Wal-Mart Hits Teens with Gay Sex How-To Manual

Of course it's marketed to teens. "By girls for girls." It's information about sex that young people need, but that some parents refuse to provide, due to religions prudery. These parents would like to keep their daughters so ignorant about sex that they go to their wedding night not knowing that men have a penis. Kids have a right to hear what other kids have to say, and in this case, apparently all the factual information in the book has been vetted by doctors. Not only should stores be selling this book openly, but it should be made available to every kid in a venue where the parents would not know the kid had bought it, so that kids with repressed and repressive parents would have access to this information.

Kids have a right to know.

Parents do not have a right to keep their kids in the dark about sex any more than they have a right to keep them locked in a closet.

 

sorry, really dont see the issues here. i guess as a society the decision to ignore our true inclinations or pretend we dont know about what kids are really doing as a "healthy" outlook on living life based on some arcane religious code is acceptable to some, tolerable to others, and completely without issue to a few.

i live in the latter. Hugh Hefner may not have said it first but he is, by far, the most famous person to note that its acceptable to illustate murder, death and human suffering on tv, but expressing a natural sexual need, be it homo or hetero is completely banned as being "unnatural"

i guess, in retrospect, Hefner was wrong...considering that 10 million human beings are murdered every year, i guess tv does portray us in a more realistic light than we care to admit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Dec, 09:32 AM) [snapback]366729[/snapback]</div>

Cosmo's not a teen magazine. Again, it's not the homo- vs. hetero- part of it, it's the marketed audience that I find objectionable.

Find me an example of a hetero- sexually explicit book or mag that's marketed to teens and you might have an argument.

I doubt you'd find that kind of stuff in the TEEN version of Cosmo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 26 2006, 02:14 PM) [snapback]366825[/snapback]</div>

The "adult" version of Cosmo, which, as Tony points out, truly IS the "how-to" manual for the American female, is, in fact, read as much by teens as by adults (if not more), regardless of ostensible marketing strategies. In this age, teens, like everyone else, know where to find "real" information.

And Cosmo has been soft-core porno---like Playboy, now sanctioned by the culture--- for years. The "teen version" may be read by some 8-12-year-olds. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 26 2006, 04:14 PM) [snapback]366825[/snapback]</div>

Ummmmm....is this enforced by asking folks for their ID's before selling them the adult version of Cosmo?
I think you're supporting an unsupportable point and it's painfully apparent.

C'mon...homosexuality is out there; it's real; it's not "deviant" and (sorry to shatter you illusion) lots of homosexual relationships are as boring in bed as hetero ones are.

It's not all meth parties and orgies (just as Christians are not all knee jerk fanatics).

The best y'all can hope for is to control the environment and tone and manner of the discussion...why abdicate that control for something so untenable as absolute denial and information management?

I've heard that the Internet will -- one day -- revolutionize the way in which we search for information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 24 2006, 02:28 PM) [snapback]366341[/snapback]</div>

Was the book on any real shelves, or just virtual ones?
You can get America, the Book and D&D rule books from Wal-mart's online store, but you'll never see them available in an actual store.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec, 11:32 AM) [snapback]367278[/snapback]</div>

When did I say anything even remotely like this?????????????????????????????

For the umpteenth time, I'm not opposed to homosexuality!!!! I am opposed to encouraging sex among minors, which, last I checked, is illegal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 27 2006, 03:22 PM) [snapback]367316[/snapback]</div>

Uh oh...I made a mistake. Please accept my apology!

But...

Wouldn't you say that there's a TON of sexual messaging out there anyway, and lots of it not particularly healthy (the objectification of young girls, as only one example)...and LOTS of this is directed at minors, after all.

So, again, actually I think this is more about understanding and tolerence, rather than foisting a message of encouraging homosexuality. And not a "how to" manual, as you suggest.

And, since there is little public messaging that encourages the understanding and tolerence of homosexuality in the first place, I'd humbly suggest that this book is a good thing.

I mean, public-discourse wise, we're still at the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" stage with homosexuality...and most perceptions are based upon the behaviour of the vocal minority (and siezed upon with glee by the anti-homosexual folks).

Question: Does hetero same-sex education for minors elicit the same reaction from you?

I'm curious...your stance seems to indicate that you would avoid any sort of sexual education classes for minors, period...? That's, I think, where my confusion lies (and if you've already clarified this point, pardon me again).

'Cause if you're saying it's okay to talk to minors about hetero sex but not about homo sex, then you're discriminating...right?

 

Accepted!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec, 12:29 PM) [snapback]367320[/snapback]</div>

An example would help.

