GirlChat #741031

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

A Collection of Responses to Questions (Pt.1) ☺۞ကြ

Posted by Children First! on Sunday, May 01 2022 at 10:55:44AM

Hello friends (^_^)

Here is a collection of responses to my questions that I have received so far.

Questions *1-16* followed by Responses to the Questions:

1. How interested do you think the children of today are about the subject of sexuality? Do you think the current generation of children ('Generation Z' / or anyone younger than 13) is any different from previous generations of children in terms of interest or expression of human sexuality?

TomT: [Ans:] Gen Z theater and science kids appears to accept sex but they are very conservative. They are focused on relationships, identity groups, equity, and consent. They have multi-year friendships before they think about sex. Also, they held off having sex until they reached the official age-of-consent in our state.

(BTW, that was not true of the football, cheerleader, jock kids. They started banging each other in middle school.)

Hajduk [-] I don't think that they are more interested than before. I think it is essentially a constant. But first, we now are more scandalized by sexual expression than we ever were and second, kids now do have many more open ways to research sexuality on their own and express it. For the most part those are unhealthy, but they are available. Combining the two it will seem that they're more sexual but I personally don't think so.

Apertado [--] I think the interest is the same, but expressed differently. I have heard of children recording porn of themselves and uploading it and have also heard of erotic roleplay servers in Discord, ran by minors. So, they are still interested, but the interest is turned online.

melon [---]

YGL [----] Children know that sexuality is a taboo topic in society, especially child sexuality. They are extremely intrigued by it, and its taboo nature just makes it all the more exciting. If you tell a kid not to inquire about a certain subject, what do you think will be the first thing she does as soon as she gets her hands on an internet enabled device? And that's just it, isn't it? This is the main difference with Gen-Z: children are now being born surrounded by dozens of internet enabled devices, which they learn to use as early as they learn to speak, or even earlier (one time I witnessed a 1-year-old baby browsing YouTube and picking the videos they wanted to watch—it was as amazing as it was terrifying). Children have a world of unrestricted knowledge available at their fingertips, and their curious minds will take full advantage of this, especially for looking into those taboo subjects adults don't want them knowing about. And for watching porn, of course.

walking in the park [=] I don't think its changed but that isn't based on anything other than I don't know of anything that would have changed attitutudes more. When I was younger I was very interested in sex from an early age, I think the taboo hidden nature made it even more inviting. Other people in my peer group knew about sex. I knew some people who were having sex from an early age just like me but for most people it wasn't the most important thing in their lives. I enjoyed sex from an early age but I spent more time dreaming of computers and arcades or being an idiot with my mates. Today it's more visible online but I expect that will have removed the mystique. Some people will still be enjoying sex from an early age, most will, I suspect, be more focused on gaming and being idiots with their mates. I know of several girls who have made overt sexual passes at me over the years who I've said no to so I know for a fact that some young girls are sexual today, as they were when I was younger. Probably about the same.

ertsky [+] I think they are about as equally as interested they always have been because that’s a natural form of biology. Just because of the anti-sex climate, and from statistics I have seen, they might actually be having less sex than a few decades ago, but they are making up for it by having more sexting.

keegan [1.] I would suggest that children's average interest in sexuality is roughly a constant over time, following a spectrum. Some are disinterested or don't care, a vast majority are probably curious but probably about equally interested in Roblox, etc., and some are particularly intrigued with sexuality. The rise of the internet across the past couple few generations has made it possible to explore and express sexuality in new ways. But I do'n't think that the fundamental interest or curiosity has necessarily changed.


2. Have you ever asked children questions about their own opinion of love, intimacy and/or sex, or have you simply been around them enough to know how much they value these subjects without needing to inquire? What would they say?

Ans: We talked, but it was mostly about relationships. I did make sure that they knew the mechanics of sex and how to be safe, but they were not eager to discuss that.

-I have both asked and observed. I don't know if it is the prevalent culture and it very well may be. But they are for the most part not interested in romantic and erotic relationships with adults. Some age difference, well yes, but actual adults only when they are in their teens already. Now they are definitely interested in love, and to a discernible degree if you are not a denialist, in sex. In this sense the commodification of sex among adults makes this either less evident in children or channels kids into self destructive paths.

-- I have never, but I know one kid in a romantic relationship with an older kid. In my country, the age of consent is 14, so they can legally do so. Not only he says it's the best thing in life, to be in love, but he also wishes I can experience that someday.

