Part I: Thoughts on the Entertainment Industry - Sex Scenes and Nudity

Rating: R (for mature content; locker room language)

What's the difference between tv/film actors and, say, glamour models, strippers, and soft and hardcore porn actors?

The answer? In my eyes, not much, especially if the actor/actress agrees to do nudity that often does not move the story forward or adds to the their character.

As I mature my passion and enthusiasm for tv/movies has dwindled. Due to COVID and lockdown I've watched more movies in the past six months than I have in the past three years. I use to be very into movies, wanting to become a movie producer, though I did not know how. This didn't stop me from learning the politics and procedures of how films were made, how casting was done (for the most part), what needed to happened for a movie to make profit, and how the movies were distributed. It's a fascinating industry in those aspects. But that story is for another day. 

I never was fully comfortable with nudity on screen, mostly because when there was nudity it was always done relatively cheap in the sense that it was nonsensical and trivial. The characters were either in affair or were never going to get married; rarely were the sex scenes between a married couple. It was also more or less the same thing in terms of sex positions. The actress riding the actor with her breasts frot and center, either gyrating her hips or bouncing up and down. Or when she's in doggy-style and we see her breasts swing as the actress tries her best to put on her "this-feels-real-good-face" accompanied with moans. Or when the actors are in missionary position where we see the actress' breasts, once again. I wonder how many takes were needed. And of course,  not all actresses do nudity where some opt for a body double. 

I don't necessarily consider myself a prude given I don't mind nudity in say, paintings, life size stone figures, or even nude modeling for a paining. These mediums tend make one admire the bodily form of a woman (or man). There is no true technique of "shooting a sex scene" in movie or tv unlike knowing how to make stone look like flesh and how to make curves of a butt, hips or chest, or how to shade properly when sketching a nude model. What technique is there when a film director shoots a backside, butt and side breast scene (i.e. The True Story of the Kelly Gang - 2019)? Usually when a nude/sex scene is being done only the needed cast and crew are allowed on set with the actors being "very comfortable" and "trusting of" the director (you see where this is going?). 

As the audience, you don't know if there will be nudity or sex scenes unless word gets around after early previews. If not, it's all unraveling before you. Only those who have worked on the film will know. With soft and hardcore porn, photoshoots for glamour models and strippers you definitely know what you're getting. But why does this even matter? What's was the statement about pornography? "You know it when you see it." Now nudity in tv/films aren't porn, but some sex scenes are pretty close to soft porn. 

Defense of nudity will say that American are prudish and are "afraid of sex"; this is a ridiculous accusation. Most nudity and sex scenes are tasteless and aren't needed for the plot to move forward or does it add anything to the character. It's meant purely for titillation. Speaking of titillation ....

Another issue I have is that tv/film industry is predatorial. Take for the example The True Story of the Kelly Gang (2019) as previously mentioned. The actress, Thomasin McKenzie who rose to fame with Leave No Trace (2018) and Jojo Rabbit (2019), with The King (2019) and Kelly Gang (2019) being much smaller roles, just turned 18 when her nude scene was shot (backside, butt, side breast) in the Kelly Gang. On the movie's wiki page it was noted that production was postponed for an unknown reason until July of 2018; shooting was originally schedule for early 2018. Mckenzie's birthday is in July. A coincidence? I think not. It was probably a calculated move to allow an underage actress to come of age in order to shoot her nude scene; after all, when Kristen Stewart turned 18 while filming Twilight, in celebration, they shot throughout the night given the days before they could not due to working hour restriction on minors. 

Now I'm not sure what compelled McKenzie to take the role given it probably wouldn't be seen as a "strong female role" (at best it's neutral), then again she did play a young prostitute who already had a baby (more on actual prostitutes later). I suppose in her mind that scene was her "nudity for beginners" scene, and simply she saw the role as a way to add to her already growing credits (actors like Nicholas Hoult and Russell Crowe were cast), so anything helps I guess. I would not be surprised if within three years we see her breasts on the silver screen. Mom, especially mom (more on mom later) and dad would be proud. 

