This. Exactly this.

This attitude is the reason why you need a good, useful sexual education. One that doesn't just cover technicalities but also topics like consent or etiquette.

Men who talk to women like that without making sure there's absolute consent to this kind talk are the product of what we have now. A society where you're more likely to be 'educated' about sex by porn than anything else.

OK, a few things.
First of all, how can you hate this? They even had a vagician!
Still cracks me up.

Second, look, I'm not a female so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this but...
I've seen "Carrie" and even read the book (which obviously makes me an expert), so I wouldn't compare the first period with random erections. I don't know about you but I had them way before I knew what they truly meant. When girls get their first period, they are at least capable of understanding it (depending on their sexual education more or less well). And it is a bigger deal. Not like making you an awkward, homicidal X-Men big but noteworthy when it happens the first time.
Just from a stigmata perspective (not even talking the maintenance side of things) it's a quite different thing. How many boner jokes did you see and hear on average in movies or TV last year? How many menstruation jokes? See where this is going? It's still very much a taboo subject. You're more likely to find videos here about fucking children than menstruation. That's how comfortable our western culture is with the subject.

Third, the only stupid thing about this is that there is a country that is super rich and wealthy and still somebody feels the need to sell a menstruation starter kit to the parents living there. And that commercial is not aimed at single fathers (who'd probably really love such a kit), no, it's aimed at the moms. You know, the women who menstruated for (hopefully) at least a decade or two before their little girls start as well. Just like their grandmothers and great-grandmothers. They are supposed to buy that shit. Welcome to the country of vajazzling!
Still, hilarious video! Exactly the shit I'd pull on my kids if I had any (and the exact reason I shouldn't have kids).

@bcglorf

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being. In order to do this, of course, one must take into account the not only physical health factors, but also the effect each life will have on the other. A woman's life is forever changed by childbirth; often the responsibility for caring and raising said child falls entirely on her shoulders; she may not have the (economic/emotional) resources to care for it, causing there to be two victims. How much does a ball of cells, or an embryo, with no memories, no personality, no identity, ... how much does that weigh against the irretrievable changes its continued existence would make to the woman? Why are some forms of life valued over others? Why do we feel no remorse removing a tumor - a living organism - from a person/animal? It's a question of checks and balances.

And please don't talk about the "potential" human being that an embryo or foetus is. That argument applies for every permutation of fapped sperm and period-flushed eggs that are lost every day. The point @Jinx makes about the debate is completely valid: we can argue (with the help of scientific evidence) the details about the moment when an embryo/foetus becomes capable of suffering/cognition (my opinion is that it's at the moment when the brain is capable of treating and storing sensory input), but the "pro-life" crowd are not up for rational debate, nor are they particularly pro-life. Instead, they will disregard the (quality of the) life of the woman as well as those of the future child simply because of their superstitious beliefs. They are also usually the same ignorant people who will fight against sexual education and the use of contraception for the same reasons and, more generally, against the autonomy of women and their rights over their own bodies (since their belief systems usually stem from the patriarchal desert monotheisms).

>> ^RedSky:

1 in 3 women in the US have an abortion in their lifetime? If that's true, I'm honestly a bit taken aback.


What they mean is 1 in 3 women who were taught abstinence only sexual education.

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <


That would be addressed in the general millieu of primary and secondary education. Sex ed is way more than just putting a condom on a banana. Sometimes a sex ed class is its own separate thing and other times it's just a subsidiary part of a home ec class or something.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not that they don't know what condoms are. There are millions of people in the world who know what condoms are and still don't use them (or use them properly); the key is in teaching why to use them.

The girl does say that there should be classes that teach the girls about protection and about not getting pregnant so I imagine it is a bit of both.

@Reefie As for the comment about the 1 child per family as per China, I don't even know where to start. First there's the massive problems associated with the policy in China; ie. the 4-2-1 problem (one child not able to help support 2 parents and 4 grandparents), the increase in infanticide, the huge gender disparity, etc. Then there's the fact that its results have been exaggerated; better economic status and better healthcare are more effective at controlling birthrates than the one-child policy, plus China's most dramatic decreases in birth-rate occurred before the policy under the voluntary "late, long, few" policy. And finally there is the fact that most "Western" countries are facing a population decline already - with so few people being born to the Baby Boomers that there will not be enough people to support their pensions. I'm not sure what the suggestion had to do with this video, but it doesn't really have a place in any realistic discussion about population.


>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <

>> ^bareboards2:
I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.
>> ^Skeeve:
In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <


Sounds very much like why my youngest sister got herself pregnant. That plus the benefits situation in the UK can help someone generate an income for the next 16 years, longer if the children stay at home while attending uni or other forms of further education. You're right that teaching these teenagers about condoms might not fix the problem, but teaching them what it's like to raise a child might be a good way to put them off - let's have all teenagers (boys and girls) work in old folks homes for a few months so they get first-hand experience of nappy-changing, bathing, feeding, and overall the responsibility of having to look after another person.

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.

There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.

Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.



>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <

They taste just like chicken.


In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.

When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.

>> ^vaporlock:

Ah great... I love babies.

