[thechat] Mostly (was: Handling a knife like a pro) (was: Cooked carrots)

Erik Mattheis gozz at gozz.com
Thu Feb 27 22:06:01 CST 2003

I sound like I'm trying to sink a boat here ... I'm not ... I just
think there are narrower issues contained within this "pan sex
positive" thing that should be focused on more:

On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 08:33  PM, Sabrina Dent,
Apperception wrote:
> people are
> entitled to choose sexual expression

> discussions of [...]
> STDs

I do completely see your side of everything though if it's directed
toward young people who are just awaking sexually ... the fact that a
kid might feel negative about buying or otherwise obtaining a condom
can ruin an entire lifetime .... sometimes literally.

And for people of all ages, here in the States, the National Institute
of Health recently changed their wording regarding condoms in pamphlets
pertaining to STDs ... something like from "although condoms are not a
100% safeguard against STDs they are the best thing next to abstinence"
to "condoms have not been scientifically proven to be an effective
defense against the transmission of STDs". I'm sure you've seen this in
the news.

> Read the books touted
> previously, really!

I'm wondering what I'd gain by reading it: the only sex-related
problems I perceive in myself are only having half the number of
regular partners I would like (1) and the fear of a girl licking my
bum. But I think 5-10 minutes with a mirror and razor blade would cut
my hang-ups in half.

> "Sex Positive" is an embracing of sexuality with the approach that is
> it
> happy, healthy, and good for you.

I believe that on an individual level, the vast majority of the human
race has felt this way forever ... people that haven't probably have
larger problems, like low self-esteem or Catholicism.

>  It's about normalising discussions of sexuality from orgasm
> to STDs, erectile dysfunction to polyamory. It's about eradicating
> shame
> associated with pornography, masturbation, body image, and everything
> thing
> else that's so damn normal but rarely spoken about.

I don't have a TV, so don't watch any daytime TV, but my understanding
is that such things are it's meat and potatoes.

> our media shows us that sex is only for
> beautiful people,

???OMG WTF?!! LOL!! One of the most cliché Hollywood morals is "looks
and preconceptions aren't / shouldn't be important in love" ... off the
top of my head: Swept Away (Italian version at least, haven't seen the
other) Harold and Maude, Pumpkin (GREAT movie), Chasing Amy, and every
Woody Allen movie where someone loves him ...

Otherwise, when the romance itself is the story, as is in most romantic
entertainment, it's more emotional (and therefore better) if the
audience sympathizes with the feelings the characters are having; so
what's wrong with using actors and actresses that are likely to be
immediately attractive?
Erik Mattheis
GoZz Digital
Flash and ColdFusion Development
Minneapolis, MN

More information about the thechat mailing list