A revamping of Britain's public sex education course has raised more than just a few eyebrows.
Starting with the idea that sex can be and usually is quite pleasurable, educators are about to embark on a revolutionary (read: honest) new approach to sex ed.
The advice appears in guidance circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers, and is intended to update sex education by telling pupils about the benefits of sexual pleasure. For too long, say its authors, experts have concentrated on the need for “safe sex” and loving relationships while ignoring the main reason that many people have sex, that is, for enjoyment.
The document, called Pleasure, has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, although it is also being circulated outside the city.
Alongside the slogan “an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away”, it says: “Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes’ physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?”
Now that's one odd question to be asked by educational materials.
So, what about it? And, can you imagine the media cacophony we'd be subjected to if such an idea gained popularity here?
-- Stephen C. Webster
You know, if you don't believe in God, and think the be all/end all of life is sensual and material pleasure, and have no clue about the spiritual origen of sex and marriage, and ignore the emotional train wrecks such a teaching will bring, and hope to ultimately undermine the family, etc., etc., I think this agenda is great!
You know, if you do believe in God, and don't think the be all/end all of life is sensual and material pleasure and your have no clue, you will lie on your death bed, gasping your last breath and realize "Damn! I wasted all those opportunities to laugh, have a good time, and get off and now it's too late!" You'll realize that fear one's natural body and the very normal and natural sexual urges based on superstitious hogwash causes you to be an emotional trainwreck and undermines your ability to participate in a family in any healthy way due to your obsession with sin, guilt, denial, and punishment. Sad waste.
Or maybe there's a gray area between two extremes? While I don't think advocating teen sex is a great idea, I think it's wise to approach sex education with a discussion about the pleasures as well as the consequences. I mean, that's why kids are having sex; for the pleasure, right?
Religion teaches that sex is dirty, disgusting, vile - unless you are married. A priest, a rabbi, a minister, a court clerk says a few words over you and then the sex act suddenly becomes beautiful and you are doing God's work. Can a balanced, rational person really make sense of this? Oh, and then if you are married to one person but having sex with another, as well, the sex with the wife is God's work, but the sex with the other is, you got it - disgusting, vile, dirty, whatever.
The NWO wants to destroy the family. Bob Stuart is right. It's not about fear of the body, I love orgasms and I say the more the better!
But sex without love degrades the people involved.
everything is ok...is "not ok".
without a "not ok" you have no say...ok?
if you say "ok" you agree.
if you say "no ok" you agree.
some things are wrong. sex without marriage is wrong! there are somethings that are just WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Sex without love only "degrades" if the person involved feels degraded. We are taught to feel degraded, but we can think clearly for ourselves and not succumb to the false doctrine that has been handed down generation to generation throughout the ages. Since the beginning of time sin, fear has been used as a tool to control the people. It's a difficult task, but we must learn how to think for ourselves and not be bound by dogma.
Yeah I would imagine the pleasure principle is self evident but maybe I was an advanced student. Man is the only animal that can control his reproduction, now do it. Just like Billions of Chinese people do. Their must be one hell of a condom industry in china....Condoms will save the economy. Fuck more to prop up your nations GDP! Do it for Industry!
Eating lunch while standing up degrades dining -- and should be forbidden!
Listening to an old vinyl LP degrades music -- and should be forbidden!
Small screens degrade expansive vision -- and should be forbidden!
Is this not abundantly clear?
Sex without marriage is like Lake Huron without finite-state transducers!
Perfect!
They can't read or do math, so we'll encourage them to go have sex and take on all the risks and responsibilities associated with such a decision.
The UK is drowning in red ink, the economy is stalled and every where you look is outright theft by members of their own government! So NATURALLY the thing to do is take a minute and encourage the children of their constituents to go screw and hope they don't get pregnant or catch some horrible, sexually transmitted disease!
Bravo Government! That's exactly why we elected you!
Blessed be the uber-geniuses chosen to run the UK!
"Sex without marriage is wrong!"
Hope you're just speaking for yourself.
Personally, I'd really be regretting it if I'd based my life on that assumption.
Being a responsible and unselfish individual is the only moral basis that really counts.... the rest is just all personal window dressing.
