http://www.thelocal.se/23032/20091102/ (http://www.thelocal.se/23032/20091102/)
QuoteCarnal knowledge: A sex scandal made in Sweden
Published: 2 Nov 09 17:57 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/23032/20091102/
Dictionary tool Double click on a word to get a translation
Classroom warfare has erupted in Sweden as conservative commentators are appalled by what they view as a "try everything" approach to sex education in the nation's schools, writes The Local's Christine Demsteader.
* More Swedish women surfing the web for sex: study (21 Oct 09)
* Teacher who paid for sex with minor 'can't be fired' (15 Oct 09)
* Young sex offenders escape investigation (11 Oct 09)
A is for anal sex, B is for blow job and C is for clitoris; the ABC of sex education in Swedish schools has been branded by some as carnal knowledge too candid for the classroom, following an exposé on Swedish television.
A war of words broke out recently after cameras followed a lesson at an Uppsala school for the TV programme Skolfront, which was recently aired on public broadcaster SVT. The report was billed as a behind-the-scenes look at sex education today.
There's an echo of giggles from a group of 9th-grade boys when asked for slang terms to describe their genitalia. Meanwhile, girls stare at a whiteboard drawing to correctly locate the clitoris. The tutor sings a fanfare as she hits the spot with her marker.
This is Sweden's take on human biology; the birds and the bees are banished and replaced with the topics of 'cock knowledge and cunt facts' (kukkunskap och fittfakta).
Helpful tips are bandied about as free condoms are handed around. "The anus doesn't have any natural lubricant," the tutor tells them. "So that's important if you are thinking about having anal sex."
The class is run by the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU) who have been offering the service to schools for the last 13 years. Sex education has been mandatory in Sweden since 1956, but some schools opt to outsource lessons to the organisation.
The programme also interviewed shocked parents who labelled the lessons, "vulgar," and "too advanced."
The debate was then taken up in the media with outcries that studies of "sexual techniques" are not suitable for 14-year-old students who are under the legal age of consent.
Further criticism suggesting that the lessons fuel a "sexualised society" has come as a surprise to RFSU.
"I didn't expect that kind of reaction," Pelle Ullholm, teaching officer at RFSU told The Local. "I thought we could broaden the subject and talk about sexual practice as a subject for knowledge, not only values."
Their philosophy maintains that knowledge empowers young people to get to know their body in a healthy manner.
"For example, there are many people in Sweden that don't know the clitoris is 7-10 centimetres long," Ullholm adds.
"By giving young people information they can make their own decisions, feel good about themselves and take responsibility. In that way we can prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexual diseases. "
According to RFSU, the need for their services comes from a lack of expertise in the existing education system.
"Sweden has a reputation of being open about sexuality but we don't talk about it," Ullholm says.
"Only six percent of teachers are qualified to give sex education classes. Schools invite us to do this because they don't have the means to do it themselves."
Tutors are typically in their early 20s and the teaching style is on a level with the youth of today.
"We use their kind of language," he adds. "We talk about what happens when you get sexually aroused and then you don't tend to think of genitals in a biological way."
Ullholm says the fear of promoting sex this way is largely unfounded.
"We don't think that abstinence is a method," he says. "But we know that with the right information young people tend to become sexually active later in life. And studies show the school is the best environment to get these messages across."
Yet, the privilege of educating their children on such issues should remain with the parents, according to journalist and commentator Roland Poirier Martinsson who joined the debate in the Skolfront programme.
In a follow up article in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper he considers the lessons nothing short of sexual propaganda and compares the style of teaching to what can be found on the sports field.
"Try everything, train hard and specialise later, like a decathlete," he wrote. "Do parents know that schoolchildren are learning anal sex techniques in the classroom?"
Since the lessons have come to light, Poirier Martinsson advocates the management of sex education by schools alone.
"An organisation with liberal ideals should not be brought to run classes like these," he tells The Local.
"It would be equally wrong to bring in the Catholic Church to teach the subject.
"A lot of people in Sweden don't reflect much on these matters," he adds. "But if this were to happen in the US there would be outrage."
While admitting his view is shared by a minority in Sweden he maintains there is a consensus that basic morals are at stake.
"The conservative religious faction is small in Sweden," he adds. "But the opinion that sex should not be perceived as a hobby – like playing soccer – is something a lot of Swedes agree with. Children should be taught to abstain from sex until they are older," he says.
In his article, Roland Poirier Martinsson encourages parents to contact schools to control the way sex education is being conducted.
However, new legislation to be introduced in June 2010 will lessen the power of parents to remove their children from class, Bertil Östberg, state secretary at the Ministry of Education tells The Local.
"All students have a right to the knowledge as stated in the curriculum," he says.
"So the possibility to skip certain parts of the curriculum in school will be reduced in the future. How sex education lessons are implemented remains something that the individual schools can decide for themselves."
RFSU have no plans to change or review their approach. "We are staying with our programme," Pelle Ullholm says.
"And we will be happy to continue this debate because we are sure we are doing it in the right way."
Those at Sweden's Ministry of Education and other government officials can take the opportunity to brush up on their own cock knowledge and cunt facts this week: RFSU is staging a special sex education lesson for politicians in a makeshift classroom at the Swedish Parliament.
The aim is to further discussions to make sex education mandatory in teacher training courses.
It is unclear as to whether anal lubrication is on the agenda.
Christine Demsteader ([email protected])
I just love the Swedish educational system :D
Quote"The anus doesn't have any natural lubricant," the tutor tells them. "So that's important if you are thinking about having anal sex."
:lol:
I'll throw this out there because I'm sure there will be someone around here who disagrees:
While I'm in favour of teaching students the importance of safe sex, the basics of sex, and to be OK with their sexuality, there is a level beyond which it is not needed in the classroom.