----Yes. I don't remember any particular conversation I had, so I couldn't paraphrase anything of what was said, but I could give a general idea of what I think their feelings are towards love, intimacy and sex based on these conversations. They are naturally curious about sex and would bluntly inquire about it to almost anyone, although they will eventually limit these kinds of questions due to a higher shame awareness that develops around age 8-9. Similarly with intimacy: children younger than 8 have little to no sense of this; to them, everyone is a potential friend and playmate. They would happily approach anyone without any reservations. They also don't possess a sense of shame, so they will earnestly flaunt their full naked body to anyone. I found that they actually love to do that, just as much as I love them seeing them doing it. I was once enjoying a day out along with some friends of the family who had a lovely 4-year-old LG. She would suddenly look at me mischievously and tell me to look at her while lifting up her shirt. I would laugh and her parents would tell her not to do that. Finally, about love. Children don't usually get to have much first-hand experience with it besides familial love. I think most of them conceptualise romantic love as the idealised version of it they see all the time in movies, and they would fantasise about having a similar, unrealistically perfect romantic partner with whom they will one day get married and have children.

=I've never asked. It's an awkward discussion, like the birds and the bees. I tend to avoid the discussion.

+No. I don’t really have the opportunity to do that without it seeming really awkward or someone getting upset because a lot of people get weird when someone who isn’t the person’s parent starts talking much in depth with their kids, let alone one about personal and intimate topics.

2. In my positions with children, asking them such questions would be awkward at a minimum and potentially be disastrous if others became aware we were having such discussions. So never directly. I've certainly observed a variety of levels of interest. Given the very lacking sexual education situation, especially in America, many of the kids I've worked with do'n't really know how to handle their interests in such things, but I certainly observe ... adjacent behaviors. Unfortunately in most cases, they know enough to know they should'n't talk about it. Much like Fight Club, and Bruno, and Will Smith's wife.


3. Have children ever asked you about love, intimacy and/or sex before, and if so, what did they want to know?

Ans: They did not ask, but they spoke about stuff going on at school or with their friends that I took to be questions. The big question: Is it OK to have sex that young?

-Teens a lot. Preteens a few times. Basically what it felt like, both love and sex. A little about safer sexual practices for the teens. Bear in mind most of my YFs are or were girls.

--None ever asked me. From my experience, they prefer to feel it, rather than asking about it.

---- As I said in the previous question, I don't remember the details about the conversations I've had with children about this, so I couldn't tell you exactly what they wanted to know.

=I've had several girls make outright sexual passes at me over the years with zero room for misinterpretation. My reaction tends to be panic, make some joke to difuse the situation then run away. I've had daughters say things about sex on rare ocassion more to embarass me than anything. I tend to avoid such discussions and leave it to their mother.

+Not really, aside from typical “boyfriend advice”, in dealing with the social aspect of dating when I was a teenager myself and I was getting advice from a younger female relative who I thought was wise beyond her years.

3. So many kids are taught that these are taboo subjects or things they're too young to interact with. But there have inevitably been several who have posed questions. Curiousity is a natural human trait. And it's impossible to avoid with how sexualized media has become. Consider when a song like "WAP" is super popular on a platform like TikTok that so many kids use... They go to their parents and ask what it's about, and get the usual dismissive "when you're older" answers. Most girls I work with know that I'll be honest and direct with them. But it can still be an awkward conversation because they know their parents would'n't approve...


4. Do you think or know if children are interested in experiencing love, intimacy and sex with other children their age, or even with people who are not a part of their similar age group - such as older teens or adults?

Ans: Middle school and High school kids think sex with peers is suspect and dangerous and sex with adults would be gross. The boys have lust but they're afraid so they stay home and masturbate to porn.

-Yes they are. But overall, and I must say this is a generalization, how interested they are both in love and in explicit sex is correlated with age. As I said before: peers yes, a little age difference yes as they age, actual adults basically when they're already biologically, if not legally, adults. Still far from the "never" position peddled by the mainstream.

-- I think I know one, and he kept asking me if he could send me nudes of him and I kept declining, telling him it would be a criminal offense and such. Had to talk to him about how that counts as child porn. He stopped offering me it. So, yeah, if anything, he would be interest in cybersex, at least, but I'm not going to do that...

----Yes, very much so, but only if the right opportunity, situation and person present themselves. Sexual/romantic knowledge and interest in children varies wildly, and there's no question that there's a considerable proportion of sexually-aware children who wish to experience the joys of intimacy first-hand by either engaging in casual sex or having a romantic partner. The sexually-informed children who think they should wait until they are "old enough" (whatever that means) or even until they are married, have unfortunately been conditioned to believe this by their parents, who have in turn been influenced by societal and religious dogmas. When I was 14 I was going out with a girl of the same age who was like this. The furthest base I could ever get to with her was masturbating each other. She told me that she wanted to have intercourse with me but she also felt like she was still too young and she wished to wait until she was at least 16.

