Someone on Twitter noted how these sex classes are so male oriented. Like I can bet that the overwhelming majority of women don't enjoy or want anal sex.

And to think that Teen Vouge Magazine was encouraging teenagers girls to try it! 🤢🤮

It’s worse than that.

Fan fiction and original fiction has often been women’s equivalent choice of pornography or erotica. Apparently fan fiction got its start by female Trekkies writing in fan zines of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Personally, I’ve been reading online fiction since the early ‘90s.

The rise of social media, coupled with the explosion of streaming services means there’s not only millions more reading online fiction, but the gateway from tv shows etc and the number of minors with electronic devices means younger and younger readers are increasingly common than they were 20-30 years ago.

I’ve noticed that despite the fact that 80-95% of online fiction authors are women, in the last ten years online fiction has become increasingly common to contain the written equivalent of hardcore abusive gonzo porn. It is becoming extremely hard to avoid it.

And as writers are often putting personal info in their bios, especially on tumblr or wattpad, there’s a scary number of girls and women aged 13-30 (many whom identify as nonbinary, trans, queer etc) who write female protagonists that routinely get choked, slapped, degraded, dragged by their hair, abused, called whores, raped, penetrated by multiple men simultaneously, who engage in pegging and hardcore bondage, incest etc. Their female characters are often portrayed as LIKING their abuse. And the commenters are frequently also aged 13-30 and act as though the descriptions are just “spicy sex,” because abuse has been so normalised for them they are writing it into their fantasies!

It might cause rectal prolapse that requires fairly major surgery to correct, but then again there is already a porn genre out there of men fucking a rectum that is no longer INSIDE the woman's body.

[–] hypatia 10 points Edited

This 100%. The attitudes taught to youth teach them as normal that girls will spend 10+ years of their life being sexually available to people and that they shouldn't expect marriage or even commitment in return. They're supposed to be grateful for the "pleasure" and "self-knowledge" that comes from being available.

The things kids should be taught about sex at school are:

  • Reproduction
  • The menstrual and ovulation cycle
  • STIs, their prevention, and what STIs are not possible to prevent.
  • Consent
  • Contraception and how easy it is for pregnancy to result without it

We were mind blown in sex ed as 13 year olds, we had thought because of terms like “trying for a baby” that it was usually a prolonged effort to conceive, and that you’d have to be really unlucky/lucky to get pregnant without contraception. I can’t remember the statistic but for fertile young women and girls it’s basically really easy to get pregnant.

A one in four chance every cycle without contraception and with a regular sex partner.

[–] Tortoisemouse 19 points Edited

No. 11 is much too young. At a later age (13? 14?) I'm in favour of my daughter being taught about oral and anal sex if she's being taught that boys/men will try to manipulate you into doing things that you might not want to do, and you shouldn't feel bad saying no, and this is how to say no and how to keep yourself safe, and anal sex is not usually good for women and has become mainstream because of porn, and porn exploits and degrades women, and sex should feel kind and safe and enjoyable and should be with someone you trust and who cares about you. If it doesn't feel like that then this is how you deal with it (here are some techniques and scripts for saying no and getting to safety). And by the way, oral sex doesn't just mean fellatio and sex should be pleasurable and orgasmic for women as well, not just men.

That's the kind of sex education I'm on board with.

Some 11 year old girls may benefit from the above approach, if they have already been exposed to revolting men/boys/porn culture. But I would hope there are still some 11 year old girls left who are innocent and should not have to be thinking/talking/hearing about any kind of sex at all. My own daughter will turn 11 this year and she is no where near old enough to be hearing about ANY of this stuff. She is still a tiny child, just interested in roller skating and animals and making silly slime with her friends.

EDIT: Oh my goddess I didn't realise it was actually a DRAG QUEEN giving these "lessons". What the hell. Looks like the school is denying it.

This is in the Sex Ed curriculum. It is nearly everywhere. Drag Queen or not, this crap is peddled to kids. Anal sex is added for inclusivity as not to stigmatize any sexuality, BUT it is never related to actual risk. So, I’m an effort to destigmatize, the school instead normalizes the behavior and never teaches absolute risk- which is this is the riskiest sex to have in terms of STDs and injury.

It's like when monkeypox broke out and people claimed it was homophobic to advise gay men to just chill on the anonymous sex and orgies for a month or two!

These same drag queens claim people are just pearl clutching over a harmful performance.

Drag is inherently sexual and should not involve children. Ever.

I’m so exhausted by a few friends pointing out that “no drag queens yet arrested for child abuse” or pointing out that many church elders are convicted of it. It’s like smoke and mirrors and I hate it (I also don’t attend church for partly for this reason).

[–] GrendelsMother 45 points Edited

That isn’t even true. The number of drag queen sex offenders and possessors of child sex abuse material is not low.

Honestly I don’t know how people would know (generally speaking) because obviously they’re convicted as “JohnQPublic” and not as “Shirley GoLightly” 🤷🏻‍♀️

The following newspaper articles are about the murder of a drag queen. They all include glowing tributes by his family and friends, and several include a reference to a GoFundMe fundraising page to raise money for his family. Only one of the articles even mentions that he was a convicted paedophile - he had a conviction for raping a child.