Other actresses like Rooney Mara and Sydney Sweeney have done nudity where their scenes don't add much to their character. Sure, Mara's sex/nude scene in Side Effects (2013) was between Channing Tatum who played her husband, but was it necessary? No. Did it move the plot forward? I can't say it did. And the scene was relatively "raw" in the sense (if you spot it quick enough) that Tatum was wearing a skin colored piece to cover his penis as Rooney vigorously and loudly dry-humped him, as her character fell back onto the bed after her climax. Rooney's all-too-wet makeup scene between Catherine Zeta Jones added more to the movie and her character. Sweeney's role in the tv-series Euphoria is playing a sexual promiscuous teenager who's boyfriend is having his own sexual identity problems (SPOILER: he's a homosexual; his character it portrayed as totally uninterested in a naked Sweeney riding him - good acting on his part, really). The scenes are raw and literally has Sweeney showing her breasts in all their glory. Yes, glory. I used that word for a very specific purpose and it isn't me getting all riled up as I write. I have never watched an episode of Euphoria (some say it's the US' version of UK's Skins), but besides the series being promoted by HBO Max and receiving a number of Emmy nominations, one would've thought that Sweeney's breasts were given their own Emmy nomination.  Ditto for Alexandra Daddario in True Detective whose filmography hasn't really improved since then, so if she wished showing her amazing rack to all would gain her more prestigious roles and respect (?) that has failed. Men have respect for her chest. Sorry, Daddario - you did this yourself. 

Glory. You see, actresses who are busty in comparison to more flat chested ones (Daddario vs Mara) is what they're known for - especially if they reveal them on screen. (In this aspect, Daddrio's chest has more prestige than Mara's.) How many guys have searched the internet for screen caps of Sweeney's and Daddario's breasts? Hundreds. Thousands. Millions probably. They aren't really known for their acting. Daddario is 34. She's not getting younger; she isn't in the same acting prestige bracket as Mara. Both McKenzie and Sweeney are in their 20s so they have time to build their credits and connections, and if promise of more prestige and better roles means shedding their clothes and having simulated sex then they'll do it. Even better if the director is a "respected" director. 

There is something to be said for all of this. The actresses need to be willing; no one is actually forcing them. Some say it's part of the job. This is partially why I think actors/actresses are just glorified strippers and soft porn actors when need be. If the director and distributing company decide to make a still of two actors in the film being distributed, posing in bed nude, waist up, implying sex, that, by definition would be categorized as an erotic still entering it into soft porn.

Being "trusting" and "comfortable" with a director and actor that you're doing a nude/scene with just raises red flags because it opens up a door into asking "what are you really willing to do for 'art'?" One can do lot of weird and degrading shit they normally wouldn't do when they're trusting of someone and comfortable around them (see: kinky sex, BDSM etc.). Actor Eric Dane of Euphoria, in a sex scene where supposedly a fake penis was used but half the audience wasn't sure of it admitted he'd do "whatever the scene/role called for" if it meant showing his actually penis. In fact, if I remember correctly, he'd say he would've done it anyways. His character was having a sexual encounter with a teenage transgender girl. I wonder if he'd be for actually having sex with a transgender girl, after all he said he'd "do whatever the scene/role called for." Also, why on earth would anyone want to see a tv series about teenagers and their sexual encounters? Yes, that's what Euphoria basically is. One doesn't need to watch a single episode to come to this conclusion. It's basically pushing the "teens have sex okay!" and "you can fall in love with a transgender if you just let it happen ya know!" narrative.

Another question that enters my mind is what does all this seemingly nonchalant view of nudity and sex (scenes) get society? More "bravery" in talking about sex? I mean, Emma Watson, who said she wasn't willing to do sex (used a body double in Regression), instead admits she's interested in reading about sexual kinks and admires couples who are in open relationships because of their transparent communication. Oh vey. 