If indeed high school students are learning anal sex techniques as the article alleges, than I'm not sure what the point or value of that is.
Also, I'm not sure why abstinence should simply be dismissed out of hand. For many teenagers it isn't a realistic option, but on the other hand, for others, it is. By removing that option (and it should IMO be presented as only one option out of many) from the conversation, it demeans the choice of those students, who, for whatever reason, choose not to be sexually active.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 04, 2009, 10:53:36 AM
Also, I'm not sure why abstinence should simply be dismissed out of hand. For many teenagers it isn't a realistic option, but on the other hand, for others, it is.
And for some it's mandatory.
Meh, the kids will know about this stuff anyway, it makes sense to tell them to do it safely.
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2009, 11:04:41 AM
Meh, the kids will know about this stuff anyway, it makes sense to tell them to do it safely.
The question isn't whether or not to tell them to do it safely - as far as I know, most of the non-US Western world pretty much agrees on that, excepting probably BB, it is whether or not to tell them how to do it "well".
Another thing is that teaching about some sexual practices may be seen as "unusual" or unnecessary for straight kids but could be essential for gay kids - the question is how do you address it? I mean, people seem to be ok with teaching children how to properly engage in a vaginal intercourse (i.e. what to do, what not to do, how to protect yourself) but seem to balk at teaching the same about anal sex.
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2009, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2009, 11:04:41 AM
Meh, the kids will know about this stuff anyway, it makes sense to tell them to do it safely.
The question isn't whether or not to tell them to do it safely - as far as I know, most of the non-US Western world pretty much agrees on that, excepting probably BB, it is whether or not to tell them how to do it "well".
Isn't the difference a bit blurry, though? I mean, do you find teaching that you need to use lubricant for anal sex to be about doing it "safely" or "well"? Failure to use a lubricant may lead to damage and/or infection.
I mean, it's not like they are teaching them about aphrodisiacs or Kama Sutra.
Quote from: stjaba on November 04, 2009, 10:48:15 AM
Quote"The anus doesn't have any natural lubricant," the tutor tells them. "So that's important if you are thinking about having anal sex."
:lol:
What's so funny about it?
I'll sort of agree with PP's post. The question becomes, then, if we teach kids about anal sex, why stop there? Why not courses on how to stick a gerbil up your arse, safely? How to ejaculate on a woman's face without messing her hair? How to safely do a double penetration?
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:00:53 PM
What's so funny about it?
You don't find the idea of hearing that in a classroom amusing?
http://www.sexwecan.at/
An Austrian web offering - click star => Sex We Can to see three badly animated 3D episodes about two teens around 14 and their first love/first time (contains partial pixel nudity of underage people). Includes information about contraception (pill & condom) etc. Same site also has "Cool, verliebt - passiert" (cool, in love ... it happened) as info for pregnant teenagers.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:04:37 PM
I'll sort of agree with PP's post. The question becomes, then, if we teach kids about anal sex, why stop there? Why not courses on how to stick a gerbil up your arse, safely? How to ejaculate on a woman's face without messing her hair? How to safely do a double penetration?
Uhm, did you not read what I said? There is a bit of a difference between anal sex and sticking gerbils up your anus.
I explained why stop there - because anal sex is for gay people the equivalent of vaginal sex for straight people. Unless you propose that sex ed. should be for straight people only, it seems pretty sensible to tell kids the basics about gay sex as well.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2009, 12:06:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:00:53 PM
What's so funny about it?
You don't find the idea of hearing that in a classroom amusing?
Not really. Unless you find telling kids about using condoms when penetrating a vagina amusing as well.
As I said, this is a health comment - if you try to engage in anal sex without a lubricant, both the active and the passive partner risk serious injury. Since the same risk does not exist when it comes to vaginal sex, clearly that comment is not necessary there.
When I was a kid, I'd have died of embarrasment if some teachers tried to teach the finer points of anal sex. :D Strikes me as something more likely to be fodder for juvinile hilarity than a serious teaching moment, though I can't see any real harm in it. Maybe some kid will pick up useful pointers.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
I explained why stop there - because anal sex is for gay people the equivalent of vaginal sex for straight people. Unless you propose that sex ed. should be for straight people only, it seems pretty sensible to tell kids the basics about gay sex as well.
Especially since this is an exploration phase for many. Anything can be said if its done in the proper way. Besides any sexed is better than the prudish denials that 'kids' (read 14+) dont have a sexual life we hear so often in North America.
I should move to Sweden and become a teacher :P
G.
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:10:58 PM
When I was a kid, I'd have died of embarrasment if some teachers tried to teach the finer points of anal sex. :D Strikes me as something more likely to be fodder for juvinile hilarity than a serious teaching moment, though I can't see any real harm in it. Maybe some kid will pick up useful pointers.
He is not teaching finer points of anal sex - he is giving the most basic knowledge about anal sex that is necessary to prevent serious health risk when engaging in it.
Unless you believe that sex ed. should be only for straight kids, or that gay sex should have a higher age of consent than hetero sex, I fail to see how this is less "serious teaching" than teaching kids how not to catch an STD or get pregnant while having vaginal sex.
Quote from: Grallon on November 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
I explained why stop there - because anal sex is for gay people the equivalent of vaginal sex for straight people. Unless you propose that sex ed. should be for straight people only, it seems pretty sensible to tell kids the basics about gay sex as well.
Especially since this is an exploration phase for many. Anything can be said if its done in the proper way. Besides any sexed is better than the prudish denials that 'kids' (read 14+) dont have a sexual life we hear so often in North America.
I should move to Sweden and become a teacher :P
G.
