Year 7 girls have been warned not to have multiple sex partners or risk becoming like overused sticky tape, in a Christian sex education program at a public Victorian high school.
The students at Fairhills High School, in Knoxfield in Melbourne's outer east, were also told that a chemical released in females' brains made them more needy than boys.
A booklet titled 'Science & Facts', that was given to the students, said that "girls are needier than guys in a relationship and always want to be close". (Wait, the booklet is called "Science & Facts?" Is that like calling Fox News "Fair & Balanced?")
It said that a chemical called oxytocin, is released when "two people touch", and was produced by women more than men, making them needier. (By the way Oxytocin is a hormone released by the pituitary gland to help regulate breastfeeding and childbirth. It is not released when girls simply touch a boy.)
"If a woman becomes physically close and hugs a guy for 20 seconds it will trigger the bonding process, creating a greater desire to be near him. Then if the guy wants to take the relationship further it will become harder for her to say no," the booklet said. (Why is it always the female's job to say no?)
It warned that having too many relationships could break "this special chemical bond" and harm a woman's capacity to form future relationships.
"Having multiple sex partners is almost like tape that loses its stickiness after being applied and removed multiple times. So the more you have the harder it is to bond to the next," it said.
Yes too much sex will make it much harder to use women to hold things together. Makes perfect sense.
This particular school is in Knoxfield, Victoria, a suburb of Melbourne, Australia, but you know this same type of garbage is being introduced in public schools here in America as well. And in many private schools it is undoubtedly the ONLY curriculum available.
Since this article was first published the church was forced to apologize, but I think we all know they will continue distributing this false information until all of the schools car them from their campuses.
Once again this kind of misinformation and shaming of girls is just another type of child abuse, and simply should not be tolerated in ANY educational setting.
I remember a fair number of very emotionally needy boys from my own adolescence and I don't think human beings have changed all that much. And after raising three sons and seeing what their friends experiences were I think boys of that age are every bit as capable of emotional fragility as girls are, maybe even worse because of the expectations placed on boys to be "strong" and macho.
ReplyDeleteThis is bad science and bad religion. We need to treat kids with respect and honesty. They need to be given the best, most up to date information, not bible based superstitions and pseudo-science. Comparing our young women to scotch tape is ludicrous and ugly. Shame on these people.
Thanks, Barbara, I can't agree more. We raised two daughters and one son, and have no regrets raising them as you did your sons.
DeleteI think Bristol has a copy of this booklet. Please, Bris, burn it before Piper sees it.
ReplyDeleteActually, you should correct your own facts--oxytocin IS released during all sorts of contact, not just breastfeeding. And YES, it does cause bonding between recipients of affection. I'm not sure that what they are saying is untrue, perhaps a little skewed to manipulate their argument…but who can't argue that women aren't needier than men? I think it's pretty darn obvious, whether it's from an evolutionary perspective or from oxytocin. I don't think women naturally want to sleep around and have multiple partners…spoken as a single woman in her 40s. But men do seem to want to do it, in general, and not have a problem doing it. Not sure we know the scientific mechanism behind these two differences but clearly they are there. In my life I've only met one woman who truly wanted to sleep around--and she was bipolar. Most women I have known who have had one night stands weren't loving it--nor thinking they were on to their next conquest…instead they were waiting for the guy to call. I believe that women certainly have the 'right' to sleep around and not be slut shamed, but most women do not instinctually think that is a worthwhile pastime. Women tend to certainly invest more emotions into sexual relations than most men.
ReplyDeleteNow, the Xtian propaganda…they are just trying to guilt the girls out into 'behaving'….but I don't disagree with most of what they are saying. And, fyi, I'm about as strong a feminist as you can find! But our gains in the 'sexual revolution' weren't really supposed to be about gaining the right to be sexual objects--which is what has happened--even more than ever--so much so that we are cutting ourselves up to insert fake boobs in, chopping up our faces to be more attractive, sucking out fat and risking general anesthesia to do so--all so we can have the freedom and 'confidence' to look as 'female' as possible….Naomi Wolf in The Beauty Myth had some pretty profound things to say about this. Also, you will find that now, the boys are still in control in high school circles. I had friend's tell me that at their upper-middle class schools, their would be blow job parties and boys would try to get as many colors of lipstick on their di**s as possible from as many girls as possible in one night. I believe the NYT did a story in their magazine on this a few years back. And THAT is girls having fun? Yeah, right. They are succumbing to their need to be wanted by boys…And the boys still have all the power. There was a video being passed around Facebook a while back that had some college dudes interviewing college girls and asking 'Do you spit or swallow'? And pretty much every girl answered one way or the other and several of them saying, 'it depends if I know the guy or not' huh???? This is what feminism has come to? And really, girls are being empowered here? I think not. That Xtian piece is not wrong is promoting the sacredness of sexual relations. I had a guy tell me once--a guy who had been involved in some soft porn actually, that every time you have sex you give away a little piece of your soul. Obvioiusly this is not science, but if sex is really about intimacy and you are making yourself vulnerable to a complete stranger, that sounds a little bit right. The point is to cherish and respect it and not just spill all with anyone you meet. Which is the point of that Xtian piece, the only difference being that they say that 1 guy is all you should have when maybe a handful is fine, too…but tens or hundreds? Most women are not happy if they are participating in that--they are sick and needing attention, validation, etc.
Whoa... you really have issues with female sexuality. You are no feminist, that's for sure. Your ideas about women expressing their sexuality sound very judgmental, repressive, and resentful. I'm guessing you're a man whose weird and destructive obsessions about sex have made him increasingly unsuccessful in attracting any female sexual partners and who spends a lot of time projecting his fears and anger over it. Or more likely it's the other way around... you can't attract the opposite sex and this is how you deal with it. Seriously, get help before you do some real damage.
DeleteAgreed 6:34. The competitive group sex is far different from a really empowered but tasteful and discreet sex life.
DeleteBack in that wonderful window post Pill and pre-AIDS, many young women I knew thought it perfectly normal to "date around" three guys minimum- and the saying was, you'll get tired of one in a week or so, one will get tired of you, so you still have the third - and time to slowly pick another second and third. No thoughts of making any permanent. THAT was truly egalitarian.
You have quite the imagination, 5:53/6:50. But not much ability to comprehend how utterly bogus your "examples" sound. Your lack of experience with real women is obvious. I don't believe you interact with any, outside of family or service industry members, at all. Please stop making up these stories about what women have told you. They simply don't ring true.
DeleteHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. 7;10 and presumably 5:53. Ring true to whom? You? And your creds are?
Delete5:53: Is it really so hard to understand what compels men to want to have sex with multiple partners? With few exceptions, most male animals don't mate for life. Which probably explains why when males see an attractive woman, they mentally undress her and imagine having sex. Men are hardwired that way. No doubt a propagation of species thing. Women typically don't require multiple partners for procreation. Whether or not a man acts upon those impulses is a matter of individual choice. I suspect most guys remain loyal to their partners, even though many would like recreational sex without the complications of a relationship.
DeleteI can't help but be amused by that old saw of the woman waiting by the phone for that guy to call. Sure, I know lots of guys are assholes, but there's no shortage of guys who'd give a nut just to be noticed by a girl, to be given a little encouragement.
These are not the guys at BJ parties. They are not the ones treating women badly.
Typically these conversations go "women, good; men, bad." Rarely is there any talk about how men feel and what their needs and desires are.
As for the topic that started this thread, I accept that there are people who must tell lies and there are those who must be lied to.
Relationships are for intimacy, raw sex is for getting off and feeling good. Both men and women know that.
DeleteDid they use Bristol for the model? LOL?
ReplyDeleteSeriously they took a "kernel" of science and twisted it, as usual.
Oxytocin is a hormone in males and females. If you pet your dog you can release it in yourself and your dog.
It is also "seems" why a dog can nurse baby tigers and Inter-species bonding.
It effects a whole slew of behaviors and it appears Conservatives lack it because they lack empathy and lack "bonding", caring and are promiscuous!
That is JMO you can read more here http://psychcentral.com/lib/about-oxytocin/
This "science that cons use is "bad science" and mostly "made up".
Shame on them for twisting the truth as usual...
but "overused sticky tape" could definitely describe barstool....just sayin'!
Excellent post! 5:59
DeleteWhere are the parents? Lordily, if any school compared my daughter to a piece of tape there would be Hell to pay.
ReplyDeleteSpeak up, parents! Give your children, male and female, self-confidence and independence, so they know their emotions and do not give them away for some hugging or rolls in the hay.
ReplyDeleteThey will have themselves, their whole selves, to commit when they time is right, whatever the age.
