Gertsamtkunstwerk

Dogging

Pardon my naivety, but I was genuinely shocked by this report on text-message organised casual sex in public places.

I expect it's a product of the hot summer of '03. I liked the closing quote:

You can't simply increase the amount of lighting - that just makes it easier to make videos or take pictures

Euggggh- and they call it safe sex...

Masturbation Horror Stories. Not work safe. Not food safe.

via Jon

Is it just for the Posh?

One more thought on the subject and I'll let go.

 First read this and this

Sex, love, relationship, cohabiting, marriage. What are they about? As I observed in a bar at NUS Conference many years ago, when we were campaigning against the enactment of Clause 28, why is it that the so-called Christian moralists emphasise that traditional marriage is about sharing a life and companionship, and so on, and that sex is just a small part of that, but when it comes to homosexuality it's all about anal intercourse.

It's a bit like Butterflies. As far as I could gather, she never actually slept with the bloke, but she knew she was 'committing adultery in her heart.' Like Bill and Monica - the nature of the sex act was a mere technicality to the motivation.

Is a no-strings fling a lesser degree of infidelity than a full-blooded affair? Is it more palatable if you stop at Deansgate? Do people have affairs to make up for a shortfall, or to seek new variety, in their physical life? Or is it because they want to be with that person and the existence of another is immaterial to that.

For that matter, what is it that makes us couple off in the first place? Is it a physical sexual impetus or a socially-driven need? Would it work if we had a 100% satisfactory sex-life with our partner and got 100% of our companionship needs from platonic friends. Or do I need the mixture of a not-quite-perfect (interpret that how you will) sex life and the care and attention, and the great company that can come from only one person?

People ask 'what is love? is this love?' but rarely ask 'what is sexual desire?'

I've alluded before to my tendency to have crushes. They are characterised by a physical reaction to being in their presence (or seeing them on TV) - a physical reaction that includes an increase in pulse rate, perhaps a slight trembling, and a dampening of the palms. But is that really sexual attraction? I have similar physical symptoms when I hear fantastic music, or when I learn that Arsenal have drawn at Bolton, or when there is something fast-moving and fun in the Blogosphere. That can't be a sexual response. So am I incorrect in interpreting my excitement at being in the presence of a crush-object, or finding their address on 192.com (not that I would use it), as being a sexual reaction, or a sexual attraction.

Maybe I just want to spend sometime with that person.

But yet, I don't feel that with women. Sure, there are plenty of women whose company I enjoy, or female celebrities I admire - maybe one or two I ever-so-slightly fancy in a 'would never do anything about it' way. but I don't feel that frisson in the same way.

And, ultimately, I think, what is the point? For the sake of argument, suppose I were to embark on an affair with said crush-object, what would be the outcome? The newly established status quo could not be left unchangeable.

There are three options, broadly. One, to continue a perpetual juggling a act until old age and death overtake, which I think would be mentally draining. Two, to have a brief fling, and then have to tolerate the embarrassment of being in the same office as that person (or find a new job, for the wrong reasons). Or thirdly for each to leave their current partners, which I regard as unthinkable, and anyway couldn't be done without a great deal of upheaval and having to deal with the hurt of the innocent parties and also the reaction of friends and relatives.

Yet people still do it.

Too explicit

Some stupid destructive immoral bitch has declared that Sex lessons 'go too far' because

"A course such as this gives children information they do not or should not know,"

even though 'it was the first such scheme in Europe to show a reduction in rates of sexual activity among young people'.

My neighbour, with whom I rarely agree, works for an NGO which promotes natural contraception. She ran a course in secondary schools teaching girls to be aware of their bodies, but had to abandon it because of parental opposition to such explicit teaching.

When I was working in Education at a London Borough, it was identified that under-age pregnancies were statistically very high so the Standards Unit sent packs to all the secondary schools with information geared to reducing the level of unplanned pregnancies. One school sent it back saying, "I think you have made a mistake. We are an all-boys school".

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have this view that all teenage pregnancies are 'wrong'. There are good sound biological reasons to reproduce in one's late teens. What I am opposed to is a culture - Britain - where embarrassment, ignorance and prejudice, mixed with an unhealthy tabloid preoccupation with titillation, prevents too many teenagers from making real choices about their lives.

What is also shocking is the comment in the fifth paragraph up is

Official guidance says sex and relationship education "is about understanding the importance of marriage for family life; stable and loving relationships, respect, love and care".

Shocking.

How well does that go down with all those teenagers whose personal life experience, or that of their friends, is different? What credibility does that lend to sex and relationship education? I think it's perfectly reasonable to explain to teenagers why marriage works for so many people, but it has to be allied with the fact that it doesn't work for everybody, all of the time. The inference is that it is extremely important to marry as young as possible. Over the years many people's lives have been made a misery by this pressure.