She is absolutely a patronising and misogynist bleep.
Are we SURE she's not a dude?!?!
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Are we SURE she's not a dude?!?!
BIB I'm sure there but unfortunately there is only one that has a chance of being listened to.
Never thought I'd try to benefit from anything that Islam can offer me but here we are.
tbh I'm not really seeing what the big fuss over the book aimed at 15+ is (other than the 'people with vulvas/people with prostates' bull, which is awful).
Whether you like it or not, some teens are going to be having sex and it's better they know how to do it safely. Lots of studies (mostly in Scandinavian countries, I think) show that kids who receive the most comprehensive sex education are the least likely to have poor sexual health outcomes. Whereas the ones who have the least (Bible belt areas) are rife with all sorts of horror stories like shellshocked teen parents who still believed their parents' lies about the stork and had no idea what they were doing or that it could lead to pregnancy. Kids who don't receive sex education are also more likely to be victims of abuse, because their ignorance and naivety makes them an easy target for predators.
Ffs, I went to a private Christian school that gave us like half an hour of very basic, undetailed sex ed, but even then, they had us practice putting condoms on a banana and gave us a couple to take home. That was in year 10, so 15/16 years old. Absolutely no one immediately ran off and had sex just because they were there. And they weren't there for long! Unsurprisingly, most of them got used as water balloons or slingshots at lunch that day.
But surely if anyone actually needed them it's better they had them, right? (And hardly anyone did, as far as I'm aware anyway. I only knew of one (maybe two if a rumour I heard was true) girl/s who lost their virginity that year, everyone else not until at least 17 or older (mostly older.)
Again, the gender woo language sucks, but that's the only problem I'm seeing. It's the kids who don't read or learn on their own who are the most likely to do ill-advised things at younger ages. The school providing the information is better than the teen seeking it out on their own or worse, not seeking it out at all.
It's perhaps worth remembering that when only heterosexual sex is covered in school sex ed, LGB kids have to seek the information out on their own, which can lead to a higher risk of grooming/abuse. It didn't happen to me, but I know I was lucky not to run into anyone with bad intentions. I certainly spent a lot of time in adult online spaces, very much underage, because there was nowhere else to go. I definitely stumbled upon adult content 2-3 years younger than I otherwise would have, because there were no youth-only LGB spaces readily available when I was a teen.
And it's also (unfortunately) worth remembering that, thanks to the prevalence of kids with unregulated smartphone use, and anal sex having become pretty much mainstream in straight porn nowadays, that it is no longer an issue that doesn't affect straight teens. It was on this very thread that I recall reading a horrific news story about a teen girl being injured by some dumbfuck boy who thought he could just ram it in with no lube or prep because his only sex ed had been porn.
Sorry but I'd much rather they learn how to do it safely in a book if it prevents even one ,more case like that from happening.
Whether you like it or not, some teens are going to be having sex and it's better they know how to do it safely. Lots of studies (mostly in Scandinavian countries, I think) show that kids who receive the most comprehensive sex education are the least likely to have poor sexual health outcomes. Whereas the ones who have the least (Bible belt areas) are rife with all sorts of horror stories like shellshocked teen parents who still believed their parents' lies about the stork and had no idea what they were doing or that it could lead to pregnancy. Kids who don't receive sex education are also more likely to be victims of abuse, because their ignorance and naivety makes them an easy target for predators.
Ffs, I went to a private Christian school that gave us like half an hour of very basic, undetailed sex ed, but even then, they had us practice putting condoms on a banana and gave us a couple to take home. That was in year 10, so 15/16 years old. Absolutely no one immediately ran off and had sex just because they were there. And they weren't there for long! Unsurprisingly, most of them got used as water balloons or slingshots at lunch that day.
But surely if anyone actually needed them it's better they had them, right? (And hardly anyone did, as far as I'm aware anyway. I only knew of one (maybe two if a rumour I heard was true) girl/s who lost their virginity that year, everyone else not until at least 17 or older (mostly older.)Again, the gender woo language sucks, but that's the only problem I'm seeing. It's the kids who don't read or learn on their own who are the most likely to do ill-advised things at younger ages. The school providing the information is better than the teen seeking it out on their own or worse, not seeking it out at all.
It's perhaps worth remembering that when only heterosexual sex is covered in school sex ed, LGB kids have to seek the information out on their own, which can lead to a higher risk of grooming/abuse. It didn't happen to me, but I know I was lucky not to run into anyone with bad intentions. I certainly spent a lot of time in adult online spaces, very much underage, because there was nowhere else to go. I definitely stumbled upon adult content 2-3 years younger than I otherwise would have, because there were no youth-only LGB spaces readily available when I was a teen.