=I know for a fact that the answer is yes.
I was sexually active as a child and loved it. I knew people in my school who were sexually active. There were always the popular girls who dated older guys with cars which us younger guys couldn't compete with. I knew a girl who masturbated in front of me and asked me if I wanted what was between her legs. She was seriously horny and just wanted it....I panicked and left. I knew another girl who was a serious online gamer and she several times asked me to buy her online stuff to which I said "why would I do that?" to which she would say that she would do anything I asked and one time said that while touching herself overtly. I've had other such situations, young girls can and do know how to use their sexuality. I've never crossed any line though but I know as a result that girls and boys are sexual. As a parent I'm keenly aware of that which is why my wife insists I watch my daughters closely when around guys. It's not that she's worried about guys jumping them but she knows what girls at their age are like, what she was like at that age, and so have me watch them to make sure they don't go luring anyone.

+Of course, they’re interested in experiencing love regardless of the age of any person involved. Who isn’t? Intimacy and sex are somewhat different. I think they more than likely have more interest in experiencing that with their own peer group. Then possibly older teens and younger adults who they find attractive. Realistically, it’s not probable that most cute 10 year olds want to have sexual relations with a much older man who they in all likelihood see as more of a grandpa figure who they like, but not in that way.

4. Every human is interested in experiencing love and intimacy. Once they know what's going on in the sexual department, many want that too. In my experience, girls are'n't too concerned about who is providing the love, unless they've been specifically taught to avoid embracing it from older people. And even then, they generally still enjoy it.


5. How important do you think it is for someone to experience intimacy and/or sexuality with someone else as soon as they initially desire to at an early age?

Ans: I think children should engage in sex play as early as the thought occurs to them. Parents should facilitate sex play play dates and let the children learn all about genitals and sexual pleasure.

- I think it is important that the option is open. I don't think it should be mandatory or anything like that, but it should be open. We are doing children a disservice by absolutely closing that door. Indeed leaving them more at risk of real abuse. Abusers are unlikely to follow social norms anyway.

-- I don't think it's important, although it could be pleasurable. Most children don't need sex, even though they could want and like it. It would be just like another type of game.

---Not particularly important at all. Certainly there is nothing wrong with engaging in sexual relationships as soon as one takes an interest, but despite being interested it may take some time for someone to find an environment/relationship where they feel safe to explore. And in my opinion waiting until one finds that would be ideal.

----I think it's important that we let people do what they desire, as repressed desires can be harmful to the individual's mental health. No-one should be able to judge the validity, attribute moral value, or limit the liberty of a person's sexual desire and activities, as long as said activities don't involve harm to unwilling third-parties. If an 8-year-old desires to experience sexuality and not wait until she becomes mature ten years from now, so be it. Encourage sexual beings to express their sexual nature, not repress it. Leave asexuality for the amoeba.

=I don't know, probably not that important. I enjoyed it at that age and got a lot from it. If I didn't, I would probably have turned out OK still.

+It’s okay if it happens organically and the other person treats them well and cares about their feelings. There’s no need for someone who feels curious about sex to just hook up with some random dude to try and force a relationship with someone who may not have their best interests at heart.

5. It's not like a make or break sort of thing... there's certainly value in close human relationships at any age, but nobody "needs" sex, per se.


6. Would you encourage any children you know to be more intimate or even sexual with someone else they like or love? They may not understand what it means to truly love someone deeply, but should that stop them from pursuing what they feel or know that they need to do to satisfy their interest or curiosity?

Ans: Yes. Sex play (including intercourse) is wholesome, educational, and harmless fun.
(Just make them use condoms as they get close to menarche.)

-Probably. I am not able to generalize but I can see that many times I would do that. Now if they need encouragement I think you're doing it wrong. Now guidance as to what to expect, yes. Probably help to conceal it from pesky others (which may be adults but may also be close to their age) but you would enter into legally ambivalent territories.

-- I would not encourage anyone at all to have sex. That's entirely their choice. But, if the child is under the age of consent, I would discourage and tell him to wait just a little longer.

----No-one really knows what it means to truly love someone until they experience it for the first time. You live and you learn. So we should let children live, have intimate experiences and learn from them. I would encourage and support children in whatever they set their mind to, as long as they don't violate the harm principle (i.e. they don't engage in activities which could clearly harm them or other people).

=No. I don't believe in shock or scare treatment to put kids off but I wouldn't encourage them either. I hope to be someone they feel they can talk to and that I could be a listener and give informed and unbiased advice to.

