Gay men's magazine bullied into grovelling

Whereas most people don't think it's appropriate to go into much detail about what people actually do. and many people are doubtful that some of the suggestions for material to include are as common as you seem to think.

And some people have suggested that saying x, y or z is common or normal may put pressure on children. Rather than cover8ng "common" sexual practises, we would like education to focus on being able to say no, only doing things you are totally comfortable with , with no expectation that you are abnormal if you don't feel comfortable with things other people think are normal. This is pretty similar across any type of relationship.

Many people are really surprised that children would need to be taught what to do, most of think that isn't the problem, the problem is making sure they protect themselves mentally and physically.

What are 'common non heterosexual/procreative sexual practices'?

You've lost me there.

You have advocated children being provided with information about strap ons. I'd class strap ons as fetishist tbh, certainly in the context of classroom discussions with children.

"Who's said anything about promoting fetishes."
The materials that lgballiance were objecting to.
Kind of the point of the thread.
Jesus this is painful.

All I've ever supported is factual safety information being given to young people on common non heterosexual/procreative sexual practices.

But haven't explained why you think that's necessary/appropriate.

Perhaps poorly phrased. I meant that high street stores that sell adult products have age-restrictions on entry.

If you're too young to choose to go into somewhere like Ann Summers for a browse, I don't think anyone should be bringing their stock into the classroom.

Multiple people with children at secondary school have said that "LGB sexualities" are covered in school in the same way as heterosexuality. You, however, have been wanting in depth coverage of individual sex acts, up to lecturing a class on how to clean strap-ons.

(Incidentally, while we are discussing Ann Summers, etc, stores that stock sex toys sell them with cleaning instructions and stock cleaning products in the same section.)

All I've ever supported is factual safety information being given to young people on common non heterosexual/procreative sexual practices.

MadBadDaddy:
I found the Trans Actual document to be concise, clear and informative.
I don't consider it over-broad, it just says "don't be an arsehole to transgender people"
I don't see how 'asking questions' would be problematic, when operating within the spirit of those guidelines.

That piece on transphobia is so wide that it amounts to stating that unless trans activism can decide what rights every single person in the society is allowed to have the situation is transphobic.

In reality rights do often clash and negotiation is required. My neighbor may want a giant tree near the border between our lots and I may want to have light in my house and in my garden. We can't both have what we want, yet we might both view our desires as rights.

In reality rights often clash and that particular piece implicitly always privileges trans rights over all other rights, going as far as stating that discussing the possibility of clashing rights is transphobic. Trying to maintain the rights of female-bodied people, in particular, is seen as transphobic.

Do a thought experiment and replace trans rights with the rights of some group you don't particularly care about, say natal women. Then read the whole thing with that change.

It won't apply in all parts but it certainly applies in several parts, including where the language women have had for centuries is now stripped away from us. I think you will spot the ways the piece is not fair by doing that.

That's not quite what happened is it Quaagers?

Do GC people talk repeatedly about penises?

Why can't you say GC women? We're on MN where the majority of posters are women. Why not say GC women?

And if you don't understand why it's different for women to talk about penises in the context of 'there's no such thing as a lesbian with a penis' (RIP the late and the great MB) than for a poster to start detailing what they do or don't do with their penis, I'm afraid that you've sort of demonstrated your less than clear grasp of these issues.

I meant as in where Datun for example on previous page says something, but it obviously isn't to be questioned or to have a different LGBT view - because if someone does say along the lines of "hang on a minute" it's "who asked, didn't want to know?"
Yet it's apparently fine for "GC" people to talk repeatedly about penises but if anyone else mentions that word it's like "ew, didn't ask."

jj1968 and no-one, not one person in this thread, has said that RSE lessons in school shouldn't cover same sex relationships.

The two 'sides' of argument aren't heterosexual vs homosexual sex in RSE.

They're foregrounding safeguarding, safety, health and emotional welfare in RSE vs advocating promoting fetishes and very adult sex toys to children.

I don't want to hear about anyone's sex life - just to be inclusive.

Of course it should. But there's no reason to think they would be any more triggered by discussion of LGB sexualities than they would discussion of heterosexual activities

ppl weren't objecting to 'discussion of LGB sexualities'. They're objecting to explict discussions about sexual practices.

jj1968 I might be in a minority here, but I honestly don't want to hear about your sex life.

I very much doubt that you are.

A number of posters have specifically and only spoken about lesbianism. That is, sexual desire and relationships between two women.

That's not a problem is it? Lesbians don't have to continually ally themselves to gay men and bisexual people, do they?

@PotholeParadies

There's no age restriction on buying sex toys in the UK.

In classrooms up and down the country, there will be children who have been subjected to sexual abuse. RSE classes need to be inclusive of these children and not be triggering.

Of course it should. But there's no reason to think they would be any more triggered by discussion of LGB sexualities than they would discussion of heterosexual activities.

jj, if your posts become a bir less homophobic and misogynistic, I'll stop mentioning it. Deal?

And no, seguing from lesbians to LGBT to personal anecdotes about your own perspective in lesbian sex as a penis owner doesn't cut it. Lesbians don't have penises to avoid using.

Sexual dimorphism means women have unique bodies from men. We are not simply penisless people; we are not defined by being not-male.

So for heaven's sake, stop trying to use lesbians as a shield to justify sex toys in the classroom. I believe the legal age to buy sex toys is 18, so why would it be appropriate for staff teaching RSE to bring them into a secondary school classroom ?

In classrooms up and down the country, there will be children who have been subjected to sexual abuse. RSE classes need to be inclusive of these children and not be triggering.

L, however, has nothing to do with penis owners - whether they choose to involve their dick or not

LGBT does though and that was what was being referred to?
Also not sure why people ask something and then others go "not interested, didn't want to know?"
Why ask then?!

RealityNotEssentialism
Ha, that video is followed by a ted talk called 'how not to take things personally'

Just dropped in to see how the thread is going.

I see some people are keen to make a point.

Backing out again, now ...

CoffeeTeaChocolate yes I know what you mean.

There was something a bit Orwellian about being told over and over again that no-one was supporting information about same sex relationships in school when there was post after post explaining that it was taught and that people were supportive of that.

Do report personal attacks jj1968. MNHQ will delete them promptly as they're against guidelines.

I find it sinister that certain people seems to intent of targeting children with inappropriate materials based on a combination of inclusive platitudes, projection of their own childhoods and an apparent inability to search for information and process the answers given. And the complete lack of understanding of safeguarding principles.

I really fear for the children in this.

As a side note, I am constantly wondering whether some comments have an underlying sinister motive or whether they are just ill informed and badly thought through. On any other topic, (for obvious reasons I keep discussion with my children age appropriate) I expect more coherent arguments from my 10-year old. I would let my 7-year old get away with the incoherent arguments, but not with the lack of listening to answers when they are given.