"Hi I'm Amy. 

"I'm Peter."

"I'm Scott."

"What you're about to see are consensual acts between consenting adults . If at any point any one of us feels uncomfortable and says stop, the action will stop."

In the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) there's a scene that encapsulates how I feel when an actress does their first nude scene that, in 99% of the time, adds nothing to the film (besides an R-rating) and to their character. In this scene Mila Kunis' confesses that the owner of the bar she works at makes the girls who need to use their restroom for the first time flash their breasts where he takes a Polaroid of them and posts it on the wall of the bar's restroom for all to see. It hangs there forever. There's an actual database for tv/film nudity, partial or full, for practically every actress living today. It's called Celebrity Movie Archive. As soon as the tv/film hits streaming platform it'll be posted. Rooney Mara. Sydney Sweeney. Alexandra Daddario. They're all there. No Emma Watson (yet). And then there's nubile Thomasin McKenzie, who arguable is the youngest in the past fives years that I'm aware to do nudity, at 18. Ah, another one bites the dust and joins her fellow thespians into being a "professional actress." Where's that hardy handshake and warm hug? Welcome to the fold. Who will you undress with your eyes next (as her character in Kelly Gang says her lover)? 

There are parallels as well to this when it comes to pornstars. Now this is where I get a bit graphic in my language. I'm entering smut talk here now. As people seek out the scenes and screen caps of actors who have done nudity, those that haven't their admires are waiting patiently. It's only a matter of time - until the right role and director enters some say. Not all pornstars do anal sex. Some refuse to. When some noticed that pornstar Gianna Michaels had never done anal sex, some where "praying," "begging," and "wishing" their hearts out till the day she finally did her first anal scene. Her admires, when looking back on her career, said that she did porn her way and on her terms. Like some actors (i.e. Kate Mara, older sister of Rooney Mara), where the atmosphere needs to be just right to do nudity, some porn stars will do anal. I'm not sure if Michaels ever did an anal scene. Maybe she did. If so, her admires got their wish. But I bet they wanted more.

So what separates a "professional actress" and a glamour model and pornstar? Each can show up on IMDB with their credits given pornstars have been cast in some roles. Even real life escorts were cast as they were. The biggest differences is that aspiring tv/film actresses believe what they do is "art" and the promise of red carpet galas on an annual basis with the big bucks. It can be. A small percent of working actors make a living off of their craft. But we have to remember that actors were once considered bottom barrel "professionals" in the age of Shakespeare; there was no prestige in it and that some of the first actors on stage were prostitutes. Today's actors, if they "make it," are relying on the market and other professionals to make them look good, make them sound good, and guide their careers. Actual strippers that shed their clothes for a living (so do actors, but not as often and not under such unsavory conditions) where some make the crossover to porn, they know what they are. They're strippers. They make no fuss on what they really want: they work for the money. Their patrons don't make them anything more than that. Who wants to date and marry a stripper? Practically no one. Pornstars know what they are; some admit they're modern day prostitutes. Who wants to date and marry a pornstar? Maybe one person. Both the stripper and pornstar, more or less, calls it quits before the age of 40. Let's be honest, no man wants to see sagging breasts, and the stripper and pornstar know it unless they get the bolt-on ones. Actors? Only in today's modern world can they do what they do with the respect they garner (and think they should garner - worldwide). 

Actors are the jocks of the performing arts community so to speak. But they only play jocks on screen; only a few actors actually are athletic let alone know the rules of a sport. Some play strippers but they never go in and out of strip clubs hustling for the money. And they probably despise being compared to a pornstar. What do strippers tell their parents and friends what they do for a living? "Oh, I'm a dancer." What do pornstars tell their parents and friends? "Oh, I'm an actor/actress." What do actors say? "Oh, I'm an actor." 

