What's wrong with safe satisfying sex?

// added November 21, 2008 // 10 comments //
Image...
cantucwearebrothers

more from Health:

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081121-173...

Last Friday I had to deliver a lecture on an assigned topic, “gender sensitivity, sexuality and sexual rights.” I was feeling uncomfortable about the title, which seemed boring and staid, so I did a quick change. I had a good feeling seeing the new title, projected on the billboard-sized screen of the Philippine International Convention Center: “What’s wrong with safe and satisfying sex?”

The title takes off from sexual rights that have been proposed. These include “choice of partner,” “consensual sex,” “respect for bodily integrity” and others which I brought out in the Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society (POGS) lecture. The last of the 10 sexual rights was “safe, satisfying and pleasurable sexual life.”

These sexual rights are controversial. The mere concept of sexual rights itself is rejected by many, especially those who feel sex should be only for reproduction. The idea that it might be pleasurable is seen almost as dirty and repulsive
  1. groups:
    Health,   Sex and Love,   Sex,   Relationships
  2. tags:
    Health,  Sex and Love,  Sex,  Relationships,  2 more

10 comments // What's wrong with safe satisfying sex?

  • ShadesOfInsanity
  • condomelite1
  • blanch
  • Tayllerand
    • 0
      Tayllerand  

    • the people who think sex is for reproduction they should leave the planet now.
      Sex is for pleasure ,thank God for sex and also if it is safe its even better.
      Thank God for women , they are the most beautifull creatures in the face of the earth, except the bitch type those should leave the planet too.

    • 1 year ago
  • tursiops
  • mischabarrett
  • blanch
    • 0
      blanch  
    • mischabarrett:

      I really don't understand why she's viewed as such a heroine. I am not anti-contraception or anything but this woman was a eugenicist who was trying to stop the undesirables from reproducing and who was an admirer of Hitler. Why does no-one question this or do they even know about it?

    • 1 year ago
  • mischabarrett
    • 0
      mischabarrett  
    • mischabarrett:

      Have you read 'Married Love'? It was a truly amazing leap forward in perceptions of sexual liberation and rights for women.

      Don't forget that when Stopes' was intellectually active, eugenics had very different associations to post-Holocaust and Nazi Germany conceptions of the term. It was a time of naivety but also of wanting to perfect society - to eradicate poverty, violence, and destitution. It took tragedies almost beyond our capability to understand in order to guide social thinking beyond genes, but sometimes I worry we're back where we're started, with the media harking on every other day about scientists having found a new gene for kleptomania, or fondness for jazz music, or liking cheeseburgers.

      Anyway, the Marie Stopes charity did much to help women control the number of babies they wanted to have through the setting up of many birth control clinics, at a time when the government and doctors actively refused to talk to even married women about methods of contraception.

      Nowadays, Stopes' legacy is continued in developing countries, helping to distribute birth control aids and improve maternity health. I cannot think of a more noble cause.

    • 1 year ago
  • condomelite1
  • juicie
    • 0
      juicie  

    • There's nothing wrong with it if you don't mind burning in hell you pervert!

      j/k - hard to be facetious w/ text

    • 1 year ago
most popular
videos on current tv

current videos