S
Consider the following before watching the video:
"Emily Nagoski is a sex educator, researcher, writer, and activist who has a Ph.D. in health behavior with a concentration in human sexuality. She is the author of the best-selling book Come As You Are: The Surprising New Science that Will Transform Your Sex Life, which aims to help women understand and embrace their sexual well-being. She is also the co-author of Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle, which addresses the challenges and solutions for women’s stress".
"Based on her writings and interviews, Emily Nagoski’s views on abstinence-only sex education are:
She is strongly opposed to abstinence-only sex education, which she considers to be ineffective, harmful, and unethical. She argues that abstinence-only sex education does not prevent or delay sexual activity, pregnancy, or sexually transmitted infections among adolescents. Instead, it increases the risks of these outcomes by depriving young people of accurate and comprehensive information and skills to protect themselves and their partners".
So she recognizes that abstinence-only sex education is pointless because people having sex is natural and inevitable. But yet she still tries to make the argument that sex isn't a biological drive?
"Emily Nagoski is a sex educator, researcher, writer, and activist who has a Ph.D. in health behavior with a concentration in human sexuality. She is the author of the best-selling book Come As You Are: The Surprising New Science that Will Transform Your Sex Life, which aims to help women understand and embrace their sexual well-being. She is also the co-author of Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle, which addresses the challenges and solutions for women’s stress".
"Based on her writings and interviews, Emily Nagoski’s views on abstinence-only sex education are:
She is strongly opposed to abstinence-only sex education, which she considers to be ineffective, harmful, and unethical. She argues that abstinence-only sex education does not prevent or delay sexual activity, pregnancy, or sexually transmitted infections among adolescents. Instead, it increases the risks of these outcomes by depriving young people of accurate and comprehensive information and skills to protect themselves and their partners".
So she recognizes that abstinence-only sex education is pointless because people having sex is natural and inevitable. But yet she still tries to make the argument that sex isn't a biological drive?