I'll have the audacity to say that strippers, glamour models and pornstars should garner more respect, whatever left there is, from the public than actors. Unlike Thomasin McKenzie and Emma Watson, the former whose mother is also in the acting community in New Zealand, who had the groundwork paved out for them in terms of who to look up to in acting, strippers and pornstars tend to come from broken backgrounds who have some sort of mental disorder. They don't get the red carpets and the stylists to fit them in beautiful dresses and gowns to celebrate their film. They aren't dotted on by talk show hosts or film journalists. They don't get to work with prestigious directors or producers to either further or stabilize their careers. They get really nothing in comparison to actors who "make it." But here's the thing: the porn industry generates anywhere between $6-15 billion dollars. Strip clubs were deemed a necessary business during COVID lockdowns. Actors? Arguable not as necessary. Society only turned to film during lockdowns because they were bored. I know I did. I forgot about the films that were suppose to be released in 2020 but got delayed. I don't have much interest in going to the cinema in 2021 if society ever opens up to that point. My interest has faded. Filming continued in late July and early August and people got pissed because, in some controversy, small businesses next to film sets couldn't open up.

So what about this rant? It's to say that actresses who pursue a role with nudity that really doesn't add anything to their film besides a mature rating and their own place in Celebrity Movie Archive are actually on the same plain as strippers, glamour models and pornstars. I'll even add cam models. 

Is there any nudity or sex scene I thought was beneficial to a movie? Why yes. The only nude scene that I'm aware of that made sense and moved the story forward wasn't even a sex scene let alone nudity after implied sex. I'd argue this nude scene was, in the most rarest cases, forward thinking. It was the nude scene of Kate Winslet as she posed for Leornardo DiCaprio's character Jack in James Cameron's Titanic (1997). Yes, people were talking about that scene but it wasn't in some salivating way. Unlike Thomasin Mckenzie's nude scene in Kelly Gang (2019), which indeed hovered over her exposed backside, butt and side breast  (there's little doubt in my mind that this was exploitation on behalf of the director and producers), the talk was about how it tied the story together with the fact that it was James Cameron's hands that were shown sketching. The camera didn't focus on Kate's breasts or vagina, but more so on how nervous her character was posing and the talent of Jack's character as an artist. 

With all that said, putting her politics aside, this is why I respect Emma Watson more as an actress - at least for now. She did say that revealing less is better and creates a grander mystery, or something to that effect. I can stand beside that. 

Yes, Jill Biden is a "doctor."

 The WSJ Opinion piece, written by Joseph Epstein, commenting on who's a "real" doctor - a physician vs someone who holds an Ed.D (Doctor of Education) has caused some stir. This has centered around Jill Biden, wife of politician Joe Biden (D - Delaware). Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro also broadcasted his thoughts on the matter on his Youtube channel. Both conclude that Jill Biden has no right to use Dr. in front of her name let alone be called "doctor" in the public square.

They're both wrong. 

In the States the term "doctor" is often referred to a physician, or a medical doctor. The history of how this came to be is somewhat interesting. To make a long story short physicians in Scotland asked PhD holders, the original "doctors," if they can use the honorific title in their everyday language to refer to practitioners in their own field to bolster their prestige in the public eye. An agreement was met and that honorific title became synonymous with a physician alongside the prestige that was wanted. This carried over to the New World. 

The etymology of the word also does not lend itself to Epstein and Shapiro's daft and elitist rantings. The word "doctor" means to teach. It also means a "learned person." In the medieval times subjects that were open to study were immensely limited. Theology was the main subject matter and the advanced degrees conferred are today's ancestors of what is now known as the PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy. For those that are religious or are religious literate the phrase Doctor of the Church will ring a bell. This phrase refers to theologians, mainly Catholic, who have contributed immensely to the body of knowledge that have advanced theology and philosophy. 