+They may not understand what it means to truly love someone deeply, but should that stop them from pursuing what they feel or know that they need to do to satisfy their interest or curiosity? I’m don’t think it’s my place to encourage them to do this, but they need to realize that their sexuality should be valued and not shamed.

6. I would encourage children to do more of what makes them feel happy, safe, and comfortable. And if at any point they do'n't feel any of these things, to speak up so others can step in and protect them.


7. Do you think if children are able to be more intimate or sexual with anyone who will reciprocate their interests -consensually, responsibly, and with fewer restrictions being put into practice than the amount currently being implemented during this time in history- will that help them to physically and mentally develop with less aggressive or violent behavior, therefore growing up with more respect, kindness and care towards the world around them? Have you ever thought about this deeply before, and would such freedom to choose help them in the long run?

Ans: Yes. Sex play includes role play like "Puppy love" where the children learn about intimacy by experiencing it in a safe non-exploitive environment.

-Yes. Sex releases neurotransmitters which make easier bonding even with people you don't have sex with. I mean by this loving sex. The industrial sex of the pronz industry destroys that. Also I believe some fetishes also negate this quality.

--I think so and there's even a paper about this, by Prescott.

----Yes. Sexually liberal people tend to enjoy a better mental health than excessively prudish people and people with repressed sexual desires. Unfulfilled sexual urges can be very stressful and distressing. Masturbation can help relieve some of this stress, as any kid will know, being that they are likely the group who jacks off the most—most notably teenagers, but younger children too. Any child will gladly change this masturbatory act for an even more gratifying full sexual act, if given the opportunity. I know I would have when I was a lad. Unfortunately most children aren't given the chance, as they spend their whole childhood secluded in their artificial parental safety bubble. They are viciously robbed of this unique opportunity to experience heavenly pleasure during juvenescence, the springtime and arguably best time of life.

= Yes, as long as they are empowered and able to truly set the pace and limits. I know some adults who grew up in very religious environments where sex and masturbation were not acceptable at all. They tend to be sexually repressed, struggle to enjoy sex even in marriage. It certainly seems to cause problems for people in later life if they have no positive sex education. Positive is important because children need to learn that sex is a positive and good thing even if it's only for adults. If children were free to experience and enjoy it I'm sure they would gain a lot. In every aspect of life, experience prepares and empowers people. Afraid of spiders? Go on a course where you will hold spiders and learn that they are not to be feared. Travel to lose the fear of foreigners. Experience sexual pleasure to learn to enjoy and not fear sex.

+I definitely think there’s a connection between anti-sexual rhetoric and programming and the propensity to be violent and warlike. Anecdotally, the societies and countries that have the most violence tend to the be the societies that have the strictest laws and cultural practices towards sexuality, but I would like to see more academic research on this.

7. wut? I have no way of knowing whether freedom of intimacy or sexuality will affect development in regards to future agression or violent behavior... fuck kinda question is this?


8. Should a child have the right to be intimate or experience sexual play at any age they want, providing they have been taught beforehand how to do so properly?

Ans: Yes. Furthermore, parents should facilitate sex play and sexual sleepovers when requested.


-- I think so. But not without a safety net. The child would need to know who to turn to in case of rape and feel comfortable to tell if something went wrong. Let us not be reckless. Although I think positive relationships should be allowed by law, I don't think we can do that without taking measures to keep negative experiences from flourishing.

---Providing they are informed, and that as a society we have a way of ensuring that, then yes. If they are raped, we need them to know enough to testify to that, and to start that process. And if they are uninformed, then they can't give their informed consent. As a society, we need to be able to distinguish between an informed child and an uniformed child.

----Yes. As long as they understand the rules of the game and all players agree to said rules, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to play just because of their tender age. If they are capable of understanding the rules of the game of tag ("you get touched, you lose"), they are also capable of understanding the rules of sexual play ("you get touched 'down there', you feel great").

= I think so but again it's about empowering them to control the experience.

+Yes. But I think part of that teaching is to know that if someone doesn’t want to do something, they don’t have to do it and no one should force that on them.

8. Sure... why not? As long as she knows that nobody is allowed to touch her in any way she does'n't want, and on the other side of it, she's allowed to ask for more of whatever she does want...


8.5 If a child wants to experience penetration -by either giving and/or receiving -should they have the right to do so? What about the right to have oral 'sex'?

Ans: yes and yes. Coitus and oral sex are fun and not dangerous if approached with a little caution. If it hurts, don't do it. If you are scared, stop and play another game.

