Sex Prude-ucation Show?

As long-time readers may know, a couple of years ago I wrote about a television series called "The Sex Education Show vs Pornography". I skipped watching the last series, which was about the sexualisation of young people (it's a topic that riles me up, but I wasn't feeling up to getting riled up about it at the time that series was on). A new series is on now, with the original general topic format.

However, the first programme of the new series revisited pornography, particularly its availability through the internet. Clicking on the link above, you will discover (if you read further down) what my attitude was towards the programme's attitude towards porn, and it hasn't changed. For those who don't want to read the other piece, let me summarise it thus: I felt they were trapped in a prudish attitude towards not just porn, but sex as well, and an overbearing attitude towards young people's developing desires.

The segment on internet porn was introduced as a "Parents' survival guide to porn", and the underlying premise was that parents should be able to restrict as much as possible their children's access to sexual materials not approved by the parents.

I probably don't need to point out the huge amount of cis, het, 'nilla privilege that resides in this summation at the end of a segment on "kids asking their parents about sex":

You see? Your parents really have been there, done that, and they are the best people to talk to, because they've only got your best interests at heart

[sarcasm]Yeah, that's really great advice for a gay teen whose parents are openly homophobic.[/sarcasm]

After all, if their parents are disapproving of their sexual expression and orientation, then teenagers actually need to have some way of finding out about it from sources that feel safe to them - the internet, because of its anonymity and accessibility, actually makes it seem much safer than talking to people who know you.

Ms Richardson introduced the piece thus:

In 2011 ... sex is literally everywhere - internet, mobile phones, social networking sites, they've got an array of gadgets and devices, and they're way ahead of their parents when it comes to using technology to access sex.

Teenagers love to have the upper hand - why would you want your parents to know what you're up to online? But there's no excuse for ignorance on this. Mums and dads, it's time to take control.

Again, see the objection above.

It's time to let [these] parents find out what some of the kids are watching online, and give them a unique lesson.

The presenter then explained that the pupils at the school had admitted to watching the material that was about to be shown to the parents, who comprised 5 mums and 2 dads.

The selection of clips that were described in the voiceover (the screen of the computer was blurred out on the broadcast) were: a "gangbang" (several men with one woman); a girl-on-girl fisting, and a scat-play clip.

All three clips produced reactions of disgust from the parents; the first clip was mostly non-verbal vocalisations - grunts and moans of disgust - although one woman said, "Very uncomfortable watching this."

The second clip, showing the fisting, produced the strongest reaction and I was somewhat surprised by it. However, I recognise that for the woman who reacted in that way it was a valid reaction and her distress must be acknowledged. She became tearful, and said, "I'm not watching, sorry". The video was stopped and the presenter commented that, "It's sort of - shocking stuff." The woman replied, "It's really degrading."

Try as I might, I cannot see what is so degrading about fisting, unless that person doesn't want it. It is often, in porn, a very vigourous activity and I can imagine how someone not used to that might feel very distressed by watching it (and even, on that basis, how one might describe it as "shocking") and to be honest, it doesn't matter what activity or type of activity was being shown, if the viewer found it distressing then she had a right to feel distressed and to retreat from the situation (as in fact she did on the programme). I do have a problem with people who take that and project it into a moral judgement on the material in question, and assume that all people must view it in the same way. While it is possible that porn fisting may be one type of thing while the fisting that happens in a relationship is different in style, the fact is that fisting does happen between loving couples, or between fuck-buddies who are just having recreational sex, and one imagines that these people do not feel degraded by the act, for the most part (as always, there will be situations where it could or does constitute a sexual assault).

Finally, the clip showing scat play produced a different type of reaction from the gathered parents: disgusted laughter, or "gross-out laughter". I am tempted to suggest that this gross-out reaction is precisely the form of entertainment that (most) teens might find from watching such material.

We then got a wonderful list of the prejudices and unsupported claims or myths about porn (and/or teenagers):

Ms Richardson gave us the classic, "If they're viewing this kind of thing a lot, do you not think that is going to influence them?"

The mums and dads produced the following classic myths/claims/complaints:

• "Yeah, they're going to see that woman as just an object for them to get pleasure out of."
• "They're just gonna think it's right, it's normal. It's not like a loving relationship" [I'll come back to this point in a bit]
• We're worried about the amount of unprotected sex that's being shown, and the message, erm, with that."
• It worries me hugely that they may feel that that is what they're expected to do if they're in a sexual relationship

There was also this exchange with one of the mums and Ms Richardson:

Mum - "The videos that we're watching - there's no respect."

Presenter - "It's got nothing to do with love."

Mum - "It's got nothing to do with love."

