Sexplanations is a YT channel featuring Dr. Lindsey Doe who currently works in The University of Montana - Missoula Campus' Department of Health & Human Performance.
These short videos primarily focus on various topics of 21st Century Human Sexuality of any type and also feature Q&A episodes where submitted questions on specific topics are answered.
pQiadPyjJ4E
Why the Fuck Should LF give a shit?
Despite LF's stalwart support of all sexhavers eating shit, I do think that sexuality is under-taught, over-shamed, and too complicated to be ignored or left to the individual to cultivate and develop by themselves. As we know, despite theories to the contrary humans cannot be relied upon to be rational actors. We have the choice, but irrationality will always be a statistically relevant problem.
So? Humans also choose to eat McRibs, and as liberals we support free agency, whether or not this allows individuals to make bad decisions. What's the difference, dingus?
A big one. Consent. This is a huge concept when related to sexuality, as we have involved 2 (or more!) conscious individuals in the act.
This is/you are perverted.
A judgment made in haste and based on outdated modes of thought. When studied, we find that human sexuality has a very fluid(non-int) herstory. Current predominant western though outside of academia shows sexuality as a binary, with any act outside of state sanctioned union with the intent to procreate as a spectrum spanning discomfort to obsenity. When clinically studied, we find that while a significant percentage of the global sexually mature population does gravitate to XX-XY pairings, with a net goal of procreation, there exist significant sexual minorities in the populace. Let's start with bio-truths.
Ok so this actual biology. Infant development is not a perfect system. Many births (some studies show as high as 1 in 5) result in genital development that deviates from the binary model. Hermaphroditic infants can display the full range of genital manifestation, from having both testes/ovaries, to being genetically male while lacking a penis.
When other biological processes are impaired at birth, these are often life threatening. Malformed organs which pump blood, remove toxins, collect oxygen, or digest food can cause death if left untreated. However, many individuals can have viable lives without matching the binary model of genetic structure.
Current medical practice still primarily ops for reconstructive surgery, frequently matching infants to the female genital configuration. However, as one video covers, the individual actually had testes internally that exerted XY influence during development. When discovered at adolescence, the doctors opted to lie, explaining that they were removing cancerous ovaries rather than the truth, which was that they were removing the testes to prevent further influence. Because the symptoms and treatments would be the same post-operation (Unable to conceive, requiring hormone replacement therapy,) they saw no harm in this. However, the secret nearly tore the parent/child relationship apart.
Were we in a society where the binary model is rejected, much depression, body dismorphia, and general suffering could be avoided.
However, that would seem to open a sort of psychological "wild west" as far as sexuality is concerned. There is a specter of the binary model being the control we exert to make sense of sexuality. This is where consent becomes so important.
Imagine a world where if you were sexually interested in another, you did not have to go through Victorian rituals to express this desire? A world where if the other inividual did not share that interest, both parties we able to walk away without resentment? Where sexuality was a two way street, and all its facets could be discussed, improvised, and molded by two individuals of equal agency?
Imagine a world where, from birth, individuals are taught that their bodies genital configuration does not determine their future intimacy choices in terms of their own desires. Where individuals are taught to process rejection in a healthy manner.
In this academic field, this is believed to be achievable, starting with the removal of the binary model. Consent, rather than chromosomes and genital configuration, can determine human intimacy and sexuality. Rather than asserting that a wife, through marriage, implicitly consents to her husband's desires, both individuals have the freedom and support from society to discuss what they want sexually, what they are willing to do sexually, and what they will not do sexually, without fear of resentment, reprisal, or other consequence.
Will this be an easy transition? Of course not. Both models simultaneously exist.
However, I believe with education and distribution of these ideas and concepts, the dominant system can be transitioned to one of body acceptance, with consent being the governing force dictating sexual interaction between individuals.
Fuck you.
Take a look at the videos if you still think this is nonsense, I feel she lays out a very convincing, if controversial, stance. I've actually learned quite a bit medically from these videos, as often anything to do with sex is suppressed for being lewd or inappropriate.
Videos not your thing? For the tumblr crowd: http://tumblingdoe.tumblr.com/
What's in it for you, you hack fraud?