-Oral yes. Penetration is a tougher one because children have smaller orifices than adults, so maybe experiment first if it isn't hurting and if it isn't go ahead. If it is, there will be time. Why first an experiment? Because stopping in the middle is harder because of the adrenaline release.

--By no means. O'Carroll, in his Paedophilia: The Radical Case, defended that there should be a minimum age for passive role in penetration, 12. Penetration is something more risky, that should only be engaged in from adolescence onward, but children, like, small children, should be allowed non-penetrative sexual intimacy, since those things generally don't hurt.

---They should have simple path to gaining a right to do so, yes. Becoming informed about the safest ways to do so is key.

----Everything should be permitted as long as all parties agree upon and follow some basic common-sense ground rules: "if it feels good, continue", "if it feels painful, stop", "if I don't feel like it anymore, stop".

=Yes but again, they control the experience.

+ The right to have as much or as little sex as one wants is essentially a human right, but both parties have to consent and respect each other’s boundaries. A person does not have a right to have any kind of sexual activity with someone they don’t want to have sexual contact with, but no one has the right to tell two people who want to express themselves sexually with each other that they can’t, which happens sometimes under the threat of violent force.

8.5 same as 8. There is'n't any separate "right" for any given sexual activity... if both parties are mutually enjoying it, life is good.


9. Should responsible adults have the right to have loving relationships with anyone who consents, especially younger humans that we describe as 'children'?

Ans: "Right to have" - NO. Perhaps be allowed to participate if the child chooses.

-Yes. But to define responsible is a can of worms. I would better answer yes and then if complaints are raised assess responsibility. Also complaints must be placed shortly after. It is wholly absurd how now adults place complaints over stuff that happened 20 or 30 or more years ago.


--- I refuse that framing. Children should be able to gain the right to have sex with anyone they may wish to. In short, yes.

----Yes. Informed consent should be the only requirement, not any arbitrary age boundary some politicians with zero knowledge of sexual psychology came up with.

=Yes, I've never encountered a well reasoned argument against it. I do think a childs parents should be informed though and involved in advising their child. Parents have a lot of responsibility and should be involved in such decisions but I think parents should be educated about such relationships and an environment created where a parent just wants to know their childs partner is a good partner before agreeing to a relationship to progress. I think if the culture was right then parents would be encouraging, knowing all the benefits and how much fun their child would be having. But that's a world away from the world today.

+The right to have as much or as little sex as one wants is essentially a human right, but both parties have to consent and respect each other’s boundaries. No one has any right to have sex with anyone who doesn’t want to have sex with them.

9. Ummmm duh? Any informed human should have the right to enjoy whatever relationships with others. It's a bit bizarre that we tend to celebrate every single other involvement of adults with children, teaching them, nurturing them, guiding them as they grow, but as soon as the topic is sexual, some people think that's immediately harmful? I call bullshit.


10. The idea of putting children first is to stabilize all aspects of humanity and each environment they live amongst starting from the core of the ongoing life force of humans themselves -which to my surprising discovery is actually the mostly-ignored, under-valued life of all kinds of children- who will in turn eventually affect every environment and how sustainable it's resources will be, as everything is deeply connected, therefore being conscious of these connections will help to succeed with such radical change in the future, that will eventually become accepted as normal as well as a more preferable way to live.
-With that said, culturally, do you think putting all human children and animal children First on a very deep level around the world could actually be the solution to many of the on-going problems of the world which are deeply rooted and have not been dealt with in a better way?

Ans: Don't know. You clearly have a vision that is probably Utopian. We obviously could do better with teaching our children about love and sex. We could learn a lot from pre-western Polynesian cultures that allowed children to openly play sex games and allowed children to have sex with older persons whenever the CHILD wished it.

-I don't know if it is "THE" solution but it will help immensely. I agree that for the most part their best interests are simply ignored and sometimes downright contradicted.

--I think that depends on what you mean by putting children first. Because society claims to be doing that already, even though we claim they are not. In my modest opinion, we should put children first, yes, but that means enabling them to be happy. By "happiness", I understand absence of problems. So, we should give children means to live with as little pain as possible later in life. I'm not saying to shelter them from everything, but to enable them to be happy as adults, by all means possible.

--- "many" is a bit vague. It would certainly help solve quite a few problems. But in a word, no. I think that's not going to be nearly enough.

---- It's hard to tell, as the connection is not particularly self-evident to me. So I would be inclined to answer no in general. Although I do believe putting children first will make their lives so much more fulfilling and meaningful, which will eventually lead to more happiness all around the world, fewer mental health issues, and less overall stress, anxiety, depression, and suicides. All in all, it would be a vastly favourable change for everyone except antis.