Huh? Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like this either!

My sex ed class was nothing like this book. If it were, then I would have this reaction to it. Yes.

Absolutely not.

No. Sex education in school should be taught factually and should not discourage homosexuality. When I looked at the links provided above, I didn't get past about the 3rd one, because I was on a work computer and I was afraid I'd get fired for looking at it. That kind of stuff is more like erotica than education, and IMO, is inappropriate for minors, either hetero- or homosexual.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 27 2006, 05:22 PM) [snapback]367396[/snapback]</div>

Ahhh, I see, thank you for your replies. I think (and pardon me for paraphrasing if I'm incorrect) we're in agreement. I don't know why I thought you said what I attributed to you!

In my opinion, what's best for us all is not to villify certain human characteristics, but to at least learn to tolerate them (and each other, in the process)...even if we never quite reach outright acceptance.

For me, my life is more about the journey and (to quote Proust) "discovering the unalterable truth about who am" than figuring out the best way to change myself, in order to suit the whims of the prevailing majority.

Oh, and regarding the sexual messaging comment of mine (#1)...how about those sexy French Maid Halloween costumes...with fishnets and heels...for TODDLERS?!?!?!?! If that's not enough, take a look at how teenage girls (and pre-teens) are dressing. I wasn't allowed to wear makeup until I was 14, let alone micro-miniskirts and all the other slutwear that's peddled to young women under the auspices of "enhancing their self image..."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec, 02:40 PM) [snapback]367409[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I think we basically are.

And I absolutely think it's wrong to discourage homosexuality, which is as natural to some as heterosexuality is to others. I do wonder if that is covered in the sex ed classes these days. Anybody know?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 27 2006, 05:29 PM) [snapback]367320[/snapback]</div>

This brings up some interesting thoughts. WHO exactly is forcing these young girls to dress and act suggestively? Some say it is inevitable BECAUSE of the loosening of morals and the constant and free flowing talk of sex.

I wonder sometimes why it SEEMS that guys want younger and younger girls. Could it be as simple as wanting to lesen the chance of disease from many partners, or is it a control thing, or is it a comparison thing. If a young female has had few or no partners, then there will be les chance of bad comparison.

One must look at the societal ramifications. With sexuality, theory does not always match reality.

Another thought, why do hetero guys find the male/male sex act more repugnent than a girl/girl sex act? Is the opposite true for hetero females? For me, and I'll admit it, WHEN I USED to watch porn, I never minded the female/female simply because I was watching two hot chicks instead of one.

I'll gop back to my long standing point of view w/ regards to sexuality.....there is no NEED to make it completely open and theory rarely matches reality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 27 2006, 06:24 PM) [snapback]367473[/snapback]</div>

I think its part of the survival of the species. Young women are better mates, can have more and healthier children, and we are conditioned to desire them more. For women, the opposite is true, as the older man is usually more secure in the community and can still provide active sperm as long as he is able to have sex. There is no biological clock working against the older man like there is the woman.

Society sets rules for the protection of people, so we have rules against marrying off 13 year olds. But many "primitive" cultures married off the young women right after the first menses (nature's proof that they are ready to start a family). And in every culture I've read about, the male is 10+ years older than the female. Some scholars believe that the Virgin Mary was 14 or 15, and Joseph was in his 20's (put that in a Nativity play and they might cart you off to jail!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 27 2006, 06:24 PM) [snapback]367473[/snapback]</div>

Until very recently, 12 and 13 year old girls were commonly married, by arrangement of their parents, to older men. Juliette was celebrating her 14th birthday and Romeo was in his middle 30's. Older men's desire for younger women is nothing new at all, very possibly for the reasons fshagan points out. The American custom of equal-age marriages is probably the exception in the history of the human race.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec, 09:26 PM) [snapback]367551[/snapback]</div>

How do you know Romeo was in his mid-30s? I can't find a reference. Shakespeare's adaptation of the story makes Juliet a few years younger than the earlier version by Arthur Brooke (titled Romeus and Juliet). The story had lingered for hundreds of years under many authors before it got to Shakespeare and traces back to the Greek myth of Pyramus and Thisbe.

Shakespeare himself married at 18 or 19. His wife Anne Hatheway was 8 years older than him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 28 2006, 03:18 AM) [snapback]367606[/snapback]</div>

Both their ages are given in the play. Of course it is a work of fiction. But it shows what was considered "acceptable."

 

my sex ed class in college involved watching commercially available porno every friday. on that day, you could bring a friend and NO ONE EVER missed friday in that class