I find this to be a fascinating and important conversation that humanity needs to have before many societal problems can be addressed involving equality, coercive behavior, exploitation, and economics as related to human sexual interaction.
This all sounds problematic, OP.
There were 2 issues I ran into that caused arguments to break out in the comments sections.
One, she uses the terms "bio-male" and "bio-female" to refer to an individual possessing all of the male/female organs with none of the other, capable of standard reproduction. The trans community felt cisgendered should cover this topic, but Dr. Doe finds the distinction too vague for the concepts being discussed.
The other issue arose when asked on her views on prostitution, which she finds to be no different than getting paid to cater an event.
Consider me triggered.
Alright, but please feel free to review her work and discuss your thoughts. This is a safe space. As always, respect your fellow individuals and their agency.
This post got long so let me know of any corrections I may have overlooked.
Edited by dipshit420 ()
innsmouthful posted:gay mccaine megathread 2
TG posted:i dont see how eliminating the binary gender classification system will make it less socially awkward to walk up to someone and tell them that you would like to engage in some ill-defined sexual act with them, but that theyre free to say no if they dont want to
this is assuming that with the elimination of the binary system, it also dismantles the classical power structure and general assumptions. Many don't even participate in a social activity, because they do not desire full intercourse with the requester, even if they could have a good platonic time. That and having the concept of rejection understood from a young age allows people greater agency in navigating the landscape of not being sexually compatible in anyway, but making the dialogue ok, the rejection ok, and moving forward ok. It also removes the "scandalous/slut" dynamic, and the obligation/coercion dynamic. An example is the PUA's example of how they can't stand that after paying for a dinner for a woman, they do not receive sex a reward. Imagine if from a young age they were equipped with an ability to healthily process a rejection, rather than getting passive-aggressive on a gender divisive forum.
c_man posted:where do multiple systems fit in here?
use lube
Panopticon posted:c_man posted:where do multiple systems fit in here?
use lube
thanks, brb
c_man posted:Panopticon posted:c_man posted:where do multiple systems fit in here?
use lube
thanks, brb
make sure to remain within the minimum and maximum viscosity in centistokes for equivalent ISO-VG grades at 40ºC.
Doug posted:a 0.25/0.75 male/female and a 0.4/0.4/0.2 male/female/neither go out to dinner. who pays? is it split? i think this is the biggest problem with the concept and needs to be solved before i can consider it
i know this is meant to be facetious but this is still examining this issue utilizing the gender binary analysis. To have chromosomal patterns as the only definition of human sexual relationships consistently ignores sexual minorities as well as evidence in other species which leads you to a different conclusion regarding the nature of sexuality. It is not the case that gender is binary in the real world, until sadbrains start wanting to be a lady because they don't feel good as a teenage boy. People can develop in the womb with multiple primary sex characteristics, as well as different configurations of each of the 2 currently defined genders.
This proposed model allows you to be attracted to whomever you'd like, restricted only by consent. This barrier blocks you from engaging in sexual activity with children, animals, and inanimate objects because all three of these categories cannot consent, either legally or physically.
Edited by dipshit420 ()
Gssh posted:There's some irresponsible endorsement of homoeopathic treatment for herpes in there unfortunately.
didnt you know? science facts are socially constructed and there's no difference as long as your friends believe it
Current predominant western though outside of academia shows sexuality as a binary, with any act outside of state sanctioned union with the intent to procreate as a spectrum spanning discomfort to obsenity.
i dont think this is true
i have no problem with the rest of the post itself
acephalousuniverse posted:Current predominant western though outside of academia shows sexuality as a binary, with any act outside of state sanctioned union with the intent to procreate as a spectrum spanning discomfort to obsenity.
i dont think this is true
i have no problem with the rest of the post itself
you're right that this is an over-generalization skewing towards religious and social conservatism. I should have specified that social conservatism values a binary, opposite coupling with procreation as the end result.
libelous_slander posted:you're right that this is an over-generalization skewing towards religious and social conservatism. I should have specified that social conservatism values a binary, opposite coupling with procreation as the end result.
