Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Sacha,
But Sacha, you just don't get opera, and if only you did, everything would be just fine and dandy! Here, why don't you try some?
-
Hmmm... yes... but:
I’m just saying that OPERA is awesome, and for most people it is or could be the source of great happiness, so for some people who think it’s all a bit meh they could benefit from thinking more broadly and adventurously about what OPERA can be and what it can mean to them.
To be honest, if we replaced the word, "most" in that sentence with "many", I'd be happy.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Emma Hart,
I don’t think that’s entirely fair, Deborah, when Max has said:... acknowledging that for some people, chocolate will never interest them
You're right - I missed that part. I guess I heard a message to the effect of, "if only you would try *this* type of chocolate, it would all be fine. To be fair to me, 'there was quite a big emphasis on all the chocolate possibilities, and only one mention of really just not caring at all.
-
Yes, well, the chocolate manifesto. It has some fabulous insights. I guess the one thing that it doesn't quite work for me is with respect to people who really just are not interested in chocolate. To be precise, this bit:
“More people eating more and better chocolate” doesn’t expect everyone to like chocolate, but it does suggest that a lot of people who currently don’t see what all the fuss is about might have happier lives if they could explore more of what chocolate has to offer.
To be told that if they would just try a little bit of chocolate, just a leetle leetle bit, perhaps delivered with hugs and kisses or whatever, then they'd like it after all.... I find that difficult. The world is not necessarily a better place if there is more chocolate for everyone, because actually, some people really don't want chocolate at all, no matter how it is presented.
As it turns out, personally, I do want chocolate. And sex. Sometimes combined, which can be all kinds of fun.
But there are people who don't. If people want to have chilli chocolate, or lots of different chocolates, or caramello chocolate, or plain old dairy milk chocolate, then all power to them. They should be free to do what they like, without any tut-tutting through chinked curtains from supervising neighbours. All sorts of chocolate ought to be available to those who want it, without social sanction, and provided, of course, that all those involved in consumption and supply are consenting adults.
I don't think that it's helpful to tell people who don't want any bloddy chocolate at all that if only they'd try this flavour, or that combo, that they would find their own particular favourite. That's kind of... patronising, at best.
I think this is an area that the chocolate manifesto doesn't address. It's not so much something that the manifesto says, as something that it doesn't say, viz, that not wanting chocolate at all is just fine too.
-
With respect to student advocacy services, perhaps some sort of student ombudsman service would do just as well.
-
I regard atheism as the view that there is no evidence for the existence of god(s). It can't be the belief that there is no god, even if some atheists put it that way, because as a matter of logic, it's impossible to prove a negative. There can be no evidence that proves that god doesn't exist. So in a sense an agnostic position is somewhat incoherent, because it says that a person can't decide between something that is a logical impossibility (proving a negative), and a logical possibility (proving the existence of gods).
On the other hand, a person might claim to be agnostic in the sense that they really just don't care about the matter. A kind of social agnosticism, if you will, and it's a bit odd to worry about logical impossibility when someone is saying that it just doesn't really worry them one way or the other.
Could we go back to talking about sex?
-
This seems like a suitable time to link to the classic story about the IPD (intra-penile device). The only links I could find are google books links, I'm sorry.
How many men are prepared to use the IPD?
The researcher's name has ... implications.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Lilith __,
I think diaphragm insertion should be an Olympic sport.
There are no such things as UFOs. Those spinning objects in the sky? Diaphraghms that have snapped out of women's fingers and gone spinning around the world.
-
I can't recall much sex education at all at school. Mind you, I was at a convent school. From which I picked up a powerful load of Catholic guilt. Emma linked to a great piece by Clarisse Thorn, in which she says that she talks about some of the problems she has with the way she was taught about sexuality.
I wish that I hadn’t gotten this message: “Sex is easy, light-hearted — and if it’s not, you’re doing it wrong.”
Do I believe sex can be easy? Sure. Do I think it can be light-hearted? Absolutely! But do I think it’s always those things? No, and I don’t think it “ought to” be.
I wish that I had gotten exactly the opposite message i.e. that it was okay to have sex just for fun. It took me years to shake the negative conditioning off.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Russell Brown,
The Herald has also printed a partially literate screed from someone who claims to have studied and research sex education at university. I'm guessing this means that she wrote an undergraduate essay on it, because I can't find any reference to any published work, nor even to a Masters thesis.
Diane Taylor: Full disclosure on sex education please
This sentence is revealing:
They need not be afraid of exercising their God given rights by sending a letter to the principals of each school their child attends.
Or maybe the Herald has decided that a bit of parody is in order?