=Yes. Take the environment for example, it is their inheritance. They will be impacted more than anyone by the environment and so should have the loudest voice. Children are the future and if we're a future minded people then we should put children first.

+I think children should be valued and cherished much more than they are, down to little details not calling them demeaning things like “minors” (i.e. lesser than), and not treating them as property or an accessory like so many parents do. But I am not a fan of one group of people being seen as superior to others. Everyone deserves love and respect. And animals deserve love and respect too (though I feel a little guilty for saying this as a non-vegetarian and I respect vegetarians tremendously).

10-12 Bruh, pass whatever you're smoking, seems like good shit.


11. Do you think having a health-focused political system is the best alternative to our current political system?

Ans: Maybe - The problem with Health focus is that it emphasizes disease and danger. If all you every heard about mountain climbing was how dangerous it was you probably would view it with fear and never go there. Same with sex. The culture should acknowledge and accept sexual pleasure with joy rather than shame. Sex is for pleasure 99% of the time yet pleasure is never discussed in childhood sex ed.

-No. Health is but one of what makes everyone human. Everything in my view has to be considered by its own merits but not made the sole or overriding goal in life for everyone and as a whole.

--Health should be one of the focuses. Others would be education, safety and economy. And education would be the most important.

---Comment: Please define "health-focused political system" ? Without knowing what exactly you have in mind with this question, all I can say is that health should never be something that anyone would need to focus on, it should always just be there in the background. The problem right now is that it isn't there.

----This question feels weirdly out of place here. It's not clear to me what you meant by a "health-focused political system". In any case, seeing as this is about politics and not child sexuality or child-loving, and that politics is not a topic I would feel comfortable or knowledgeable enough to discuss on a research survey, I am going to have to pass on answering this one.

=I'm not sure what that means. All political systems have flaws but we need a political system. I don't know what the best system would be. I'm sure we don't have optimal systems today but I don't know what would be optimal.

+I’m not sure what you mean by this question, and “our” could be a number of different political systems and countries in the world.

10-12 Bruh, pass whatever you're smoking, seems like good shit.


12. As humans, I like to think that we are 'doing all the right things the wrong way'. We are doing what we are supposed to do, but not putting enough attention towards the critical details, outcomes or consequences. Would you agree with this statement and what do you think we as humans should be doing better?

Ans: In this context - Sex education needs to be completely redone as a hands-on experience lead by children's curiosity and play.

-Yes. Why? I think basically two things: we are grossly misinformed and culture pushes this in many ways; and we are too prone to choose easy paths regardless of consequences. If even personal consequences are not assessed, less so consequences for third parties. The further that third parties are, the worse. Again this is pushed for by culture.

--Absolutely. Everyone wants to be happy. The means for that have failed mostly.

---I think the opinion that we are 'doing all the right things the wrong way' is non-falsifiable. If I say "no we are doing nothing right" you could just argue that the lack of doing anything right is just evidence to the idea that we are doing them in the wrong way. If I say "no we are not even trying to do the right thing" you could argue that that may be but we have the right principles, we're just following those principles in the right way. If I say "we have no principles" you could argue that we have underlying intuition of right and wrong, and that our lack of principles is just due to our inability to act on our intuition in the right way. et cetera et cetera, going back a layer of abstraction each time.

----I also don't like this question as it is too vaguely defined and open-ended, so I will pass on this one as well.

=That's a broad statement. I think humans are deeply flawed. We are all driven by self interest and where we have family and close friends, that often extends to include them. People boast on social media, they instinctively try to do better than others. How many people win the lottery, being gifted more than they need, then go on to share it with others beyond close family and friends? People are driven by greed and self interest. People will give a little to charity to ease their conscience but even that act is usually self serving. Some go further and turn to god, so they can be spared and live forever? Never mind that others would supposedly burn, the main thing is they will benefit. This is true when it comes to the war on maps as it is elsewhere. Antis have no interest in child welfare, the main thing is to feel a sense of importance through the act of victimising maps.

What should we as humans be doing better? Everything.
We should value genuine selfless acts above wealth or fame. How many celebrities are famous for acts of kindness and selfless work? Very few. How many are famous for their brands, wealth, connections, vanity? Most influencers. We should find ways to recognise and celebrate more positive characteristics.

Someone recently talked about NFT's and what they really are. They are the digital equivalent of Prada. People spend millions of dollars on a digital ape so they can stick it on their social media and show the world that they have the wealth needed to buy a digital ape for millions of dollars. It's a badge to the world to say "I'm rich". What's needed is to create NFT's that can't be bought but are earned for doing positive things. Passing exams, charitable work, community work such as litter picking, helping the elderly, being a nurse etc. Make doing good fashionable.

