In response to Tami Petersons comment…
http://www.counterfire.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1744:sexy-at-six&catid=38:opinion&Itemid=54#comment-4
http://unknownconscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/sex-positive-feminism-what-it-really.html
It is the commodified ‘sexiness’ that I find abhorrent, not sex itself. I am not criticising teenagers for having sex, I am criticising sex education. 66% of children are first exposed to sex through the media, which means that their primary education is through the commodified ‘sexiness’. The practices which are depicted in commercial pornography are not in themselves oppressive; what is oppressive is the power balance under which these images are created and the implication of what is left unsaid.
A sex education solely through the market is resulting in a skewed image of what the human body looks like, a limited knowledge of sexual practices (foreplay is severely neglected), a distorted perception of sexual orientation, and of how consent and reciprocity in sexual acts is conceived (most women do not call forced sex arousing, they call it rape).
I am not advocating a control over sexual behaviour, I am advocating for our society to take responsibility for sex and relationship education that will allow young people to make informed choices over their own sexuality. If we leave sex education to the market, they will not be educated in sex; they will be educated in ‘sexiness’.
I don’t want my children to be educated through ‘cum shot’ commercial ciphers of sexuality, I want for them to see sexuality as something to explore, reinvent and self define. Pornography is a consumer product that serves a function. This function is not sex education; we all know what its true function is…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment