"Ace week" in girl guiding.

It's in The Times (sorry, can't do share tokens on my phone).

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f8da2e40-3a90-11ec-9bef-aa3112940013?shareToken=5f97f5a59b1edba3122e97703a65a0ac

you're just describing the wide variety of human sexual behaviour, which is not 'an orientation'

Well this is it isn't it.

@FloralBunting - I found that a helpful post.

And I agree that consent is where there should be more focus. Enthusiastic consent. That’s the bar.

The problem with the current iteration of 'ace awareness' is not the idea of making 'Asexuality' something people are aware of as a possibility, it's the 'Ace-spectrum' which takes the idea of someone not feeling sexual desire (which may be a health issue, or may simply be because they just don't feel it, this is no doubt a minority, but I don't think it has to be a problem) and stretches the meaning beyond all reason into emcompassing all kinds of human relationship interactions and feelings. Lesbian isn't a spectrum. Heterosexual isn't a spectrum. Bisexuality is the only one that could be reasonably argued on a spectrum, but again, it's still going to be a 'yes or no' proposition when it comes to individual attraction.

So, I've got no problem accepting that some people just have no interest in sexual engagement, and that a big shrug of disinterest exists where other people might have a libido. It's when I am told that it is a specific point on the asexuality spectrum to not feel sexual desire until you know someone well, or that you don't feel sexual desire but are perfectly happy to engage in sexual activity and even orgasm, that I become a massive skeptic about it all.

At that stage, you're just describing the wide variety of human sexual behaviour, which is not 'an orientation'. I am a lesbian, and was able to engage in heterosexual activity for many years while feeling no desire. It was psychologically unhealthy human sexual behaviour that I needed to overcome and change, not 'an orientation' that needed a flag and label.

What drives me nuts about all this is that the endless navel-gazing and 'raising awareness' is billed as education, and all it does is muddy the water and mask really unhelpful behaviour. No one should feel pressured or coerced into sexual activity or pairing off. Not a heterosexual woman or man, a bisexual person, a lesbian, a gay man, or a person who has no sexual desire. No extra labels, extensive excuses or communties needed.

We need widespread enthusiastic consent teaching. I see it mentioned sometimes, but I don't think it's actually a thing, and that's pissing me off. My kids and I are constantly referencing the 'cup of tea?' analogy. It's ok to say no because you don't want to and never want to. That's the issue.

The one cultural reference I had towards asexuality before my DD told me about herself was an article I read in the newspaper about it in the kind of life and style section (I do not remember which paper). If I had seen a tweet about say, ace week, from any organisation I followed (not on Twitter anymore) or her high school (which did have an LGBT youth group), or had more awareness, I might have been better able to not mention, for example, that I would like grandchildren (I was brought up by someone who thought getting pregnant was the end of the world, so my narrative was more about reassuring her that I would support her if that ever happened and she was the best thing to ever happen) or any of the things which casually assumed a future which involves relationships and sex.

Asexuality was just not on my radar. So whatever I discussed about sex was about relationships, sex and importantly, consent. Because the general point about not feeling like you have to have sex comes under consent, for everyone.

So, I don’t think the information is out there and I certainly don’t think asexuality is understood, really (as evidenced by this thread). So yes, while I agree that there is a place and time for those conversations, I don’t agree that parents always have the information they need. I am not saying this information should come in the form of tweets from GG, but it needs to feed through somehow.
I am curious to know whether it is in the SRE curriculum now where I am.

@MumofAceDD

You sound like a really kind person who loves your daughter dearly and who desperately wants to help other girls like her. It would have been amazing for her if she could have had that information when she was 14. However, that information should have come from PSHE - or from you. If it wasn’t covered in school and she was anxious about something sex-related, you could have helped. And you would have - if this information had been available to you. It wasn’t.

Today this information is available and PSHE together with the parents can help our children. I have read up on this now (my oldest is 10 and in a single sex school, so hasn’t been relevant) and I assure you, my children will be told that any sexuality is normal. My oldest already knows about single sex parents. There is a child in the class with two dads and my oldest finds this completely normal. I am completely relaxed and will support my children in whatever sexuality they realise that they have.

But the point for me is that it is my job, as a mum, to do this. Even if the GG have the best intentions, there may be inappropriate conversations if sex is normalised as a topic. One mum said the GG discussed female sexuality with her DD aged 10. This will erode boundaries. There may be predators evading the vetting procedures.

And where do we draw the line at conversations around sexuality? Can the PE teacher discuss this? The piano teacher? The librarian?

The more society normalises sex conversations, the less we can spot red flags. The less likely teachers will be able to spot abused children.