So why is there so much slut shaming on this blog especially concerning Bristol? And don't give me the old " its not slut shaming its hypocrite shaming" . That is bs and everyone knows it.
ReplyDeleteBristol deserves to be called out loud and long over her hypocrisy. But you're right, there is a judgmental obsession here about her sexuality that is truly Victorian and creepy.
DeleteNo, it isn't bs at all. She and her mother are the ones who proclaimed the loudest about abstinence. SHE WAS A SPOKEPERSON for it. THey are conservative Republicans, and look at what conservative Republicans (presumably the leaders of that party say - see BUSH, J.E.B about unwed mothers. See HUCKABEE, Mike...
DeleteSo yeah, it's the hypocrisy.
I agree 6:32 and 6:47. Hypocrisy is one thing, but some of the remarks about BP are really misogynistic.
DeleteAh, now Stephen Colbert, who's always legally owned the rights to THE Sarah Palin Channel, can feel free to "broadcast" any time he wants to.
ReplyDeleteThe amateurish of Palin not to get the rights to THE Sarah Palin Channel has been hilarious for a year.
But, but,,,what will we do without "Sally's Word of the Day?"
Chuckles gave up on giving us his wisdom on the "50th state" [sic] a long time ago.
The Hawaiin tourist office -- or President Obama -- can fill anyone interested in the history and attractions of the real 50th state.
The only way the nonsensical religious garbage 'works' is for them to LIE.
ReplyDeleteDitto to 5:53 http://www.livescience.com/42198-what-is-oxytocin.html
ReplyDeleteThough bsolutley disagree with teh "women needier than men" part of your statement 5:53. Some women perhaps. The social construct of gender is what makes thie meme proliferate. Both sexes have a pituitary glans, and both can produce oxytocin, so....
ReplyDeleteI wish the outrage for this sort of stuff would turn in to action. This type of education has been presented in Anchorage public schools. The group is an offshoot of Crisi Pregnancy Centers and it is called Lets Talk. My teen daughter was outraged when they came to one of her high school classes and started talking about the "inability to bond" crap and saying sex was only for married people, etc. She called them out on it and her teacher agreed to never invited them back because the speaker was saying such ridiculous stuff such as this. Please be vigilant next session, as Dunleavy and his buddies in SB 89 want to eliminate any abortion provider, i.e. Planned Parenthood, a clinic, a hospital, a doctor...from providing sex ed in the schools. Guess what that leaves us with--these people talling this shit to our kids.
ReplyDeleteThe science on this topic isn't very concrete, but from everything I've read these "xtian propagandists" have it about right. Yes, they're using it to prop up their existing ideology, but isn't that what everyone does? The sticky tape metaphor is kind of creepy but it works.
ReplyDeleteOne could also ask the question, might some people be better off if they weren't quite so 'sticky'? I've known wonderful women who let awful men ruin their lives.
How utterly fucking typical. It never fails to amaze me how evangelicals turn to science (or, in this case, pseudo-science) to bolster the tenants of blind faith. So much for this "god" character I keep hearing about.
ReplyDeleteI don't quite understand the bastardizing( No Bristle I am not talking about you are your spawn)of science for religious reasons. I had very comprehensive sex ed decades ago, but maybe that is also because I grew up in a blue state. I also had comprehensive sex education at home. Plus I was raised in the country where we had cattle, pigs, and a variety of other animals that had sex around me.
ReplyDeleteSo in the end, parents best bet is to talk sex ed. early and often to their children. Starting as tots you should be teaching them about good touch/bad touch. By the time it came to talking about when I would "chose" to have sex all my parents said was that was my decision, stated the consequences about pregnancy/disease and what I could do to protect myself, and other than that to never feel pressured into doing what I didn't want to do, to make sure it was my choice.
What year are we living in? I'm kicking myself in the butt. I'm a woman who married a man, had kids, and went on to build a career. Should have joined this church, sat on my ass, ate bon bons, watch tv, and make sure Mr Cleaver's dinner was ready when he got home from work. He's just so DREAMY!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd wouldn't it have been SWELL asking for an allowance? You know, maybe a pair of shoes this paycheck, perhaps a new kerchief or silly bauble the next, you know, in appreciation for not getting my tit caught in the wringer while doing clothes and ruining Mr Cleaver's "pleasure time", the time that I mentally prepared next week's menu, shopping lists, the kids schedules, and my monthly hair appointment..... anything but enjoying sex.*snark*