In summing up, and in the bullet points for parents dealing with teens and porn, this point came up again and again:

Text on screen: "Remind them porn is not love"; presenter's voiceover: "Tell them that there's more to sex than this. Sex is about relationships and emotions. Pornography isn't.

...

We just need to keep banging that story home, that sex and love is part of a loving relationship, and it's certainly not degrading or abusive.

Sex feels good. It's about huge and satisfying sensations, it's about being physical and full of fun hormones and endorphins and neurotransmitters and stuff. It's about enjoying each other's bodies and your own. None of that has to be "relationships" or "emotions" in any long-term sense. Why should sex have to be anything to do with love, for it to count or be viewed as a good thing? As Tina Turner sang, "What's love got to do with it?"

People may feel that the stuff that I did with Julie or with SNS had "nothing to do with love", if they watched it on a video, but they would be wrong to reach such a conclusion.

Of course sex should not be abusive or degrading. The problem is that when it comes to what is degrading, a lot of the times it is in the eye of the beholder. Some people would, again, argue that what I do with my sexual partners is degrading, but neither they nor I found it to be so.

One final point before moving on: for me anyway, a lot of the time what I find a turn-on in porn is when i can see that it is about emotions, and very powerful ones, at that - but then, that's my sadomasochist and D/s kinks playing a part.

The parents all reacted negatively to the idea that teens (or anyone) watch porn. however, the sex survey that accompanied this series is available online, and one can discover pretty easily that over 3/4 of those surveyed said that they watch porn. I cannot help but wonder if there is not a large vein of hypocrisy in the attitudes being displayed in this show.

The rest of the advice for parents:

• "Be realistic" - kids will find a way to see porn, or it will get shown to them by their friends at some point.
• "Talk to them about it" - explain that it's an unrealistic version of sex.
• "[Explain that] porn doesn't show safe sex"
• "Computer in family space" - If you're really worried ... so you can monitor what they're up to.

Now, I have written before about the importance of explaining the ways in which porn is unrealistic. However, unless you actually have the knowledge about what makes it unrealistic, it is hard to be convincing. This is stuff that should be in sex ed classes in school! All the preparation, filming requirements, fluffers, and so on that make up the realities of producing a porn movie, and that generally aren't a part of preparing for sex in the bedroom, unless you've got something particularly special planned! I think we should teach children how porn is made, and then they are at least forewarned and forearmed to make the choice if they should be interested in working for the adult entertainment industry. I really don't know how many parents are really in the position to talk about the mechanics of porn sex versus non-porn sex.

The segment is rounded off with Ms Richardson's earnest remark:

Equip your kids with the knowledge that porn really isn't reality, and help them to go on to have happy and fulfilling sex lives of their own.

I could not have come to terms with my sexuality without access to internet porn. Kids really cannot take risks, especially if their sexuality is different from the cis, het, 'nilla norms, in talking openly to their parents about sex. Parents have such power in their kids' lives, and no wonder teens "like to get one over on their parents" as a result. But when it comes to something like this, that is a source of very powerful emotions and "moral" judgements, could you really run that risk? Using the internet not just for porn but for information, was really the only route I had.

***

The rest of the show dealt mostly with teaching the teens about female puberty, and changes during the menstrual cycle. Some of the information was stuff that at my school, we had already been taught by the age of most of the pupils that they spoke to on the programme and I was surprised by how little the audience seemed to know. On the other hand, there were some things that I didn't know, like the average amount of blood that is lost during a period (apparently, it's 40ml), and that growth spurts contribute to teenagers' reputation for being clumsy - it seems that literally, growth happens too quickly for muscle-memory to adapt to the changes in proportions, or something. I was also surprised that chocolate wasn't listed as an essential supply at certain times of the month (don't tell me that's a myth as well!?)

Finally, this series has a regular segment on disabilities and sex: this programme featured a man with cerebral palsy and a woman with brittle bone disease (both of the wheelchair users) who, from the interviews, sound like they have a vibrant sex life. I did feel as though there was a huge dose of TAB privilege in the tone that Ms Richardson took in her comments (such as, "I'll never complain about my sex life again after talking to them"), but fortunately the comments and tone of the two people in the piece showed just how wrong-headed that was, not by countering the argument directly but just by them talking openly about how much they enjoyed each other and their relationship to one another.

I don't know if I am going to follow the series closely and keep on posting but, once again, I felt compelled to point out the prudish approach to sex that the show takes, and my feeling that for a show that is about sex education it seems a little on the negative side.

Oh, one last point to mention: they announced that in their survey results, during sex people are "most self conscious about their body shape". However, checking the results online, I find that actually the biggest result (with roughly 30%) was actually "nothing". Again, this seems like trying to find a way to whip up some controversy over nothing.