonal sex. But the fact remains that I only want sex in the first place because it feels good. If it didn't, I would never have it.

I prob just over thought the whole OP, never the less, it's still important to discuss, which is why I did.

There isn't anything wrong with casual sex, if said persons like it.
I just don't believe it is something that should be taught to kids as an option, let them grow up and decide that for themselves.

I think more people like the idea of exploring their partner and making them happy, more than anything and that is what it should be about, in my world view.

Maybe you should take some cues from me, then. Watch and learn, grasshopper.

I can only be me
what do grasshoppers have to do with sex? :sarcastic:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Grasshoppers don't have anything to do with sex. Lol. That I know of...

 

[kashmir]

Grasshoppers don't have anything to do with sex. Lol. That I know of...

Grasshoppers don't have sex then?
How do they multiply?
do they exchange underwear?

 

[Nymphs]

Doing so would be an outrageous lie with little to no basis in reality. Sex is not primarily about pleasure - it is primarily about reproduction. Pleasure merely plays an encouraging part in that objective, as those species which developed pleasure-payoff were more likely to reproduce and bear offsprings. And modern hedonism doesn't even aim to have offsprings. Its kind of like not going to work and expecting to get paid.

You are walking on thin ice here - the pleasure is not there to be indulged in, it is there as a reward. That is not any kind of religious preaching, either, what you'd might expect - it is an evolutionary fact.

And to what a terrible, empty landscape would we condemn those poor souls. Sex just as a tool for pleasure? And not as the supreme method for emotional bonding, cherishing of an unique bond? Thats the true payoff of sex, or lovemaking, and it in my opinion quite fantastically transcends the realm of simple 'pleasure'. One must always emphasise the superior aspects of sex because they bring true happiness. Especially for kids we need to emphasise that, they need the best kind of advice in my opinion. They don't need to learn something that makes them completely objectify their partners, dehumanising them into mere objects of fun.

You are kidding me, right?

 

[Nymphs]

Do teens not catch on to this anyway? My Mom never told me that sex was primarily an activity partaken in for pleasure, but, my sexual pursuits were pleasure-focused anyway.

Not if they are told that it isn't. :no:

 

[Nymphs]

then there would be a lot more neglected children in the world

Hardly. If we are going to educated them as pleasure, protection goes hand and hand with that. :yes:

 

[Nymphs]

I am facepalming because I read the first 107 posts and realised that this issue is being so swept under the carpet.

Seriously, not one mention of this extremely pertinent fact ?

Make your own thread if you think it deserves consideration for a an in-depth topic.

 

[Nymphs]

What's the problem here, again?

I'm wondering that one too.

 

[Nymphs]

yes, and that is why it would be a bad idea to make pleasure the 'primary' reason for having sex.

They need to know that sex produces babies 'primarily'

You really think that wouldn't be included in the education?

 

[Nymphs]

That is what some seem to be saying.
That is what the title says.

Who is this some you are talking about?

 

[kashmir]

Make your own thread if you think it deserves consideration for a an in-depth topic.

 

[Curious George]

Make your own thread if you think it deserves consideration for a an in-depth topic.

for what it is worth, I am not sure his or her comments were off base. other posters suggested waiting for any sex-ed until a child reaches puberty and possibly delaying education until the child reaches the age of consent. While I disagree that the primary motivating purpose for education should be the statistical data of when children are likely to view non-age-appropriate content, the point does represent a one of many reasons that sex-ed is important, namely exposure and awareness of sex.

Moreover, if children are exposed to sexual interaction or if they are aware of sexual interaction and that exposure or awareness doesn't mesh with the messages or represents a facet such as "pleasure" that their education glossed over or neglected, what then is a child supposed to think?

 

[Nymphs]

If someone thinks that topic (that is not included in the OP) deserves more consideration, I suggest making a thread for it. Then that specific subject can be debated and discussed more closely without taking the current thread more off-topic that it already is. :yes:

 

[Nymphs]

for what it is worth, I am not sure his or her comments were off base. other posters suggested waiting for any sex-ed until a child reaches puberty and possibly delaying education until the child reaches the age of consent. While I disagree that the primary motivating purpose for education should be the statistical data of when children are likely to view non-age-appropriate content, the point does represent a one of many reasons that sex-ed is important, namely exposure and awareness of sex.

Moreover, if children are exposed to sexual interaction or if they are aware of sexual interaction and that exposure or awareness doesn't mesh with the messages or represents a facet such as "pleasure" that their education glossed over or neglected, what then is a child supposed to think?

I'm not saying that they were off-base, I'm just saying if they think (they mentioned the same thing several times) that, that particular topic is important to them, that they should start another thread so that we can focus specifically on that topic. It was a friendly suggestion.

 

[kashmir]

If someone thinks that topic (that is not included in the OP) deserves more consideration, I suggest making a thread for it. Then that specific subject can be debated and discussed more closely without taking the current thread more off-topic that it already is. :yes:

All the posts are completely on topic, except for a few final posts of me and ST Frank, but even then, it shows why we feel as we do about sex in relation to the OP.

Don't take this the wrong way, but threads are not a monopoly.
The title suggests one thing, and others do not agree with that.
It is on topic to debate the thread and add opinions, why do you have so much trouble understanding that?
You seem to constantly think that everyone either has to agree with your OP's, or don't post.
It doesn't work that way.

 

[Drolefille]

Could you have set up any bigger of a strawman? :sarcastic
One more example because I am bored;
The one friend of mine, kind of like a brother to me, had 3 kids with a girl before he was even 25, she aborted the first kid, his mom is raising the two kids, he also has a kid with a girl that left him when he cheated, she moved out of state.
Seen her FB, looks just like him, breaks his heart that he screwed up and cant see any of his kids nor help raise them, because sex is more important than responsibility behind who you have sex with.

He is with a new girlfriend, she has a teen daughter, he has two kids of his own with her too.
They wont last, they fight like cats and dogs all the time.
We all kind of grew up together, they are basically only together because of the sex part and is the only reason he got with her in the first place.
They dont even love each other.
I remember the day she showed up at a party, I told him, dude, use a condom.
"I will, its just a one night stand"
Two kids later, here they are, not even belonging together and sex is the only thing keeping them together.

Whoosh.

Ignore the data and tell me more about your friends. Please. You're just making my point for me.