A PhD is mainly used as a research to degree and many who are able to finish their doctorate are employed by the university/college system as professors or lecturers. They are expected to contribute to their chosen speciality in form of publications (enter the "publish or die" mentality in order become tenured). All PhDs require a dissertation that require an oral defense. This differs from professional doctorate degrees in the States (e.g. JD, MD/DO) where no dissertation is required leaving no oral defense to be had. Professional doctorates are, truly, vocational tracks, especially the older professional doctorates (MD, JD). An Ed.D is a fairly new kind of professional doctorate, sort of like the DSW (Doctor of Social Work) or PsyD (Doctor of Psychology). You may have seen a subtle difference between the PhD and these professional degrees in the name itself. There is no "Doctor of Philosophy." An MD is Doctor of Medicine, not Doctor of Philosophy in Medicine. 

On a more grounded and modern level, technically anyone with a doctorate degree can be referred as a doctor in public. Unless a physician is needed such people are doing no wrong in asking to be called doctor. The term doctor was not given to the profession by the layman or some governing body because they came to the realization that physicians were immensely smart and that their services were critical to the human race. None of that happened; no such thinking was entertained. It was simply asked for by physicians themselves to bolster their reputation, and given there were more physicians than academics interacting with the public, the public started to associate the word with the profession. A smart marketing move by Scottish physicians one might say. It has paid dividends. 

And remember: not until the turn of the 20th century did medical research, procedures and equipment start to advance rapidly into what would be today's world of medicine. Institutions for formal medical training were sparse and knowledge was infantile. Surgeons were seen as inferior to that of what is now considered the family physician (primary care); surgeons were sometimes not seen as physicians but as a vocational track, like brick layering or that of a blacksmith. Quack doctors were abound prescribing moonshine to ailments and cures for deadly viruses. 

So is Jill Biden a "real" doctor? Yes. The layman must educate himself, or even re-educate himself on the matter. Unless a non-medical doctor tries to pose as a physician, wishing to have all the positive stigmas that being a physician entails in modern times, then there should be zero issue. For those that do - don't do that. Stop it. Be secure in your degree and speciality, add to the body of knowledge, be a pioneer, be a competent practitioner and scholar. 

Dr. Jill Biden, I hope that you do not mind  the fact that your honorific title was used as an example to spread proper knowledge and to shed ignorance of whom can be called a doctor and whom cannot. 

The Big Ten Conference and Expansion: Rutgers and Maryland should be rejected for two others.

A change of subject for now. Football. American football.

Originally the Big Ten conference had, well, ten universities. Then it expanded to 11 and then most recently to 14. The new additions from the 11 were Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. 

I said it before that Maryland and Rutgers were mainly added to for financial reasons - to expand a majority Midwest market to the East Coast, delving into the Boston-DC corridor. So far the fruition of more money has sorta kinds paid off but not to the effect that the powers that be would hope so. This expansion to 14 universities was done around the 2010-2011 seasons. 

People will point out that the state of Pennsylvania as a non-Midwest. Okay, they have a point. But there's Penn St. and Penn St. has the "feel" of a Big Ten university that Maryland and Rutgers do not who are too far east to have any meaning sports wise to those in the Midwest. Nebraska, from its first day as a conference member, felt like it truly belonged (more so than Northwestern).

Realignments of sports conferences happen though not frequently. If I were the Big Ten Commissioner I'd send a hard push to get University of Pittsburgh and the University of Missouri. University of Kansas could be a back up. Geographically Pitt and Missouri makes sense. If we let go of the "not enough marketing money" talking point I believe these two universities make the most sense. They're also strong academically. 

I'll be the first one to say it in public: Rutgers and Maryland are just cash cows for the Big Ten. There really hasn't been any meaningful rivalries that have grown from the Rutgers and Maryland basketball-football additions. Nebraska brings volleyball and football; sure their basketball team isn't strong but so what. Penn St. is equally as horrific. The same goes for Northwestern sports save for football. Nebraska football is plain awesome and to have that be part of the Big Ten makes the conference even more amazing. 

Missouri would be a safe pick and that's okay. I can see the rivalry between Missouri and Illinois basketball become even more heated and tense. Missouri's football team is rock solid and would also add to the Midwest Big Ten football vibe. 