The discussions around sex and sexual orientations has come a long way. Parents know more today than they did. And they are responsible for having these conversations with their children. And well meaning adults need to trust us parents to have these conversations with our children.

Let FWR know if you need help with a safeguarding process though?

Will do @RepentMotherfucker

Just as an example of GGUK's policy changes possibly being influenced by funding opportunities: They have teamed up (second year running I think) with Children in Need, which, as we know, is run by the BBC, which is run by Stonewall. I think it was mentioned on another thread that CIN will only pay out to charities that fulfil their tick-box "inclusion"criteria.

www.girlguiding.org.uk/get-involved/fundraise-for-us/girlguiding-bbc-children-in-need/

I just mentioned to my daughter the furore about the GG tweet, and she said, that was daft, she would have felt so much better age 14 knowing it was a thing. So 🤷🏻‍♀️

And personally, yes, I agree that inclusivity should indeed be inclusive. Lesbians should be visible, because 14 year olds might equally feel much better knowing that was a thing too and accepted by their elders. If they were reading the tweets and it had been tweeted. But we don’t get more inclusive with the level of negativity and vitriol directed at one group just because the other was not mentioned. It just gets divisive.

Okay, I am done discussing it anyway. All the best

Let FWR know if you need help with a safeguarding process though? It needn't be outing for you. That person at the very least needs a conversation about appropriate social media use. Although I would have thought that highly sexualised SM would make them unsuitable as being a volunteer tbh.

And yet, asexual people are supposed to shut up and hide away because their existence can apparently be used to further the medicalisation of gender non-conformity, it may be a foil for paedophilia, they may be objectified and fetishised as an object of desire, it is part of a woke agenda - what else from this thread?

Literally the whole point of safeguarding is to point out the ways that things can be twisted by someone to take advantage of a vulnerable person.

The issue in this case is that the concept of asexuality is being twisted to imply that if you don't enjoy sex, its OK you're probably just asexual. This can and will, be used by adults to take advantage of young children.

Your problem should be with the people who exploit and co-opt other peoples experiences rather than the people pointing out the exploitation.

Its the latest in a long line of this appropriation taking place, taking an established concept and then taking it over bit by bit and then forcing out the actual people it applied to in the first place.

Happened to transsexuals, lesbians and now asexuality. They are trying similar with intersex but are getting pushback on that so far.

I've made enquiries and hopefully archived the page.

What I mean is, being judged by male standards, and think there is something wrong with them.

I hadn't thought of that. Are you asexual as the new are you frigid. Coupled with a suggestion that if you want romantic relationships and are asexual, one way forward is to have sexual interactions when you don't physically desire them. To young people who may just not be ready for sexual activity, either at all or in any given relationship. That's potentially problematic isn't it.

Yes, I thought that was interesting terminology. Breaking barriers, rather than building up the confidence of the guides involved, and that of the leaders who might struggle to deal with their complex needs.

@TedImgoingmad Archive that Pinterest page straight away.

TedImgoingmad, I am speechless.

Hot off the press, my county has just announced the following (names removed):

New Appointments

[WWWW] - Inclusion Adviser heading up the new extended Inclusions team. [WWWW] is passionate about helping everyone in Guiding feel welcome and have a sense of belonging. As Lead Inclusion Adviser, [WWWW] and the team will be able to support our members to be fully inclusive and break down barriers.

[XXXX]'s role has been renamed to Inclusion Adviser - Disabilities to reflect her specialism

[YYYY] - Inclusion Adviser - LGBTQ+ (from 2 November 2021)

Nobody dedicated to looking after the girls from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Oh, and on the County Team list, nobody is listed in charge of safeguarding - it's an empty appointment.

[YYYY] has a very unusual name. There's a person with said name with a Pinterest board sporting such delights as:

• Ur cordially invited to fuck me senseless ;)

• Please use he/they pronouns

• One day I'm gonna hurt you. I promise

• I just punched shit

Obviously, this could coincidentally be a totally different person with the same highly unusual name as the GGUK appointee.

What I mean is, being judged by male standards, and think there is something wrong with them.

It's a power play. Yes, on that thread, I agree.

There also appears to be an assumption that sexual attraction means you've only got to look at a potential partner to become aroused. Which is a fairly standard male sexual response.

Obviously there are plenty of women who will be aroused by looks alone. But there are also plenty of women who find men (say) attractive, without actually becoming aroused by it.

It wouldn't surprise me, in the slightest, if young women were being judged by male standards in this respect.

I also find it very suspect when people moan about the feminists coming over from FWR to 'whip up outrage'.

Five seconds of questioning on threads like that is very revealing.