Comments in this thread are kinda a chilling reminder why gay men face so much homophobia, considering people see anal sex as a foible at best, or an equivalent to sticking gerbils up your anus at worst.
When I was a kid I didn't know anal sex existed.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: Grallon on November 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
I explained why stop there - because anal sex is for gay people the equivalent of vaginal sex for straight people. Unless you propose that sex ed. should be for straight people only, it seems pretty sensible to tell kids the basics about gay sex as well.
Especially since this is an exploration phase for many. Anything can be said if its done in the proper way. Besides any sexed is better than the prudish denials that 'kids' (read 14+) dont have a sexual life we hear so often in North America.
I should move to Sweden and become a teacher :P
G.
Comments in this thread are kinda a chilling reminder why gay men face so much homophobia, considering people see anal sex as a foible at best, or an equivalent to sticking gerbils up your anus at worst.
Who said anything about "at worst."
I'd have a hard time chosing between having a gerbil or some other guys' cock up my ass. I'm not homophobic, or anything...I'm just saying they both seem pretty foreign to me.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:27 PM
When I was a kid I didn't know anal sex existed.
So only because you (or for that fact, most of us) were raised in homophobic ignorance, today's kids should suffer the same? I am not sure I get your point.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:27 PM
When I was a kid I didn't know anal sex existed.
I thought gay sex was like sword-fighting. :lol:
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:16:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: Grallon on November 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
I explained why stop there - because anal sex is for gay people the equivalent of vaginal sex for straight people. Unless you propose that sex ed. should be for straight people only, it seems pretty sensible to tell kids the basics about gay sex as well.
Especially since this is an exploration phase for many. Anything can be said if its done in the proper way. Besides any sexed is better than the prudish denials that 'kids' (read 14+) dont have a sexual life we hear so often in North America.
I should move to Sweden and become a teacher :P
G.
Comments in this thread are kinda a chilling reminder why gay men face so much homophobia, considering people see anal sex as a foible at best, or an equivalent to sticking gerbils up your anus at worst.
Who said anything about "at worst."
I'd have a hard time chosing between having a gerbil or some other guys' cock up my ass. I'm not homophobic, or anything...I'm just saying they both seem pretty foreign to me.
I feel the same about putting my dick in someone's vagina. Again, not sure I get your point. Unless of course it's that sex ed. should be only for hetero kids, so that gay kids should live in shame, engage in sexual practices in a furtive and improper manner, hurt themselves and eventually die of AIDS.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2009, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:27 PM
When I was a kid I didn't know anal sex existed.
I thought gay sex was like sword-fighting. :lol:
We call it "dick docking". :p
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:01 PM
Comments in this thread are kinda a chilling reminder why gay men face so much homophobia, considering people see anal sex as a foible at best, or an equivalent to sticking gerbils up your anus at worst.
Double standards are alive and well in Straightlandia I know.
I guess it all depends on how you define 'sexual education'; if it's to foist your conservative agenda of abstinence and moral guilt trips then it means one thing; if on the other hand you define it as an education on sexual matters than it should include techniques as well as contextual information.
G.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:10:58 PM
When I was a kid, I'd have died of embarrasment if some teachers tried to teach the finer points of anal sex. :D Strikes me as something more likely to be fodder for juvinile hilarity than a serious teaching moment, though I can't see any real harm in it. Maybe some kid will pick up useful pointers.
He is not teaching finer points of anal sex - he is giving the most basic knowledge about anal sex that is necessary to prevent serious health risk when engaging in it.
Unless you believe that sex ed. should be only for straight kids, or that gay sex should have a higher age of consent than hetero sex, I fail to see how this is less "serious teaching" than teaching kids how not to catch an STD or get pregnant while having vaginal sex.
I'm cool with it. I just don't think many will find it useful. My reaction would be the same to oral and vaginal sex details - that is, most kids will not really learn much from public education on the matter, but it cannot hurt.
What does age of consent have to do with anything?
Anyway, anal sex isn't restricted to gay folks, and not all gay folks do it, as you know.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:20:10 PM
We call it "dick docking". :p
Sword fighting has a nobler ring to it. ;)
G.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:19:31 PM
I feel the same about putting my dick in someone's vagina. Again, not sure I get your point. Unless of course it's that sex ed. should be only for hetero kids, so that gay kids should live in shame, engage in sexual practices in a furtive and improper manner, hurt themselves and eventually die of AIDS.
You know how Neil would respond to that. :)
No. My point is where do we draw the line? You are harping on anal sex. I'm saying. Why stop there. There is a signifcant portion of the population that engages in things other than vaginal or anal sex. Do they teach how to give a good hand job? Why not? Why not teach people how to have safe orgies. Or to have safe S and M.
If you have to teach sex ed, then go all the way.
I'm not making light of anal sex--my point is...why stop with vaginal and anal sex then?
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
Uhm, did you not read what I said? There is a bit of a difference between anal sex and sticking gerbils up your anus.
I explained why stop there - because anal sex is for gay people the equivalent of vaginal sex for straight people. Unless you propose that sex ed. should be for straight people only, it seems pretty sensible to tell kids the basics about gay sex as well.
Are you suggesting that anal gerbilophiles shouldn't receive safe sex training? After all, that's the equivalent for them to anal for gays.
I think the final in any such class should be a giant orgy. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2009, 12:28:42 PM
I think the final in any such class should be a giant orgy. :)
Peer review?
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2009, 12:28:42 PM
I think the final in any such class should be a giant orgy. :)
Yeah, but what course *shouldn't* have a giant orgy for a final?
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:33:17 PM
Yeah, but what course *shouldn't* have a giant orgy for a final?