Pitt's football, like Missouri, has also been solid. Volleyball they're okay and basketball I can see them getting better at recruiting. The rivalry between Pitt football and Penn St. football would be great to broadcast on the Big Ten. Out of the two, Pitt is the most well-rounded school to add to the conference.

Academically Pitt is stronger than Missouri, but Missouri is currently ranked at #124 on the national university list by US News (if we use them as the standard). It's fine by me. What's the real difference between the undergraduates at Michigan St. (ranked around the 80ish mark) and Penn St. (ranked around the 60ish mark)? Not much. Missouri's undergraduate academics are not of a concern (they have a Phi Beta Kappa society) since they still bring in solid medical and law schools at the graduate school level. When people bring up the talking point that Missouri isn't "strong enough" academically, I'll point to Nebraska who's currently ranked at #133 as far as public universities goes.

Let's say the Big Ten stays at 14, with no newly added universities leaving, I'd still want Pitt and Missouri to be considered heavily given talks to expanding to 16 members was on the table when 14 was on the table. 

I'd also like to see the Big Ten divisions to be scrapped. It's not entirely needed. 

Big Ten Conference Members Wish List

Dismiss: Rutgers and Maryland

Invite: Missouri and Pitt

Illinois

Northwestern

Wisconsin

Minnesota 

Iowa

Indiana

Purdue

Michigan

Michigan St.

Ohio St.

Penn St.

Nebraska

Pittsburgh

Missouri 

Keep it at 14 members. There's no true need to be bloated like Big East or, even, the ACC. The Big Ten creates better rivalries and keeps a strong academic profile as a whole (thank you Northwestern being ranked in the top ten).

Of course there's Notre Dame to consider, but they're too in love with themselves and their Independent status for football. It would be great though. 

A Quick Comment on Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

It is said that people could not marry of the same sex and that this was unfair. This was marriage inequality. 

Originally the landmark case was because a person of the same sex could not have visitation rights, inherit money or have tax benefits etc. as compared to couple of the opposite sex who were married. On the national stage the narrative morphed into "bigots don't want gays to have equality via marriage." Now this is an interesting case on both the state and federal level. For now I'll just focus on the national narrative.

The national narrative is more or less false. The concern was that marriage was between one man and one woman. Pretty simple. But then The Left threw in the concept of love. This further muddled any sort of actual fair reasoning and logic. Here's the raw truth that defeats those in favor of Obergefell v Hodges: As previously noted, homosexuals (and bisexuals) had the right to get married all along - to the opposite sex. The standard was the same for every single person in the States. And it's been done before.

Numerous people with same-sex attraction have married people of the opposite sex. Probably a good amount of spouses had no idea that the person they married was either a homosexual or bisexual. The latter party had to "come out" to their partner. Maybe some had an idea that something wasn't "straight."A number of couples even had children. Some "came out" decades into their marriage. To parrot and drum on that people with same-sex attraction weren't allowed to enter marriage is a complete and utter lie. It's a false belief. 

Exceptions to the rule make for bad law. Obergefell v Hodges is a case that led to bad law.

Sex Education Doesn't Really Matter (Sort of)

 The push for "comprehensive sex education" has always made me tilt my head to the side in interest and concern. As a product of parochial schools from K-12, the concern to learn how to put a condom on properly or to know the "options" of how to delay pregnancy when a female is in her early teenage years has truck as immensely odd and disturbing. People will say it's a health concern. I say it's a campaign disguised as concern to infiltrate the homes of parents without being the student's parents. It's an insidious plan. It's the invisible social worker influencing the very intimate actions of a child. It's government saying they're just merely concerned.

One reason I think sex education, at least how public schools handle it in general, is one big joke is that the act of sex isn't rocket science. Boys are naturally curious. Girls are naturally curious. Growing up, for whatever reason, no one that I knew of in either my grade, the grade below me or the grade above me, got pregnant before the age of 20. I suppose we either had decent parenting or just had good self-control. I think both. I don't think we were anymore mature than our public school counterparts, just that we had been taught that sex is intimidate and "special." I mean, I'd bet that we instinctually knew this and we respected more so than others, especially in comparison to any teenage John Hughes characters. 