And it's also (unfortunately) worth remembering that, thanks to the prevalence of kids with unregulated smartphone use, and anal sex having become pretty much mainstream in straight porn nowadays, that it is no longer an issue that doesn't affect straight teens. It was on this very thread that I recall reading a horrific news story about a teen girl being injured by some dumbfuck boy who thought he could just ram it in with no lube or prep because his only sex ed had been porn.
Sorry but I'd much rather they learn how to do it safely in a book if it prevents even one ,more case like that from happening.
‘Male’ anatomy 
Attachments
Assigned. FFS.‘Male’ anatomy
I’m not sure who she is, but I love the way she logically picks apart these videos and exposes them for what they are. Yesterday, the evil doctor, and today, this rooster in a frock.
When are men going to understand that women don't exist for their validation? We are not for them to purpose, to use, to oppose, to juxtapose.
I’m so weary of all this institutional pandering to an ideology that for the most part centres the desires of fully intact heterosexual men with fetishes.
Parliament offers staff mental health support over new trans guidance
Calls for concerned employees to contact ‘external activist organisations’ branded ‘inappropriate’www.telegraph.co.uk
Seriously? Where was the advice to women to get support when men were using, and continue to use, our single-sex spaces? I'm pretty sure that Parliament has gender neutral facilities. If using those facilities instead of invading the ladies causes anyone distress, then I woyld suggest that a psychiatrist is more appropriate than any alphabet support group.
EARLY WARNING
Are MPs plotting to overturn For Women Scotland and dismantle women’s and LGB people’s discrimination law rights?
withinthelaw.substack.com
EARLY WARNING
Are MPs plotting to overturn For Women Scotland and dismantle women’s and LGB people’s discrimination law rights?
Akua Rheindorff via Dennis Kavanagh substack
One of the problems appears to be the link advertising it was added onto a book club for kids 2 to 12.tbh I'm not really seeing what the big fuss over the book aimed at 15+ is (other than the 'people with vulvas/people with prostates' bull, which is awful).
Whether you like it or not, some teens are going to be having sex and it's better they know how to do it safely. Lots of studies (mostly in Scandinavian countries, I think) show that kids who receive the most comprehensive sex education are the least likely to have poor sexual health outcomes. Whereas the ones who have the least (Bible belt areas) are rife with all sorts of horror stories like shellshocked teen parents who still believed their parents' lies about the stork and had no idea what they were doing or that it could lead to pregnancy. Kids who don't receive sex education are also more likely to be victims of abuse, because their ignorance and naivety makes them an easy target for predators.
Ffs, I went to a private Christian school that gave us like half an hour of very basic, undetailed sex ed, but even then, they had us practice putting condoms on a banana and gave us a couple to take home. That was in year 10, so 15/16 years old. Absolutely no one immediately ran off and had sex just because they were there. And they weren't there for long! Unsurprisingly, most of them got used as water balloons or slingshots at lunch that day.
Again, the gender woo language sucks, but that's the only problem I'm seeing. It's the kids who don't read or learn on their own who are the most likely to do ill-advised things at younger ages. The school providing the information is better than the teen seeking it out on their own or worse, not seeking it out at all.
It's perhaps worth remembering that when only heterosexual sex is covered in school sex ed, LGB kids have to seek the information out on their own, which can lead to a higher risk of grooming/abuse. It didn't happen to me, but I know I was lucky not to run into anyone with bad intentions. I certainly spent a lot of time in adult online spaces, very much underage, because there was nowhere else to go. I definitely stumbled upon adult content 2-3 years younger than I otherwise would have, because there were no youth-only LGB spaces readily available when I was a teen.
And it's also (unfortunately) worth remembering that, thanks to the prevalence of kids with unregulated smartphone use, and anal sex having become pretty much mainstream in straight porn nowadays, that it is no longer an issue that doesn't affect straight teens. It was on this very thread that I recall reading a horrific news story about a teen girl being injured by some dumbfuck boy who thought he could just ram it in with no lube or prep because his only sex ed had been porn.
Sorry but I'd much rather they learn how to do it safely in a book if it prevents even one ,more case like that from happening.
Also as child who parents didn't supervise my reading I often ended up reading stuff that wasn't suitable for my maturity level purely because I was a confident reader.
Unfortunately it may well suit a lot of Islamic/Muslim men to have their wives and daughters stopped from socialising at a swimming pond at all.
In fact, it might suit a lot of men. Full stop.
Last edited:
This is a page from the book which was deemed suitable for under 12s. It is in public libraries in Ireland - in the adult section for some of them but in the 'young adult' section of others.
apart from being very inappropriate, telling children that some people have a prostate gland while others don’t implies it’s a bit like being able to roll your tongue or raise a single eyebrow.