"Being a responsible and unselfish individual is the only moral basis that really counts...."
Don't you believe in Darwinism?
You know, evolution?
We make it "dirty" here, so the christers can go to church and have the perverts there molest their kids. Then, the sonsabitches payout millions of bucks back to the families, who "keeps" going to church and donates money back to them. A good example of the people having "fun" is the palin cabal. The republicans can't wait for that "Levi" book , it will let them fantasize on how sex with "fishy-pants" would be like. Then we listened to that crazy fuck republican, Horsey or whatever his name is, tell us about "living" on a farm and having sex with animals while growing up.
@david velasquez
OF COURSE you realize that without a higher authority to define the word "moral" for us, that it is merely a concept that comes from other, fallible, men?
I mean, without such an authority, rape, robbery, murder or what have you, aren't "immoral" at all!
Is it "immoral" when the big fish eat the smaller fish? Is Darwinism "immoral" in some way?
If we're all animals, then it is perfectly proper, and just as "moral" to behave like animals in the field! After all, that is what we are!
If someone comes along and tells you that's BAD and you're IMMORAL for doing so, it's just the opinion of a mere man.. What makes his opinion any more valuable or worthy than your own? He is defying the very dynamics which are are the heart of Darwinism itself! He's against SCIENCE!
If there is no higher authority, then nothing is definitively "immoral" All you have to worry about is GETTING CAUGHT!
Regards.. And enjoy your circular, nonsensical secular philosophy!
Jhoffa_
Reach into limbaugh's pants and get some of his Viagra. Then go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on.
Oh CRAP!
With selective quotes and editorial comment the story has been sold as "UK health officials to students: Get it on!"
Try this link for a better understanding of the leaflet: >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/5806691/NHS-tells-school-children-of-their-right-to-an-orgasm-a-day.html
The NHS guidance is advising school pupils that they have a "right" to an enjoyable sex life and that regular sex can be good for their cardiovascular health.
The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex.
The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex.
The leaflet promotes healthy attitude towards sex including masturbation. The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away".
It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week.
Steve Slack, the director of the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health at NHS Sheffield, who is one of the leaflet's authors, says that instead of promoting teenage sex, it could encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are certain they will enjoy the experience.
Personally I believe that pretending that teens are not interested in sex, never masturbate and will remain virgins till they are married to be a complete fantasy. I am glad the health department is starting to treat this as a natural part of teenage health and not some third rail that can't be touched.
They don't go from complete ignorant virgins to happy well adjusted spouses without a number of steps in between. The first of which is learning how to pleasure themselves and bring them selves to organism through masturbation. That is a normal thing most teenagers do. Pretending it's not is like pretending the world is flat. That argument may work in church but not in the real world.
Hello??? They are doing it anyway. And really, didn't almost everyone you know have sex as a teenager? And we're none the worse for wear.
40 years ago when I was in Viet-Nam and had just heard of prostate cancer, I wrote to Playboy with a comment. I wondered if masterbation would stave off prostate cancer if done once or twice a week under the use it or lose it rule. Never heard anything back from them. I also asked if they had considered a study to see if it would also help with other male problems. I think they would have been onto something if they would have done something at that time. By the way, what I said earlier, it works. I like to think it also keeps me from getting sick by getting rid of all the toxins in my body. I can't think of a better way to get rid of them.
Uh huh, ...here we go,...
@ Jhoffa -
I've no idea why you've dragged Darwin into this... unless you're fixated with monkeys.
" OF COURSE you realize that without a higher authority to define the word "moral" for us, that it is merely a concept that comes from other, fallible, men?"
That's a fallacious argument and an unproveable one considering that you've no proof that morals being anything other than of human origin.
The greeks gave us many interesting concepts of morality...and not all of the philosophers were specifically spiritual men.
And anyways, the morals of judeo/christians are based upon fear of supernatural, they were imposed upon desert tribes some 3000 or so years ago... that is, if you believe the earth is THAT old. People who insist that christianity teaches morals or provides some missing ethical boundaries seem to forget the hundreds of thousands if not millions who've died during church ordered crusades and witch hunts...nor do you seem to recognize that ethics have their origin in older heathen societies; nor do you ever recognize the obvious contradictions between what is stated in the New Testament as being the teachings of Jesus with that of those vengeful god missives of the Old Testament with which you use to justify murder and war.