Anything with "Engineering" in the title. :x
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 04, 2009, 10:53:36 AM
I'll throw this out there because I'm sure there will be someone around here who disagrees:
While I'm in favour of teaching students the importance of safe sex, the basics of sex, and to be OK with their sexuality, there is a level beyond which it is not needed in the classroom.
If indeed high school students are learning anal sex techniques as the article alleges, than I'm not sure what the point or value of that is.
Also, I'm not sure why abstinence should simply be dismissed out of hand. For many teenagers it isn't a realistic option, but on the other hand, for others, it is. By removing that option (and it should IMO be presented as only one option out of many) from the conversation, it demeans the choice of those students, who, for whatever reason, choose not to be sexually active.
I agree in full. And I don't think you should feel this would be so out of line. Seems quite common sense over all.
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2009, 12:34:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:33:17 PM
Yeah, but what course *shouldn't* have a giant orgy for a final?
Anything with "Engineering" in the title. :x
Really?? You don't find the idea of women building and demonstrating new and better dildos for the class HOTT! :perv:
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2009, 12:34:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:33:17 PM
Yeah, but what course *shouldn't* have a giant orgy for a final?
Anything with "Engineering" in the title. :x
A giant orgy is a perfect place to demonstrate the basics of mechanical engineering - all those load bearing surfaces and thrusting forces. :D
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:04:37 PM
I'll sort of agree with PP's post. The question becomes, then, if we teach kids about anal sex, why stop there? Why not courses on how to stick a gerbil up your arse, safely? How to ejaculate on a woman's face without messing her hair? How to safely do a double penetration?
So are you arguing for no sex education at all, because it is a slippery slope that has no end, or are you arguing that your preferences for what "isn't icky" should drive the process?
Students need to know what is safe and unsafe iin sexual practices, because so many of them are going to experiment. Your idea that shoving a gerbil up your ass is the kind of normal sex that kids will experiment with says more about you than about this sex education process, i think.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2009, 12:06:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:00:53 PM
What's so funny about it?
You don't find the idea of hearing that in a classroom amusing?
I heard it in my Swedish classroom 20 years ago and it wasn't very funny then. OK it was a little bit funny.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 11:54:50 AM
Another thing is that teaching about some sexual practices may be seen as "unusual" or unnecessary for straight kids but could be essential for gay kids - the question is how do you address it? I mean, people seem to be ok with teaching children how to properly engage in a vaginal intercourse (i.e. what to do, what not to do, how to protect yourself) but seem to balk at teaching the same about anal sex.
They really teach you how to do vaginal sex? They taught me how to use a condom and the dangers of STDs and pregnancy and all that...but they never actually told me HOW to do it. I guess they just sort of assumed I could figure it out.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2009, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 11:54:50 AM
Another thing is that teaching about some sexual practices may be seen as "unusual" or unnecessary for straight kids but could be essential for gay kids - the question is how do you address it? I mean, people seem to be ok with teaching children how to properly engage in a vaginal intercourse (i.e. what to do, what not to do, how to protect yourself) but seem to balk at teaching the same about anal sex.
They really teach you how to do vaginal sex? They taught me how to use a condom and the dangers of STDs and pregnancy and all that...but they never actually told me HOW to do it. I guess they just sort of assumed I could figure it out.
:console:
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:39:47 PM
A giant orgy is a perfect place to demonstrate the basics of mechanical engineering - all those load bearing surfaces and thrusting forces. :D
And about using senses other than sight and smell, because engin students tend to have issues in those areas.
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2009, 12:45:59 PM
:console:
It wasn't easy. Young women usually don't feel comfortable giving you the tour.
It is probably alot easier today with the internet around to enlighten young minds.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:10:07 PM
Not really. Unless you find telling kids about using condoms when penetrating a vagina amusing as well.
To be fair they never explicitely told me what I would be using the condom for when they showed me how to put it on :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2009, 12:48:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:10:07 PM
Not really. Unless you find telling kids about using condoms when penetrating a vagina amusing as well.
To be fair they never explicitely told me what I would be using the condom for when they showed me how to put it on :P
Apparently, it keeps bananas fresh. Or so one would assume. ;)
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:27:59 PM
I'm not making light of anal sex--my point is...why stop with vaginal and anal sex then?
For no other reason than there is a finite amount of time to teach any subjects in school, and spending a lot of tiem teaching stuff like how to give a good rim job, or how not to choke when sucking cock isn't really necessary or a productive use of school time.
Teaching someone how to engage in sex (whether gay or straight) in a safe manner is rather different from teaching them how to get the most out of the Kama Sutra.
You can make a compelling public health argument to defend sexual education from the perspective of educating teens about safe sex (and abstinence, for that matter).
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:17:52 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:27 PM
When I was a kid I didn't know anal sex existed.
So only because you (or for that fact, most of us) were raised in homophobic ignorance, today's kids should suffer the same? I am not sure I get your point.
I didn't know a clitoris existed either...I guess I was raised in heterophobic ignorance.
Seriously as a kid I didn't care about sex and found romance pretty nauseating. Men could have been having anal sex right and left and I never would have noticed or cared.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: Grallon on November 04, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
I explained why stop there - because anal sex is for gay people the equivalent of vaginal sex for straight people. Unless you propose that sex ed. should be for straight people only, it seems pretty sensible to tell kids the basics about gay sex as well.
Especially since this is an exploration phase for many. Anything can be said if its done in the proper way. Besides any sexed is better than the prudish denials that 'kids' (read 14+) dont have a sexual life we hear so often in North America.
I should move to Sweden and become a teacher :P
G.
