I really wish I'd gotten at least the birds & the bees from my dad. He will still just clam up and turn red if I even get close to the subject. I've tried to be more open with my kids, but I'm not sure I've done a really great job on that count so far. I had a discussion with 3 of them in the car the other day where I think I successfully conveyed the idea to the younger two that masterbation is a totally normal thing for people to do. Man, I offered up a lot of prayers for that "sin" when I was a kid...
I think part of my reticence stems from the fact that I don't feel like a knowledge expert on the subject. I've read a lot and Cara and I had done a lot of things, but we've been married to eachother for our entire adult lives. I'm wary of sample size introducing biases that aren't generally true.
And then there's the adage "a gentleman doesn't kiss and tell" which I think is designed to keep boys from having the sorts of conversations Donald Trump and Billy Bush did that torpedoed Trump's campaign. Would you say that sort of sex talk falls under what you're trying to advocate? Should we laud Trump for speaking freely and openly about his non-monogamous lifestyle?
That's a really interesting question. Personally, where my thinking is now, I wouldn't laud anyone who aims to rule over others with the power of government. Most of them seem to me to be power-hungry sociopaths. Also, the nature of his actions seem to be quite demeaning to women (even if he claims "and they let you do it" when you're a celebrity).
I'd rather not talk about Trump because it distracts from what I think is more real: How should you and I talk about it? How should our wives? What about our family, friends, and neighbors? If polyamory or non-monogamous lifestyle leads to increased human wellbeing, is that something we should all consider and explore? Are we only held back by the residue of religious norms about human sexuality? I'm reading some books on this stuff, and it's possible the version of "husband and wife" we live here in the West isn't exactly "normal" when you look at the full span of human history.
My preference would be to ensure no topics are off the table and everything can be evaluated, analyzed, and considered. I'd love to live in a world where shame, guilt, and ostracism are saved for truly immoral behavior. That, of course, requires we actually agree on what immorality is. For me, it means violating the non-aggression principle. Not because I dogmatically believe that's the be-all-end-all of human ethics, but because it's the best model I have found so far. If we could have open conversations about sex, what would society look like?
To take it even a step deeper, what about our kids? Sex is a powerful, powerful thing. Should that power be unleashed by teenagers who's brains aren't fully developed? Could they do harm to themselves with that power which they later regret?
All interesting questions. I agree, education is the start. And yes, sample size does become a problem, especially if the conversations aren't allowed.
The Trump conversation was brought up to illustrate the point that if the topic of sex loses it's stigma then not everyone is going to talk about it the way we would.
While I've made the effort to not follow in my dad's footsteps with my kids, I haven't really with other guys. I don't know how you and I should talk about it. (Cara is very private and actually admonished me not to post anything too personal here.) I think I probably could have saved myself a lot of trial and error over the years had I taken the time to compare experiences with other guys.
How should our wives? Again, comparing experiences could save a lot of trial and error. Of course I'd be embarrassed by them commiserating over my and your mistakes in bed, but I'd get over it.
As to wider circles I guess it would depend on whether it was pertinent. I had a coworker who loved recounting tales of his sex life which never really bothered me, although he had a much larger sample set. He never pushed me too hard to share either, so the conversation was fairly one sided and focused more on the art of seduction than particulars of the act. It also never happened when there were any female coworkers around.
Polyamory is, I think, not more widely consider for the non-religious reason of jealousy. This is probably rooted somewhat in the idea that one's mate is one's property, but not sure that even getting beyond that culturally would end the potential for jealousy. I've read that compersion is a healthier response and people have been able to get beyond jealousy in a variety of other situations. If the non-aggression principle implies that people cannot be property in the sense that one cannot own the body or labor of another, then non-monogamous relationships cannot be immoral. The question becomes murkier, I think, when deception is involved, but I haven't seen a good argument that the non-aggression principle implies lying is immoral and if there is no property involved (because people can't own eachother) then I don't think it's fraud either. But lines of thought such as this are the reason libertarians are often accused of being libertines!
Very true.
I recently read the book Sex and Dawn which you might appreciate. As for posting or talking about this stuff, I'd definitely get the permission of my spouse first because that is a very intimate, private act. Unless they are comfortable talking about it, I won't be comfortable talking about it.
I think fraud and trust go beyond property rights into tribal norms, game theory, and such. You can read more of my thoughts about that here, if interested.