The approach to public school sex education is also warped. It's mostly done out of a public health concern. It indirectly says that sex outside marriage is okay and that to avoid pregnancy and STDs you can use many options of artificial birth control (ABC). Physicians in the forms of OB-GYNS support this push for ABCs on young teenage girls. Why? Simply put: it reduces STDs and pregnancies. Fair enough. But they are oddly not concerned about the effects of ABCs on what is biologically natural in the form of ovulation and eggs and so forth. Public studies triumph over the decline of teenage pregnancies due to the advent and use of ABCs. No concern is followed up by how ABCs effect the view of sex, children and marriage. No OB-GYN that I know of has raised an eyebrow. It's an odd mix. an OB-GYN deals with something that is natural yet they don't care much about the effects of what they push onto their patients.

Another reason I think public sex education is a crock is that it's rather immature. Sex is seen as something you sorta snicker at and if you've listened to the OB-GYN, Masters in Public Health expert, and you're "taking control of your sexuality" you might get an IUD implanted in your uterus. You want to the O but not the child. People mock abstinence in that it doesn't work, citing the failure rate. Stupidly enough they don't cite the failure of alcoholics getting a sip of wine instead of abstaining from it. Proof that abstinence is 100% effective are those who dedicate themselves to religious life or those who choose not have sex in general, either out of religious or health concerns. No sex. No kids. No STDs. If people are going to tout the brilliance of ABCs in its effectiveness while laughing at abstinence then they should also laugh at the failure rate of not using ABCs and having sex. Hello pregnancy. 

Self-education, in this case, is better than having some government program waltz into your classroom or gymnasium or library extolling the wonders of ABCs. Heck, anecdotally, most of my friends who never had a "comprehensive sex education" never had any real issues regarding sex. They dated, got married and had kids. Unless you're some weird pasty loser, religious or otherwise, with underdeveloped social skills a Chesil Beach isn't likely gonna happen. 

Better yet, I think my own sex education which was regulated to an annual visit to an outside secular agency dedicated to relatively neutral sex education starting in six grade (though I'm not sure how much the agency has changed since then), was more dignified and respectful to sex in general. Aided with my school's religious themes, we walked away with a somewhat balanced view of sex minus the touting of ABCs. At the end of the day we realized that if you don't want to get pregnant the best way is to not have sex. We were reminded of common sense that isn't all too common today.

Public "comprehensive sex education" is an exercise pushed by your agenda driven Masters in Public Health Overlord of Wokedom. This Overlord doesn't trust that kids can indeed figure it out without the government's help. 

Even medical doctors can have a lack of perspective.

From SDN written by an attending physician:

There are a dozen other ways to help people in the medical profession, but only one of these ways requires grit and determination and years and years of tough self-sacrifice to do. If you don't want to eat, sleep, breathe, LIVE BEING A DOCTOR, think it over. Because that passion and drive is the only thing that will get you to the finish line.

I will agree that the road to becoming a physician is a long and hard one when compared to other health professionals, but to say that becoming a physician is the only one that requires grit and determination is immensely myopic. Certainly determination is needed, but grit? Here are some sheer facts about medical school:

• Medical school is hard just by the volume and diversity of information one needs to process and understand in the first two years which are considered pre-clinical years.
• Medical schools try their very best to not let anyone flunk out because administering a medical education isn't cheap; it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to educate just one medical student. It's harder to get into medical school than it is to be let go due to poor grades. Medical schools do not want to admit people who they feel, or know, cannot hack the curriculum, hence, those given admission have demonstrated the ability to persevere a hardcore science curriculum.
• Medical school is self-selecting. This simply means those that want to become physicians have wanted to become physicians for years so they craft their resume to show their dedication to the sciences and to the field. 
• Medical school is pretty straight forward. In general, you have classes for the two years and then rotations for your last two.  There aren't any surprises in the curriculum.
• It is greatly emphasized to have support systems in place during medical school to help with the mental toll of studying. This is why many say choose a school near family and friends or, if not, that you have a significant other to make up for that.
• Residency is a pain due to the hours and consecutive days being scheduled, but then again it mirrors attending life. You may have a 24 hr work day, but how many hours are you "on" and treating a patient? Unless you're in the ER, you're sitting on your butt during the night for the most part.

Let's not make medical school and residency equal to The Crucible where Marine candidates must successful complete in order to be officially called a Marine. And compared to medical school and residency, which can take anywhere between seven to ten years if we don't include a fellowship, The Crucible is "only" 54 hours long.

Well that's just prejudice!

 WARNING: This is going to be rather crude.

Says an anon when commenting on homosexual anal plunging and sex between infertile couples, whether due to old age, choice, or medical issues.

Anon writes:

"What you need to add to accept sex between infertile people (either from old age, medical condition, the use of contraceptive or not the right time of the month) and refuse it to gay people is prejudice. So yes, it worked better in the good old days.

Any time a straight couple have sex knowning that they are not fertile, they are doing it only to give pleasure to their partner, which is arguably one of the primary function of sex.

You can't have it both way. Pleasure-sex is either moral or immoral, for everyone.

Each "exception" (rape, non-committed or non-monogamous relationship, ...) has to be considered as immoral on its own."

Now sure what "good old days"  mean unless you're referring to a time where you'd personally feel uncomfortable where "pride" wasn't seen as awesome.

The above quote is an argument that is used by those want to point out the supposed hypocrisy of allowing sex between opposite sex couples who know that they will not conceive, or know that it's highly improbable. The argument doesn't work out - at all.

Why? Because even though couples who have sex strictly for pleasure they haven't misused their sexual organs: it's still penis in vagina, not penis in anus. Only the fucked up do anal. The primal urge to have sex with the opposite sex is as old as time; couples have sex without abandon giving no thought to whether to use contraceptives or to get fixed (this is a relatively new phenomenon for modernists). The natural consequence is a child - if the role of the dice allows it.

Homosexual acts are intrinsincally disordered. Let's face it, the act of two guys anal humping each other is neither beautiful nor erotic to a vast majority of the people on planet earth. The same with two girls rubbing their clits together. The vagina and clit are like "Where's my dick?" It's like other depraved sexual act e.g., fisting. that step one good step away from what what raw sex is: penis in vagina. Ain't that hard of a concept to understand.

Comparing real sex with homosexual acts misses the point of what makes opposite sex couples so different than same sex pairings. They just aren't the same no matter how much the LGBT+ activist wants it to be.

If old people have sex knowing that the chances of the woman becoming pregnant is quite low it's not actually a mistake nor equal to homosexual acts because the couple is still using their sexual organs for its main purpose written in our DNA. Even if the consequence of child bearing was not met it still a natural good due to the urge to mate. That's what sex is irregardless of whether the couple wants a child: mating, and all the emotions leading up to it.

You see, this is the issue with those who want to play the "gotcha card." They suck at it. The anti-sodomy camp says that the main purpose of sex is to conceive a child (which is true) so then the LGBT+ activist says "Well X  opposite sex couples can't conceive so what now! Homo sex is okay!" Not the silver bullet as they thought it would be.

Then there's this on birth control:

"There is nothing inherently morally good about creating life. Just as there is nothing inherently morally evil about not wanting to create life."

When the couple actively does not make themselves infertile, yes there is inherent good when life is created. With that said, using birth control to stop the creation of life is evil since it obstructs the natural purpose of ejaculation and when are "in the heat." It detaches the very real consequence of sex and children. But is that the same as two people committing homosexual acts? Nope. Not even close. Penis and vagina. It's that simple.