Comments in this thread are kinda a chilling reminder why gay men face so much homophobia, considering people see anal sex as a foible at best, or an equivalent to sticking gerbils up your anus at worst.
why keep bringing up gerbil imagery marti? not exactly a common sexual practice for any orientation, anywhere.
That said, you are right to say there should be a general education of safe sex for all your basic moves, vaginal, anal, oral.... (Fetishes maybe as electives only :p)
The media (would they lie to me?) tells me actually though that many straight teens have been having more anal, and oral than any of us as teens ever thought was possible. Because they are so misinformed by "abstinence only" educations and repressed South Park style parenting that they think somehow they can have anal & oral and still be "virgins". :bleeding:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 04, 2009, 01:17:14 PM
The media (would they lie to me?) tells me actually though that many straight teens have been having more anal, and oral than any of us as teens ever thought was possible. ...
To think my first anal session came when I was 24 - almost 10 years wasted! :cry:
G.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 04, 2009, 01:17:14 PM
they are so misinformed by "abstinence only" educations and repressed South Park style parenting that they think somehow they can have anal & oral and still be "virgins". :bleeding:
And "The Stand", if I remember correctly.
I approve of what the Swedes are doing. That is, the teachers, not the retarded "I wish there were more American style social conservatives in Sweden" guy.
Marty turned a thread about sex ed into one about gay rights. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. :P
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 04, 2009, 01:17:14 PM
why keep bringing up gerbil imagery marti? not exactly a common sexual practice for any orientation, anywhere.
I didn't bring it up! It was Josephus. I am just harping at it because it is so ridiculous to compare anal sex (which is the primary sexual practice for gay men) and gerbil-ing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2009, 02:37:26 PM
Marty turned a thread about sex ed into one about gay rights. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. :P
One is linked to the other. Sexual education is very often used to enforce heteronormative and/or conservative viewpoints. This is something that directly harms gay rights movement.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 02:49:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2009, 02:37:26 PM
Marty turned a thread about sex ed into one about gay rights. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. :P
One is linked to the other. Sexual education is very often used to enforce heteronormative and/or conservative viewpoints. This is something that directly harms gay rights movement.
"Doctor Heteronormative" makes a good villian name. :D
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1526
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2009, 12:53:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 12:17:52 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:15:27 PM
When I was a kid I didn't know anal sex existed.
So only because you (or for that fact, most of us) were raised in homophobic ignorance, today's kids should suffer the same? I am not sure I get your point.
I didn't know a clitoris existed either...I guess I was raised in heterophobic ignorance.
Seriously as a kid I didn't care about sex and found romance pretty nauseating. Men could have been having anal sex right and left and I never would have noticed or cared.
The thing with sex ed. is that it is like the anti-HPV vaccine - kids should be getting it before they actually start having sex so they are prepared for risks and dangers of it. Sure, they may find it funny or uninteresting at the time, but once their hormones kick in, they will know what to do (and more importantly, what not to do).
Gay boys getting STDs because they weren't taught how to have safe anal sex (which DOES involve knowing you have to do it with lube) because someone thought it is silly or stupid to tell them, sounds like a rather poor excuse to me - unless of course one acts out of an anti-gay animus.
For the record - I am not accusing you of it, just commenting/making a point.
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 02:52:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 02:49:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2009, 02:37:26 PM
Marty turned a thread about sex ed into one about gay rights. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. :P
One is linked to the other. Sexual education is very often used to enforce heteronormative and/or conservative viewpoints. This is something that directly harms gay rights movement.
"Doctor Heteronormative" makes a good villian name. :D
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1526
:lol:
"Dr. Heteronormative: the grit in the vaseline of good anal sex education."
Hey, kids like comic books; might not be a bad method of sex ed. :D
I skipped this from the end of page 1 where Marty started to build up his rage in order to make this a gay issue thread. Did he succeed?
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I skipped this from the end of page 1 where Marty started to build up his rage in order to make this a gay issue thread. Did he succeed?
Does the heteronormative bear have vaginal sex in the woods?
Does the pope have gay anal sex?
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 03:06:18 PM
Does the heteronormative bear have vaginal sex in the woods?
Confusing sex with shitting, how German of you.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2009, 03:26:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 03:06:18 PM
Does the heteronormative bear have vaginal sex in the woods?
Confusing sex with shitting, how German of you.
The bear part adds some Swedish to the mix.
Ewwww, home schooling.
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2009, 03:08:44 PM
Does the pope have gay anal sex?
As opposed to straight anal sex? :lmfao:
You do realize women have asses? :unsure:
I was taught that there is a masturbation technique called "The screw" (Skruven) as in a mechanical screw, not slang for fuck. I still don't know how to do it.
Kids need to learn this shit on their own, with an empty Pringles can and box of tissues.
Fucking kids have it easy these days. In my day, we had to walk 20 miles to school, in 3 feet of snow.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2009, 02:53:06 PM
Gay boys getting STDs because they weren't taught how to have safe anal sex (which DOES involve knowing you have to do it with lube) because someone thought it is silly or stupid to tell them, sounds like a rather poor excuse to me - unless of course one acts out of an anti-gay animus.
I was simply saying that sex ed is generally made to be as boring and innoffensive as possible. I don't know if I even really got you can get STDs through oral sex as well...or what the definition of sex is...just that I can get diseases if I do it so wear a condom mmkay?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2009, 02:37:26 PM
Marty turned a thread about sex ed into one about gay rights. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. :P
That's Marti's job and he's DAMN GOOD AT IT. :mad:
As a kid, I would have found it distasteful to have some hare-brained, pop-culture soaked, talking head parachuted into my classroom to talk about advanced sex techniques with me and my subnormal or otherwise unappealing classmates.