Which often makes me wonder if the idea that if all that's holding most followers of desert religions to a moral code is the idea of being punished in the afterlife then does that mean that if suddenly it were proved that there was no such thing as hell and all that ....would christians, jews and moslems suddenly run amok ???
Do you really need fear to hold your society together and keep your kids in line?
Well, none of this has anything to do Darwin or sex...unless to explain evolution of alternatives to the missionary position.
Except that you seem intent on relegating all acts of sex to just an animal act.
If your wife finds that pleasing... then good on you.
Otherwise it should be far better than that.
The more sexual partners you have, the higher your risk of an STD.
The more times you have sex, the higher your risk of an unplanned pregnancy.
So, unless you want crotch-rot and a bucket of kids, show a little restraint.
Religion is an institution that maintains morality. It might not be everyone's morality, it doesn't have to be. But, just because religion rallies against sex outside of marriage, it does not mean that the secular authority needs to go in the opposite direction. Sometimes, a good idea can have religious origins.
But hey, whatever. Enjoy your herpes.
"The more times you have sex, the higher your risk of an unplanned pregnancy."
Try birth control, its quite reliable these days, unlike in Biblical times...and if the condom breaks-try "Plan B"
Sometimes a good idea CAN originate in religion, but apparently you're not familiar with King David's eight wives. I don't recommend it.
"...considering that you've no proof that morals being anything other than of human origin."
Thank you for making my point for me.
Re-read the post, plz..
I'm SO GLAD we agree!
Actually, Code of Hammurabi -the first written laws geared toward moral behavior, predate the Bible.
That is irrelevant, Prissy..
Perhaps you aren't smart enough to join the conversation?
You see, it doesn't matter who wrote what, when, for my point to be valid.
The Bible can be true or false.. It matters not in this context.
At all.
Hey, Bob Stuart!
Blow me.
Jhoffa_
Thank you again for telling us who is intelligent enough to type to this "comments."
prissypatriot : Pay know attention to this troll, he's low on his meds until the first of the month and brother are we going to pay for it.
I know you studied hard in your "class" and you, "Grasshopper" finally reached into Uncle Billy,s pants and found the candy, but you really need to see someone.
I've read somewhere that a man leaves an imprint on a woman's aura during intercourse. These imprints do not leave easily and are openly shared. The end result is that a man having sex with a woman is having sex with every partner she's ever had. This creates a sad, unsatisfying experience that leaves people hollow and craving for something they'll never be able to have.
... well, if you believe it.
But, it doesn't make any sense to assume that people have advocated sexual responsibility for the last 2000-6000 years, and suddenly, we're so enlightened with our poor posture, polluted cities, processed foods, crappy education systems, etc. , that we can just 'teach ourselves out of it' by saying you're all right, he's all right, she's all right, we're all all right.
God and morality don't have anything to do with it. This represents a rebellion against nature. You just have to accept that the world works in a certain way. Besides, I have a hard time imagining sex would be pleasurable sans the love. I mean, you just want an orgasm so you're going to strip naked for a complete stranger, get it on, and treat it like normal? Okay, I've got better things to do with someone I really love. You go enjoy yourself with whatever you want.
"Thank you again for telling us who is intelligent enough to type to this "comments." "
The truth stings a bit, doesn't it?
Jhoffa_ When the Pope starts addressing pedophiles in the church, when Bible thumpers stop screaming "morals" and yet cheat on their wives-in some cases with prostitutes then I'll listen to your pious drivel. Until then your troll status is duly noted.
That said, casual sex should not be 'taught'- but birth control and what constitutes healthy sex should be taught.
I've got more brains in my tiny finger than you have in your little head...
"When the Pope starts addressing pedophiles in the church, when Bible thumpers stop screaming "morals" and yet cheat on their wives-in some cases with prostitutes then I'll listen to your pious drivel."