+ That’s a very broad question, but yes.

10-12 Bruh, pass whatever you're smoking, seems like good shit.


13. Do you think intimacy should be taught within part of the educational system and curriculum? What about learning self-discipline as well, in the realm of ethical studies?

Ans: Yes

-No. And why not is easy. Teachers do not need to follow the best interest of students. Their interests are pay and tenure. Everywhere that I see they enforce this through powerful unions and laws that make them unaccountable. This is a problem with other subjects already. Adding this subject adds another way in which this is problematic. Self discipline leads to the same issue as previous, in a realm which intersects but is different.

--Those things can be taught in physical education and philosophy.

---Yes. That would be a good start.

----Define "intimacy". What is it that would be taught exactly? Are you talking about sexual education? If so, then yes, of course it should be part of the school curriculum. And it generally is, although in my opinion it is introduced too late and taught too superficially and with the wrong focus in mind. Sex is introduced to children as something negative they should avoid doing at all costs until they become "old enough", instead of being explained as the thing of beauty, pleasure, and love that it really is. Abstinence-only sexual education is disgraceful and should be abolished. I would actually prefer they wouldn't teach any sexual education at all instead of only teaching abstinence. Young people are going to engage in sexual acts as soon as they get the chance, so might as well teach them everything there is to know about it so that they are able to make the right decisions. They have every right to accurate and comprehensive information about how their own bodies work and how they can express their desires.

=Yes. Sex education should be relationship education that spans sex and relationships. Sexuality is not important. Respecting partners, listening for no and yes. Giving respect.

+Yes. I don’t see a downside to either of those.

13. No. I've seen enough of education systems and the people they employ. It would be a tragedy for a girl to learn about "intimacy" from some of those absolute freak-shows.


14. Do you think nudity or nudism would also help to solve a lot - or at least some - of the problems in our world? The right to wear your 'birthday suit' (displaying only the skin and hair that covers your body) at any time or place responsibly for example? Do you think being forced to wear clothes by law all the time may actually cause problems within communities or society, rather than prevent them?

Ans: Yes. Non-sexual nudity should be commonplace in swimming pools beaches, parks, the back yard.

-Absolute nudity no. But I wouldn't mind and I think it would be overall positive to have specific places where nudity is allowed, even expected. We have resorts but that is more limited than I think would be ideal. I also think that kids being exposed to nudity child and adult through non explicit visual media would be helpful. Also for adults to demystify children bodies and even sexuality. --Another reason for non absolute is simply biological. Some places are too cold at least part of the year to go nude. Some places have too many disease carrying parasites which would thrive in exposed skin (mosquitos) or hair (lice). Finally, although sun is necessary for vitamin D, excessive exposure has cancer risks.

--I disagree. I don't think allowing public nudity would solve anything.

---Being naked, no matter how ugly one may be, harms nobody. Just as wearing clashing colors harms nobody, or wearing a burka harms nobody. Of course it should be allowed. And this *may* help with *some* people's body image issues, yes. But I don't think it would create the transformative change in mental health that some may think it would be. To go a step further, public masturbation and public sex harm nobody either, and so long as participants don't litter (with bodily fluids perhaps) or break normal noise ordinances, I see no reason why that shouldn't be allowed too. I say all of this as someone would personally prefer to be clothed in public, and to masturbate in my own bed.

----It's possible. Personally, I've never understood society's chronic repulsion towards nudity. It seems counterintuitive to me, considering how there's nothing more natural and beautiful than the naked human form, so why should we be expected to hide ~90% of it (barring head, neck and parts of limbs) all the time while in the presence of others? Are we so collectively ashamed of our bodies that we need to do this? Granted, there is a certain utilitarian benefit in wearing clothes: they provide warmth and small yet welcome protection from things like mosquitoes and insolation (most of them do, anyway; neckties, on the other hand, are something I will never be able to wrap my head around). But there are also times where you just wish to simply be naked. And since nudity is not per se harmful to anyone, prima facie there's no reason why it shouldn't be permitted. Except that it might become too distracting and disconcerting if people just randomly decided to go to school or work without wearing any clothes. So perhaps that's the real reason it's not allowed in those places and on the streets. Still, I believe there should be more public locations where you could enjoy the liberating sensation of being completely nude. We already have nude beaches, but why also not nude swimming pools? Or nude bathing facilities, like the Japanese onsen?