As for the gay sex education vs. straight issue... I don't find merely saying that the anus doesn't have any lube, and therefore lube is required, to be overly sexually explicit. However, I got the impression from the article that the sessions dealt with rather more than that.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 04, 2009, 06:30:19 PM
As a kid, I would have found it distasteful to have some hare-brained, pop-culture soaked, talking head parachuted into my classroom to talk about advanced sex techniques with me and my subnormal or otherwise unappealing classmates.
Except nobody's been talking about children from the first post down; we've been talking about teenagers who, especially boys 13-14 onward, have nothing else in mind but sex.
I really find this ever present confusion disturbing.
G.
:rolleyes:
FYI, the word "kid" often refers to teenagers. Depending on the context, it can even refer to those in their early 20's.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 04, 2009, 07:30:29 PM
FYI, the word "kid" often refers to teenagers. Depending on the context, it can even refer to those in their early 20's.
And I find this attitude laughable - a by product of anglo-saxon prudishness - hence the sarcasm. But I guess you didn't get the memo.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 04, 2009, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 04, 2009, 07:30:29 PM
FYI, the word "kid" often refers to teenagers. Depending on the context, it can even refer to those in their early 20's.
And I find this attitude laughable - a by product of anglo-saxon prudishness - hence the sarcasm. But I guess you didn't get the memo.
G.
What are you talking about? Let's look at this clearly, quickly.
1. On the issue of sexuality of boys, kids, teenagers, twinks, or whatever the fuck you want to call people around the age of 14, your feelings are so well-known as to render your opinions on this matter highly suspect. But even assuming you only have the best interest of society at heart, let's move on to point 2.
2. What I am advocating is a golden mean approach to sex ed. As I said earlier, teaching students the basics of sex (hetero and gay), the importance of safe sex and being OK with one's sexuality are important things. However, there is a point of excess beyond which it isn't necessary to teach in the classroom. Your attempt to label this attitude with the word "prude" is just stupid.
3. Since you mention"anglo-saxon [sic] prudishness", it seems you assume there is a monolithic "Anglo-Saxon" approach to sexuality, which is also ridiculous. You must also assume there is a better cultural model towards sexuality? The Quebecois model perhaps?
I don't get the link between the supposed "prudishness" and having a slang word for young people. :unsure:
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2009, 01:50:27 PM
I approve of what the Swedes are doing. That is, the teachers, not the retarded "I wish there were more American style social conservatives in Sweden" guy.
Roland Poitier Martinsson :lol: He's executive of the Swedish Commerce Media Institute which is a part of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise think-tank Timbro, that holds the flag of big business high in Swedish public discourse. He's a staunch roman catholic and launched a civil war within Timbro when he said the limited government ideology favoured by Timbro only works together with strong social conservatism, which the Ayn Randians of the think-tank disagreed with.
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2009, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2009, 11:04:41 AM
Meh, the kids will know about this stuff anyway, it makes sense to tell them to do it safely.
The question isn't whether or not to tell them to do it safely - as far as I know, most of the non-US Western world pretty much agrees on that, excepting probably BB, it is whether or not to tell them how to do it "well".
Since when have I ever commented on sex education in school? :huh:
Sex ed is not for gay people.
Quote from: miglia on November 04, 2009, 09:27:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2009, 01:50:27 PM
I approve of what the Swedes are doing. That is, the teachers, not the retarded "I wish there were more American style social conservatives in Sweden" guy.
Roland Poitier Martinsson :lol: He's executive of the Swedish Commerce Media Institute which is a part of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise think-tank Timbro, that holds the flag of big business high in Swedish public discourse. He's a staunch roman catholic and launched a civil war within Timbro when he said the limited government ideology favoured by Timbro only works together with strong social conservatism, which the Ayn Randians of the think-tank disagreed with.
So the Swedish conservatism is a mix of socially conservative Bible thumpers and Ayn Rand libertards? Sweet. No wonder noone votes for them. :D
Sex shouldn't be practiced let alone taught.
:contract:
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2009, 12:30:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2009, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2009, 11:04:41 AM
Meh, the kids will know about this stuff anyway, it makes sense to tell them to do it safely.
The question isn't whether or not to tell them to do it safely - as far as I know, most of the non-US Western world pretty much agrees on that, excepting probably BB, it is whether or not to tell them how to do it "well".
Since when have I ever commented on sex education in school? :huh:
You non-commenting says more than anything you could post. :contract: ;)
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2009, 12:30:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2009, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2009, 11:04:41 AM
Meh, the kids will know about this stuff anyway, it makes sense to tell them to do it safely.
The question isn't whether or not to tell them to do it safely - as far as I know, most of the non-US Western world pretty much agrees on that, excepting probably BB, it is whether or not to tell them how to do it "well".
Since when have I ever commented on sex education in school? :huh:
You believe in God and are hence Irrational.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2009, 02:41:32 AM
You believe in God and are hence Irrational.
You're insane and hence, are irrational.
Quote from: citizen k on November 05, 2009, 02:47:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2009, 02:41:32 AM
You believe in God and are hence Irrational.
You're insane and hence, are irrational.
Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2009, 02:22:52 AM
Quote from: miglia on November 04, 2009, 09:27:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2009, 01:50:27 PM
I approve of what the Swedes are doing. That is, the teachers, not the retarded "I wish there were more American style social conservatives in Sweden" guy.
Roland Poitier Martinsson :lol: He's executive of the Swedish Commerce Media Institute which is a part of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise think-tank Timbro, that holds the flag of big business high in Swedish public discourse. He's a staunch roman catholic and launched a civil war within Timbro when he said the limited government ideology favoured by Timbro only works together with strong social conservatism, which the Ayn Randians of the think-tank disagreed with.