sure, and i think it's pretty major that social conservatism isn't actually the dominant worldview anymore and actually pressure to engage in commodifiable hedonism is the main "oppressive" force operating on sexuality today, and real "repression" doesn't functionally exist outside of niche communities of conservatives who are on the outs socially
so several assumptions in your post i disagree with strongly related to this ("discussions of sexuality are often seen as lewd or inappropriate")
the video person's view on prostitution makes me call her idea of consent into question when it comes to these things and makes me think her idea of "well you can consent to never have sex too and that's okay" is a mere rationalization which will be ignored in any larger context where these views are popular and quickly converted into making porn and prostitution socially acceptable for $$$cash$$$
basically eradicating gender as a concept is cool but i don't like sex positivity in general because much like liberal feminism and liberal anti-racism i think it boils down to widening capitalism's ability to get into the lives of more people more effictively under the guise of progressivism and none of this has really reassured me about the idea in execution
NoFreeWill posted:consent actually makes no sense as a concept since there is no free will. .
All calvinism is rape
acephalousuniverse posted:libelous_slander posted:you're right that this is an over-generalization skewing towards religious and social conservatism. I should have specified that social conservatism values a binary, opposite coupling with procreation as the end result.
sure, and i think it's pretty major that social conservatism isn't actually the dominant worldview anymore and actually pressure to engage in commodifiable hedonism is the main "oppressive" force operating on sexuality today, and real "repression" doesn't functionally exist outside of niche communities of conservatives who are on the outs socially
so several assumptions in your post i disagree with strongly related to this ("discussions of sexuality are often seen as lewd or inappropriate")
the video person's view on prostitution makes me call her idea of consent into question when it comes to these things and makes me think her idea of "well you can consent to never have sex too and that's okay" is a mere rationalization which will be ignored in any larger context where these views are popular and quickly converted into making porn and prostitution socially acceptable for $$$cash$$$
basically eradicating gender as a concept is cool but i don't like sex positivity in general because much like liberal feminism and liberal anti-racism i think it boils down to widening capitalism's ability to get into the lives of more people more effictively under the guise of progressivism and none of this has really reassured me about the idea in execution
excellent counterpoints, thank you.
I think it all depends on where you live in regards to exposure and influence to social conservatism/liberal feminism. Social conservatism seems to be the dominant social force around me, as even skirting leftist ideals can net me looks and kitchen arguments with people even my own age! not just dads.
gyrofry posted:thats just, like, your opinion. ma'am
post of the week
NoFreeWill posted:consent under
the patriarchybiology is not consent at all
acephalousuniverse posted:sure, and i think it's pretty major that social conservatism isn't actually the dominant worldview anymore and actually pressure to engage in commodifiable hedonism is the main "oppressive" force operating on sexuality today, and real "repression" doesn't functionally exist outside of niche communities of conservatives who are on the outs socially
hahaha
SariBari posted:49/50 states in the most powerful country on earth have passed laws restricting abortion and limiting women's access to birth control since Roe V Wade. Black and Latina women are stopped as prostitutes in NYC because they are carrying more than 2 condoms. It's still legal to fire people who are gay. but this nation is pretty ~chill~ sexually. just some backwaters of conservatism here and there.
i don't deny those things exist/happen but i think if you see them as part of an overall backward or stagnant trend wrt sexual mores rather than things that are increasingly being left behind and considered regressive by most normal people i don't think you're in touch with where america is headed at all. i don't think we're "chill" sexually. I just don't think it's true at all that sexual conservatism is as much of a problem as repressive desublimation.
sure fight sexual ignorance by educating people or whatever but it's not a radical thing to do so any more than encouraging people to take a vitamin every day or check themselves for tumors whatever.
acephalousuniverse posted:i don't deny those things exist/happen but i think if you see them as part of an overall backward or stagnant trend wrt sexual mores
can you please stay on your own weird topic? you said repression doesn't exist outside of niches and you're just wrong.
As for OP, the fallacy here is assuming there's some kind of "repressed" natural sexuality which needs to be let free from the clutches of power. Sexuality is not escaping a binary because of democratizing our culture or something, it is changing because capitalism is changing as acephalousuniverse poorly pointed out. We've already seen the form "free sexuality" takes and it is not liberated. Read ur Foucault lol