If you reference the article that does mention that he was a convicted child rapist TRAs will probably be more outraged that you are citing a Daily Mail article. Well, if the other newspapers wilfully ignore the fact that the murder victim was a convicted paedophile - are you meant to pretend that the conviction doesn't exist?

[–] thedarkhorse Gender atheist 1 points

I am not sure that he is a paedophile. It would appear that he himself was under the age of consent at the time of the incident.

The all-or-nothing whataboutism is frankly exhausting. I have no little contempt for organized religion's tendency to obfuscate abuse, but the enormous blind spots people have for this latest priest caste is extremely telling.

I’m all for good sex ed but this isn’t it. Sensible stuff about consent, contraception, anatomy, practicalities and not feeling pressured should be taught. Not a pornified, distorted version of sex.

It's good that parents and kids are speaking out about the graphic and non age appropriate sexual education regardless, but why do I get the feeling that there is a lot of homophobia underlying this, and that the homophobia is coming from the parents and taught to their children to parrot?

These comments stood out to me for that reason:

Mom: "Ok, I understand they must learn about reproduction and the birds and the bees but just keep it to basic biology with a man and a woman.

Daughter: "We are too young for that sort of thing. I know we have to learn how to make babies and that’s fine but I don’t want to learn about men kissing men and women kissing women which was part of the lesson."

Why do I get the impression that this particular mother would have been just as upset even without the explict content IF she felt homosexuality was being "normalized" or "celebrated" in sex ed in any way?

And why do I get the sense that the daughter was FAR more disturbed by the explicit content than she was about learning the basic information regarding gays and lesbians? And the way her quote is worded, it seems like someone TOLD the daughter to be upset about "men kissing men and women kissing women."

I just wish pushing back against the worst excesses of this oversexualized, fetishistic world and the TQ deviancy didn't come with a hearty helping of homophobia in so many cases.

One child was sent to detention for disagreeing w/the female impersonator.

My daughter had a terrible time in sex education all through her schooling - she got information that was embarrassing, graphic, and (imho) harmful). I have written about it before and have also said I would have had her in Catholic Schools if I had known what was going to happen. Every step of the way, and with every different school or teacher - I thought things would get better.

They did not.

‘It’s put the relationship we had with the island back ten years and it’s all because this didn’t happen as was described. There was no drag queen at the school, that’s it. ‘All the drag queens on the island know each other and if it had been one of us, we would have know it, we would have talked about it and we would have known but no one knows anything.

Interesting. Could it be that a man that isn't a drag queen pretended to be one and because questioning these things is bigoted, he was able to infiltrate the school and "teach" children? But why would a man gO tHrOuGh aLL tHaT tRoUbLe??

Or, is it that this is very bad PR so the "group" of drag queens are keeping this under wraps? Or... is this particular group above reproach for some reason?

Too bad we can't rely on any actual, genuine, investigative, unbiased reporting that could get to the truth.

The best option would be to keep drag queens from "teaching" kids anything. Story hour with teachers was fun enough, no need to add a man in a colorful wig and sequined dress to make it interesting.

[–] momjeans 17 points Edited

This is CSE - "Comprehensive Sexual Education" which goes waay beyond reproductive health. It's predicated on the assumption that children are sexual creatures from birth and that goal of sex ed be expanded to include teaching students K-12 about sexual pleasure.

History of CSE in the US (but also discussed how this curriculum is being globalized) https://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/history-of-cse/

(Trigger warning for the link - discusses child sexual abuse as part of the historical background)

I came across that link while researching the 2022/23 implementation of K-12 CSE in my state and have been fact checking it over the past several days.

I have been unable to debunk any aspect of it. I wish I could debunk it because if that's the reality if CSE, we've got a big fucking problem.

Didn't PP say that kids are born 'sexual'? Presumably part of the same line of thought.

Yes. It's well documented. Children are sexual beings with a "right to pleasure". They are advancing sexual pleasure in children as a basic human right.

This is from 2011, but it's also in more recent docs:

"Young people are sexual beings. They have sexual needs, desires, fantasies and dreams. It is important for all young people around the world to be able to explore, experience and express their sexualities in healthy, positive, pleasurable and safe ways. This can only happen when young people’s sexual rights are guaranteed."

(pdf) https://www.ippf.org/sites/default/files/ippf_exclaim_lores.pdf

from https://www.ippf.org/resource/exclaim-young-peoples-guide-sexual-rights-ippf-declaration

Such word-salad. You can't both 'empower' kids to make their own decisions and at the same time 'protect' them. You can't make sure children's rights are 'always met' if you are also required to protect them from the consequences of their own actions, unless being protected from the consequences of their own actions is a right—in which case, they aren't capable of making their own decisions in the first place. Making your own decisions means suffering the consequences, otherwise they won't be your decisions; and there are some consequences children cannot even grasp, or, if they do, they grasp them in a lopsided way. This all applies in spades to sexual activity, where the stakes are at least as high as hormone levels, not to mention to transitioning.

In any case, 'a right to sex' can only be a right to masturbate, which doesn't sound quite so exciting.

Load more (5 comments)