So the Swedish conservatism is a mix of socially conservative Bible thumpers and Ayn Rand libertards? Sweet. No wonder noone votes for them. :D
Well, yes, at least Timbro is, which is the most prominent right-wing think-tank in Sweden, though I suppose they'll employ anyone friendly to corporate interests since that is where they get their money from.
Though Mattias Svensson at Timbro, who I know through AIK, is a cool guy even though he's a Randian.
edit: Though I've started to like our conservative party (which is in power, by the way) ever since they realized they had to embrace the welfare state to gain power. They're not feminazis like the Social Democrats (who elected the absolutely horrible Mona Sahlin because she was the
best woman for the job, and I wish I was kidding you). But they have no intellecual street-cred, which is why a lot of money must be spent to have anyone write books for the right, and even then they can come up with no better than Martinsson and Randians. I actually own quite a few books published by Timbro since they're so heavily subsidised they're almost free, but they're so awfully written I can not bring myself to finish them.
QuoteGroup urges CW stations not to air 'Gossip Girl'
By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer
NEW YORK – On-air promos for a sexual threesome on an upcoming episode of "Gossip Girl" have spurred the Parents Television Council to ask affiliates of the CW network to pre-empt the show.
Airing the teen tryst, which is being teased in an ad as a "3SOME," is "reckless and irresponsible," said PTC president Tim Winter in a statement Wednesday. The threesome involves three main characters in the show but they are not identified in the promos.
The PTC has urged CW affiliate stations not to air the episode, scheduled for Nov. 9.
In a letter to the affiliates, Winter asked: "Will you now be complicit in establishing a precedent and expectation that teenagers should engage in behaviors heretofore associated primarily with adult films?"
This is not the first time the PTC has complained about the sexy prep-school soap, which Winter said is "expressly targeted to impressionable teenagers."
In July 2008, the organization spoke out against a racy marketing campaign for its new season. Ads showed intimate moments between the show's characters (on a couch, in the sack or apparently skinny-dipping), accompanied by headlines like "A Nasty Piece of Work" and "Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate."
"CW has been defending graphic content on 'Gossip Girl' by asserting that they don't target teenagers," Winters said Wednesday. "Such a claim doesn't even pass the 'laugh test.'"
CW spokesman Paul McGuire said the target audience for "Gossip Girl" is 18- to 34-year-old women, with a median viewer age of 27 years old. The network had no comment on PTC's complaint, he said.
The Parents Television Council describes itself as a nonpartisan education group advocating responsible entertainment.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20091105%2Fcapt.a95fc146db8e4612b7938b7756b79ecb.tv_gossip_girl_complaint_nyol551.jpg&hash=2067340b4ebb36be5397e87b107b565912dfb121)
*makes note to check out Gossip Girl next Monday*
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 04, 2009, 09:00:31 PM
2. What I am advocating is a golden mean approach to sex ed. As I said earlier, teaching students the basics of sex (hetero and gay), the importance of safe sex and being OK with one's sexuality are important things. However, there is a point of excess beyond which it isn't necessary to teach in the classroom. Your attempt to label this attitude with the word "prude" is just stupid.
The attitude I was refering to by calling it as a by-product of anglo-saxon prudishness wasn't your stance on sex-ed, which is fairly reasonable, but rather the reflex of labelling adolescents from 14 upward to early 20s as 'kids' - which they obviously aren't. That is a cultural construct I find ludicrous.
G.
We call anyone significantly younger than ourselves a kid, doesn't really have anything to do with prudishness. The terms boys & girls get used for contemporaries even.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 11:21:20 AM
The attitude I was refering to by calling it as a by-product of anglo-saxon prudishness wasn't your stance on sex-ed, which is fairly reasonable, but rather the reflex of labelling adolescents from 14 upward to early 20s as 'kids' - which they obviously aren't. That is a cultural construct I find ludicrous.
Heck depending on the context people could refer to you as a kid well into your 40s if not later depending on the age of the speaker. I am rather baffled what that has to do with our Anglo-Saxon prudishness. It is just slang for a younger person. If you want to get technical you can call them adolescents or young adults or whatever but we usually are not that formal. Is using slang a way of saying you hate sex and using formal very technical language a way of showing how sexually liberated you are in the latin cultures?
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2009, 11:34:02 AM
...It is just slang for a younger person. If you want to get technical you can call them adolescents or young adults or whatever but we usually are not that formal. Is using slang a way of saying you hate sex and using formal very technical language a way of showing how sexually liberated you are in the latin cultures?
Valmy why do you insist on being dense when you aren't?
Words have weight, they're loaded - never neutral. Even all those terms like 'dwarf' or 'blind' or nigger' - re-branded over 30 years of political correctness in order to empty them of any possible offensive content - aren't neutral. They carry the weight of the ideology that transformed them; one of hypocrisy, obfuscation and sophistry. An ideology which, coincidently, is the product of a culture where litigation has a central and ever growing place.
So in this context using the word kid to describe a 17yo, even as a colloquialism, brushes aside all distinctions between a 5yo and a 17yo since both are, you know, 'kids'; that is both share one thing: they are still dependant upon guardians under the law. Thus it reduces a complex reality to its most common/basic denominator.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 12:49:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2009, 11:34:02 AM
...It is just slang for a younger person. If you want to get technical you can call them adolescents or young adults or whatever but we usually are not that formal. Is using slang a way of saying you hate sex and using formal very technical language a way of showing how sexually liberated you are in the latin cultures?
Valmy why do you insist on being dense when you aren't?