This is exactly why I suggested you aren't smart enough to participate.. Because there's nothing religious or christian about it. What you can't see is, Christanity or the validity of the bible, the pope or biblical morality DOES NOT MATTER in this context.
I am sorry you can't understand, and I am sorry I don't have a crayon font to explain it to you.
In the end, whichever social group breeds the most wins, period. If we create a world where open mouthers thrive and breed with no effort thanks to technology, there's going to be allot more mini-vans on the road. Religion itself evolved because it enhances propagation of human beings. It's outlived its usefulness and yet adherents of the most populous religions still breed like rabbits, babies everywhere, it's the only reason they're so popular at all. There very well may be an unbeatable evolutionary advantage to being an open mouther.
So either we overpopulate the world with non-open mouthers until open-mouthers are no longer a threat, or they will become homogeneous through our species and overpopulate until they're eating each other while praying to Jesus. Non open mouthers think they're being smart by not having 20 kids like a mouther would, but at this point in the game I think it's a mistake. For the sake of the human race, fuck 'risks and responsibilities', the open mouthers don't care, neither should you, breed.
Gee, thanks Big Brother, I didn't know sex/ masturbation felt good. Thank God we have such a benevolent government to teach us such things. My God, after thousands of years, the truth is out! And heaven knows, we don't get enough exercise. And gee, I didn't know I had a "right" to it. I mean, the absolute absurdity of it is mindboggling.
only wanted to be Loved. Love makes the world go round RocknRoll ask a HorseShoe Crab, been around along time (300 million years) the sex can be lethal and the females have multiple partners at the same time-full moon- a giant orgy God forbid! But God doesn't seem to forbid and you can watch, if you like to watch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53446-2002May21.html
Jhoffa_
Forget the crayons, your so full of shit you can't even "work" it out with a pencil, like a mathematician with constipation.
Great Post Satan.
Long Live Satan.
@Jhoffa_
"OF COURSE you realize that without a higher authority to define the word "moral" for us, that it is merely a concept that comes from other, fallible, men?"
You must admit then that if the so-called "higher power" is a contrivance of men, then it is you who holds dear a "circular, nonsensical secular philosophy!".
post # 32
I agree. D'uh! Like humans dont know sex can be fun and good for your health!
Sex isnt a big deal, and if the media simply stopped feeding society images of idealization of sex and sexuality, we wouldnt be so obsessed about it .
But oh no! How are they going to get the attention of the public to buy their deodorant and sports cars and watch soap operas without sex appeal?
The government is basically giving up on the whole issue.
Yes, my underlings.... reproduce with wild abandon, Her Majesty needs more minions for Her new holy war....
"What about sex or masturbation twice a week?”
Sex or masturbation twice a week? WHEN YOU'RE IN HIGH SCHOOL?!?! TRY TWICE A DAY!!!!
"You must admit then that if the so-called "higher power" is a contrivance of men, then it is you who holds dear a "circular, nonsensical secular philosophy!"."
Not at all.. And your question is irrelevant, no matter if I answer yes or no. It is pointless and changes nothing.
What I am pointing out, and what none of you seem to understand - Is there is a true morality, it must come from a higher authority or else it DOESN'T EXIST AT ALL except as a silly notion created by men. A textbook definition which is meaningless, and can be edited to suit the circumstances.
Ponder that for a minute.
Philosophy much?
PS: Should read "IF there is a true morality"
"If there is a true morality, it must come from a higher authority or else it DOESN'T EXIST AT ALL except as a silly notion created by men."
Are we also to believe that if there is law, it must come from a higher authority (i.e., a dictatorship) or else it doesn't exist at all, except as a silly notion created by men (i.e., a democracy)?
As usual, most have missed the point here. The jist of the leaflet is that orgasms are fun and should be encouraged. There is absolutely no reason that 'orgasms' should necessarily lead to an increased risk of pregnancy or STDs, since there are many, many ways to achieve orgasm (alone or with others) without requiring unprotected intercourse outside of a loving relationship.
The key here is that kids are gonna do it - period. They can either do it with your informed support, or they can try to figure it out on their own, behind your backs. The latter scenario not only enhances the risks that so many of you want to mitigate with insulting morality rants, it also unnecessarily associates guilt with sexual pleasure.