=I've heard that naturism is liberating. I think as a society we have lots of hangups. If we were nude around each other more I expect we would feel more liberated and have less hangups. But that is something that would take time to develop.

+I’m kind of neutral on that. I don’t necessarily need to see naked people all the time. I think nudity serves its purpose and clothing serves its purpose. I don’t think mere nudity should be scandalous the way it is in some societies, especially since many of those same societies give violence a pass without question.

14. Maybe? But I do'n't think it's really a major thing.


15. Should the touching of other people's bodies with intuitive consent for any 'truly harmless' reason or need - though mostly for pleasure - be more commonplace and accepted, rather than possibly creating modern issues of 'over-reacting', or unnecessary guilt, embarrassment and shaming from what is considered 'wrong' simply by social dogma, with the possible consequences enforced upon a person who did the (truly harmless) touching that went beyond acceptable legal boundaries from the escalation of such a situation that didn't go as planned or hoped for?

Ans: Yes, Sexual touch should be common as long as the children have to right to non-consent by walking away.

-Honestly the writing is a little odd. More touching when obviously consented, yes. I don't really understand the rest.

--If it's truly harmless, then it should not be punishable. The problem is the intuitive consent part. If it's a sexual touch, then it should have explicit consent. You ask to know. But hugs should be free.

---I don't quite know what you mean by "intuitive consent", but I don't like the sound of it. But certainly, so long as the touched person is properly informed, and the touch was clearly initiated by the toucher, then the touched person should be able to make the determination about whether any legal intervention was needed. There are situations however where this guideline may be insufficient.

---- I take it by "intuitive consent" you mean implied consent, in the same way a person gives to another when they approach their mouth to their face with the clear intent of kissing them, and the other person doesn't pull back. No-one ever asks "can I kiss you" (well, I'm sure there's people who do, but it's definitely not the norm) in this kind of situation. You just go with the flow and infer from the other person's body language whether they want to be kissed or not. Consent is implicitly requested and equally tacitly given most of the time, by adults just as much as children. So yes, I believe any consensual and harmless touching should absolutely be acceptable and accepted. I think people (including children) are smart enough to tell when a third person is consenting and willingly taking part in an activity.

= Yes but again it would require people to be more in tune with the needs of others, be more empathetic. We've had millions of years of developing body language, we speak at least as much with our bodies as with our mouths. But not everyone is a good listener or reader of body language. We would need to work through all the junk we carry around in our repressed society before this could be accomplished.

+ I feel like at any moment if someone is uncomfortable with touching and asks someone not to do it, they need to back off immediately. But I also think we can and have taken the “zero tolerance” attitude on touch too far in many cases, to the detriment of perverting healthy human interactions. To the extreme that even if a kid wants to hug her teacher on the last day of school, the teacher is afraid to because healthy interactions are twisted into something perverse that they aren’t. That can’t be healthy.

15. What is "intuitive consent"? Like I said before... everyone should understand that nobody is allowed to touch them in any way they do'n't want. And they should'n't touch anyone else in any way they do'n't want. And if a given touch is welcomed, fuck... do more of it.


16. When it is learned that a child has had positive sexual encounters by an informed parent or adult guardian, it has been considered a contemporary and modern acceptable protocol to instruct the child that they should not partake in such activities - usually without much extremely good reason - and therefore are 'disciplined' or scolded to teach the child that what they have done is 'wrong', even if the child thinks and/or knows otherwise because they seriously enjoyed the experience. Should we as adults instead be much more lenient, and instruct the child how to simply be more safe, or knowledgeable about their romantic life, instead of looking at treating the situation as 'black and white'/unconditional?

Ans: The parents should ask if it was safe and consensual (wanted... did you have fun or was it scary). If it was fun, the parents should speak openly with the child and whoever their partner is/was about what and when they will allow sexual play and then facilitate future sexual play dates.

-Definitely. I've seen it had positive outcomes albeit in teens. I would add that safety should be emphasized and that in this society the utmost discretion also emphasized while openly informing that this need comes from predominant culture more so than inherent qualities of consensual physical and sexual encounters.



---- Yes.

= I think we adults can lack empathy and like to feel a sense of importance and superiority. We have bosses, leaders and others we must follow. This divide between adults and children is the one place that all adults can feel a sense of superiority and leadership. I think adults should listen to and respect children more and understand that a child is not an unthinking or unfeeling animal. Children have so much to teach us adults. If a child has sexual feelings we should not shut them down as if we have some privileged position which means only we can have such feelings. We should be willing to listen and if anything, advise on how to enjoy relationships fully and safely.

+In general, yes.

16. obviously.


Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?