Words have weight, they're loaded - never neutral. Even all those terms like 'dwarf' or 'blind' or nigger' - re-branded over 30 years of political correctness in order to empty them of any possible offensive content - aren't neutral. They carry the weight of the ideology that transformed them; one of hypocrisy, obfuscation and sophistry. An ideology which, coincidently, is the product of a culture where litigation has a central and ever growing place.
So in this context using the word kid to describe a 17yo, even as a colloquialism, brushes aside all distinctions between a 5yo and a 17yo since both are, you know, 'kids'; that is both share one thing: they are still dependant upon guardians under the law. Thus it reduces a complex reality to its most common/basic denominator.
G.
:bleeding:
This kind of sillines is what you get when you parse every word of any statement looking for something to get upset about or to start an argument over semantics. Congrats--you've just combined the worst trait exhibited by Marty with the worst trait exhibited by grumbler.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2009, 01:37:02 PM
This kind of sillines is what you get when you parse every word of any statement looking for something to get upset about or to start an argument over semantics. Congrats--you've just combined the worst trait exhibited by Marty with the worst trait exhibited by grumbler.
Its called sociolinguistics you moron. :rolleyes:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 12:49:30 PM
So in this context using the word kid to describe a 17yo, even as a colloquialism, brushes aside all distinctions between a 5yo and a 17yo since both are, you know, 'kids'; that is both share one thing: they are still dependant upon guardians under the law. Thus it reduces a complex reality to its most common/basic denominator.
Well I do not think so Grallon. In fact I think it is because our culture celebrates youth as a positive so we often go around calling ourselves 'boys' and 'girls' and 'kids' and we mean it quite positively. In a sense I think we call 17 year olds that because at some level we all sorta wish we were 17 again...or at least culturally we romantisize that age alot.
I do not think it is out of some desire to simplify anything or demean anything...quite the opposite IMO.
I think this is more complex than that, grallon. After all don't we call hot guys "boys" (and we have "Show Girls" and the like for the heteros)? That being said, I remember some people on Languish (was it Berkut or grumbler? Can't tell for sure tbh) who said Ozymandias from the Watchmen was a pedophile because he had a folder called "Boys" on his computer in the movie (even though this is the word we use to denote sexually attractive guys of the legal age).
I guess we are schizophrenic. :P
Or we have a different standard for gay and heteros (not surprising, considering responses in this very thread).
I also know I just had a glass of pink Pinot Grigio and can't think straight. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2009, 03:10:23 PM
I also know I just had a glass of pink Pinot Grigio and can't think straight. :cool:
Does that mean you could if you were drinking whiskey or vodka?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2009, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2009, 03:10:23 PM
I also know I just had a glass of pink Pinot Grigio and can't think straight. :cool:
Does that mean you could if you were drinking whiskey or vodka?
Not really. I just get drunk so easily. :P
Wasn't there someone arguing that the "Boys" folder didn't necessarily mean Ozymandias was a homo?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2009, 03:26:20 PM
Wasn't there someone arguing that the "Boys" folder didn't necessarily mean Ozymandias was a homo?
Don't think so. I remember people arguing it meant he liked little boys, i.e. was a peado - thus maybe your impression. I thought it was rather ridiculous.
WTF are you babbling about?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2009, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2009, 03:10:23 PM
I also know I just had a glass of pink Pinot Grigio and can't think straight. :cool:
Does that mean you could if you were drinking whiskey or vodka?
No I think it suggests whiskey or vodka would knock him flat very easily. :lol:
QuoteThe debate was then taken up in the media with outcries that studies of "sexual techniques" are not suitable for 14-year-old students who are under the legal age of consent.
Meh, it's not legal for 14 year olds to drive, ordinarily, either, but nothing prevents one from gaining a basic grounding in automobile physics and operation.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2009, 04:29:54 PM
No I think it suggests whiskey or vodka would knock him flat very easily. :lol:
I guess Marty wasn't the only one to miss the pun.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2009, 01:37:02 PM
This kind of sillines is what you get when you parse every word of any statement looking for something to get upset about or to start an argument over semantics. Congrats--you've just combined the worst trait exhibited by Marty with the worst trait exhibited by grumbler.
Its called sociolinguistics you moron. :rolleyes:
G.
I'm not a big enough moron that I can't see that just because something has a 6-syllable name means that it's not bullshit.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2009, 05:48:56 PM
I'm not a big enough moron that I can't see that just because something has a 6-syllable name means that it's not bullshit.
Allright sorry for the moron comment; but do read some more about it before calling someone an idiot and deciding that what he says is bullshit.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 06:52:26 PM
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2009, 05:48:56 PM
I'm not a big enough moron that I can't see that just because something has a 6-syllable name means that it's not bullshit.
Allright sorry for the moron comment; but do read some more about it before calling someone an idiot and deciding that what he says is bullshit.
G.
Fair enough; it's not really bullshit--words do really have power--it's just that I think you have misinterpreted the use of the word "kid". And I don't think that I called anyone an idoit. At least not in this thread.
I think sex ed is over-rated. Kids (>14) should just listen to their bodies. -_-
Quote from: merithyn on November 05, 2009, 10:51:32 PM
I think sex ed is over-rated. Kids (>14) should just listen to their bodies. -_-
Oh god, there she goes again. :frusty:
Self-parody?
Well duh, how dense do you think i am Meri...be careful how you answer that question <_<
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2009, 11:57:45 PM
Well duh, how dense do you think i am Meri...be careful how you answer that question <_<
:whistle:
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2009, 11:57:45 PM
Well duh, how dense do you think i am Meri...be careful how you answer that question <_<
I'd say you are neutron star dense. Tacos do that to a person.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 06, 2009, 10:11:44 AM
I'd say you are neutron star dense. Tacos do that to a person.
Burritos, on the other hand, turn you into gas giants.