Sex Education

I've not noticed too much "puritanism" in our popular culture lately.We might could do with a little.

Popular culture--tv, movies, etc. From the 60s on. Seems rather unhealthy.

There is something to be said for the prude. I, for example, am a prude. Am I ashamed of being a prude? Nope.If one is a prude, one is still capable of being shocked. The immature feel that only a neophyte is shocked. Here they go far wrong, because to be shocked proves that you are still sensitive.And to be insensitive, in my mind, is a very bad thing to be.For example, one might consider--indeed, I consider-a woman's breast to be a great marvel. But if seen too frequently, a woman's breast becomes a gland, and I'm not interested in glands.

This was not name calling. It was a comment on a well-known quality of human nature. I didn't have anybody particular in mind. By no means. A doctor is supposed to look at a breast as a gland. A doctor's position is a totally different situation. I'm talking about the prevalence in films, etc. When I go to a movie--say, a mystery--and am treated with the obligatory nude scene, I am disgusted (a prudish reaction). However, I must admit that my reaction is aesthetic rather than moral.

What stats?

My most humble apologies, Charles.Answer to your question: I don't know.Now, what stats?

Good stuff, CK. Of course, the decline in births might have more to do with scientific advancement than culture. There was something that arose about that time called the birth control pill.Thank God for the pill.

I don't have any studies or stats or anything, but would you agree with this observation?Teenagers (as a whole) want to be perceived as being unshockable. I haven't quizzed any doctors about their sex lives, and the only anecdotal evidence I have would tend to support your view. My wife works for a doctor--a woman's doctor, no less--who has a reputation as a notorious womanizer.However, I don't think that matters to my point, which is that the atmosphere in which a doctor sees a woman's breast is non-sexual and non-romantic, and that makes all the difference. I am speaking of the condition of being jaded, which I do think unhealthy, not just sexually but generally.It is easy to be jaded in the modern world.edit: spellingThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-09-2005 02:30 PM

But that's what I'm talking about, partly.I agree that if I grew up with a bunch of nudists, I would think nothing of it. I agree that it is all culture-specific. One can never separate oneself from one's culture, except artificially and theoretically.

Yes, I see your point. It's a cycle. I do like cleavage.Perhaps I am the jaded one, although I don't see how I could be. I don't do all this wild stuff like Holmes does.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure that's such a good idea. Holmes can be rather graphic at times. I don't know if I could handle it.He makes porn movies. I call that wild. But in the circle he runs in, that may be no big deal.

I woiuld say it changes it drastically.

I'm not talking about morality. It changes it from a private act to a performance.

I think it compensates enormously.But I'm not a woman. Ask Schrafinator.

I don't have a "personal distaste for sex." I have a personal distaste for public sex. And I'm a he not a she.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-12-2005 12:19 PM