Some of the things this homophobic homosexual has voted against:

SB 777 Normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality in public and private schools. Bans all teaching and activities that "promote a discriminatory bias against" these sexual orientations.

AB 1185 Would have codified existing legal protections for transgender people born in California which allows them to obtain a court order reflecting their correct gender and any accompanying name change.

SB 44 Affirms that same-sex couples married before Prop 8 are entitled to full recognition as married spouses in California, regardless of where they were married and that couples married outside of California after Prop 8 must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of spouses under California law.

AB 43 Replaces state language on marriage of a "man and woman" to marriage of "two persons". Legalizes homosexual marriage.

AB 102 Changes the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, allowing one or both parties to indicate changes in their last names. Grants marriage license to domestic partners, including homosexuals.

AB 394 Requires the State Dept of Education to "monitor adherence" to AB 537, passed in 2000 which prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in public schools.

AB 629 Revamps state sexual education requirements, making it illegal to "reflect or promote bias" against homosexuality, bisexuality or transexuality in sex education. Prohibits teaching "religious doctrine" in sex education.

AB 2654 Adds to the special protections against "anti-homosexual discrimination" found in AB 14.

the list goes on and on and on

for me, porn really comes down to a matter of intent.
that circle jerkin video was never, in any point of its production, intended as pornography.
i personally hate porn that exploits or degrades another human being, or seriously fucks with some peoples idea of women and sex, and i dont want to see it anywhere. but not everything featuring arousal is exploitative, and not everything featuring arousal is pornographic.
this particular video was first intended as sexual education for a very umm... niche demographic, and then as parody. and the intent is very clear and unambiguous.

"upsetting the advertisers" is a reason to remove something that i'm not going to argue with.
but i stand by argument in the other thread, to someone who doesnt jerk off to titties, the thin line between "this stupid video of a bare chested woman is ok because it only makes me think about a boner, but this stupid video of this bare chested is not ok because it actually gave me a boner" doesn't exist.
so you need to draw a line better for the 5% of the sift who can't get a boner.

>> ^berticus:
I don't know of one. But.. why? Is that what defines this as pornography to you, the fact that it shows stimulation of women-bits? This is an impasse, I suspect, one that I fall on the opposite side of a large wall from the majority of people here. This video is not pornography by any stretch of the imagination to me. Even the original clip, without the EIT editing, would not have been pornography. Porn to me is about intent as much as it is depiction. I don't see the intent of this clip being arousal for the viewer, it was made as an educational video for women. The fact that it's sexual education still doesn't make it porn, to me.
It's alright though, I'm used to being the odd one out here in how I perceive things.
>> ^Shepppard:
I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.


I don't see how you're taking anything away from this as "Educational". The minute we got tribal music and "O faces" we got to the point of full out sexual stimulation.

Let me put it this way. This video is about.. Women masturbating. If you were to go out and buy a hustler, most of that magazine is going to be of.. women masturbating.

Just because it may not be appealing to some doesn't mean it's not meant as a form of arousal for the viewer, the content is the same. The way I look at porn is basically as follows:

If it depicts some form of sexual act, solo, with a partner, or with multiple partners and or animals, that is porn.

If its something about describing anatomy, like a diagram, or something that is meant for educational purposes, that's not porn.

If it's about the female form, something showing the beauty of someone confident enough to pose without their clothes on, that's art.

This falls under one catagory on that list. This is not meant to be educational, and even if is, it's education about sexual arousal and stimulation. As dag said, it doesn't matter that it's a group of women. If it were a group of 6 guys around in a circle jerking one out, that'd also be porn, and inapropriate for videosift.

I don't know of one. But.. why? Is that what defines this as pornography to you, the fact that it shows stimulation of women-bits? This is an impasse, I suspect, one that I fall on the opposite side of a large wall from the majority of people here. This video is not pornography by any stretch of the imagination to me. Even the original clip, without the EIT editing, would not have been pornography. Porn to me is about intent as much as it is depiction. I don't see the intent of this clip being arousal for the viewer, it was made as an educational video for women. The fact that it's sexual education still doesn't make it porn, to me.

It's alright though, I'm used to being the odd one out here in how I perceive things.
>> ^Shepppard:
I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.

I wonder if she has had a vigorous sexual education , because if not im sure I could help.

Oh please, not this moronic drivel again. Someone's teenager does something and they're not allowed to speak out against it? That's disingenuous, and you know it.

I'm not saying she can't speak out against teen pregnancy, I'm saying its hypocritical (or at the very least ignorant) of her to support abstinence only education when the evidence for its ineffectiveness was her own daughter. If Bristol's pregnancy were an isolated incident among people and communities that support abstinence only education I would agree that it's 'moronic' to suggest Palin is being hypocritical for preaching abstinence only. However, its not an isolated incident, and there is evidence the teen pregnancy rate is higher in areas where abstinence is stressed over other forms of Contraception and STD control.

Further more, the very fact teens don't always do what their parents say supports sexual education that isn't limited to abstinence. If they know how to properly us a condom, or that douching with coke or pulling out aren't effective contraception, maybe when they fail to abstain they can still practice safe safe.