We had to put them on bananas. Also section 28 was still a thing when I was in school, and I don’t think the SH talks have been upgraded since 28 was undone.
I feel any approach to sexual matters has to revolve around four principles that I first saw "The Puzzle of Sex" by Peter Vardy (1997): 1. Psychology has made clear the intimate link between sexuality, personality and human development as well as the need for human integration. Sexuality is an essential part of human nature and each person has to come to wholeness by being able to accept and balance the different aspects of their nature. Sexuality and spirituality may be seen to be connected. The ability to love and to accept love, to form relationships and to enter into mature, adult sexual bonds depend to a larger extent on the experiences one has a young child. Early experiences can distort the development process and can cause adults to be psychologically immature. The impact of parents and a warm, stable, loving home environment is important to psychological well-being. If this is absent, distortions are likely to result which may not be resolvable without help later in life. The negative view of human sexual nature deriving form the Christian tradition needs to be rejected and a positive approach taken to the wholeness of human experience in giving and receiving love. 2. Any approach to sexual ethics must consider the whole human person and an attempt be made to seek a truthful understanding of what it is to be fully human. Aristotle and Aquinas tried to do this and today the same attempt must be made, but taking account of our modern knowledge of physiology, psychology and the complexity of human relationships. If this is done, one can remain faithful to the past methodology whilst recognising the findings of psychology and of science must inform theological and philosophical debate 3. Sexual relationships must always recognise the role of the other person involved as a free, autonomous human being and no human being may use another as a means to the end of his or her sexual gratification. Sex should always be a free act, a gift of intimacy, commitment and trust by one person to another. It should never be coerced, whether mentally of physically and should always express the depth of the relationship rather than being a means to try to develop a relationship rather than being a means to develop a relationship. The pleasure involved should come as a by-product of the gift of love and tenderness, never as an end in itself 4. Lovemaking between two people is something ‘deep’ and mysterious - it, like birth and death, is one of the great mysteries of life and concentration on the mechanics of the act without an appreciation of its role in the wider relationship misses its true significance. No philosophic analysis will be adequate to capture the full mystery of love nor will any set of rules meet all of the complexities of human relationships.
What a great discussion!
Awh Molly, Purple Ella 💙💙💙
I love that this is happening because everything on youtube about sex or dating is for straight neurotypical people.
All people, on the Spectrum or not should be taught that its OK to never have had sex.
We had to put them on bananas. Also section 28 was still a thing when I was in school, and I don’t think the SH talks have been upgraded since 28 was undone.
I feel any approach to sexual matters has to revolve around four principles that I first saw "The Puzzle of Sex" by Peter Vardy (1997):
1. Psychology has made clear the intimate link between sexuality, personality and human development as well as the need for human integration. Sexuality is an essential part of human nature and each person has to come to wholeness by being able to accept and balance the different aspects of their nature. Sexuality and spirituality may be seen to be connected. The ability to love and to accept love, to form relationships and to enter into mature, adult sexual bonds depend to a larger extent on the experiences one has a young child. Early experiences can distort the development process and can cause adults to be psychologically immature. The impact of parents and a warm, stable, loving home environment is important to psychological well-being. If this is absent, distortions are likely to result which may not be resolvable without help later in life. The negative view of human sexual nature deriving form the Christian tradition needs to be rejected and a positive approach taken to the wholeness of human experience in giving and receiving love.
2. Any approach to sexual ethics must consider the whole human person and an attempt be made to seek a truthful understanding of what it is to be fully human. Aristotle and Aquinas tried to do this and today the same attempt must be made, but taking account of our modern knowledge of physiology, psychology and the complexity of human relationships. If this is done, one can remain faithful to the past methodology whilst recognising the findings of psychology and of science must inform theological and philosophical debate
3. Sexual relationships must always recognise the role of the other person involved as a free, autonomous human being and no human being may use another as a means to the end of his or her sexual gratification. Sex should always be a free act, a gift of intimacy, commitment and trust by one person to another. It should never be coerced, whether mentally of physically and should always express the depth of the relationship rather than being a means to try to develop a relationship rather than being a means to develop a relationship. The pleasure involved should come as a by-product of the gift of love and tenderness, never as an end in itself
4. Lovemaking between two people is something ‘deep’ and mysterious - it, like birth and death, is one of the great mysteries of life and concentration on the mechanics of the act without an appreciation of its role in the wider relationship misses its true significance. No philosophic analysis will be adequate to capture the full mystery of love nor will any set of rules meet all of the complexities of human relationships.
Why do they have to be as bad as mainstream and ignore people of religious backgrounds with this?