Sex Education

[lochmaree]

Didn't see a thread on here already but I thought this final series showed some of the vulnerabilities / criticisms of gender ideology. I dont think it meant to though.

• Cal - I see a vulnerable young woman with mental health problems. also interesting Cal identified as non binary but wanted a double mastectomy. I wonder if others will also see that.

• the college was so trans inclusive etc, but the lift didn't work and some of the less able bodied were disadvantaged. I dont know, I thought this felt quite similar to in real life where there's lots of virtue signalling but for real material accessibility problems, less or nothing is done.

• the trans people seemed to rule the roost a bit, everyone looked up to them, they were the popular ones etc.

I enjoyed it, but it felt very try hard. Interested to know what others thought!

I loved all previous seasons. This season is like wading through treacle. It’s a slog!

It is trying too hard to tick all boxes and the new characters are insufferable without the blatant ideology!

Ahhh ok. I'm only at the stage where they sort of flirted. But yes, that would be same sex. Agreed.

I've just caught up on all the comments and I'm not sure I dare come back until I've finished the series. I also loved the first 3 and for that reason, I'm still hoping I enjoy this one. If nothing else, I still hope that Aimee remains strong in her geekdom after shifting over from the cool side 💪

The main “couple” are straight, Aimee is straight, the main teacher couple are straight, the parents are all straight, Jackson is straight…..
I do think the whole “everyone is queer” thing is a bit weird tbh, that’s not what I get when I watch it

I don’t like the new season, but that’s because I think you can tell the writers team is new and isnt as good as the original 🤷🏻‍♀️

How was the asexual character?
Was it well and respectfully done?
How did they describe asexuality?

Jackson's parents are a lesbian couple

The character used her asexuality as an excuse for ghosting a string of ex partners during a debate intended to make her opponent look bad. So not a great representation tbh.

However I don't get this new trend of asexuality being an "identity" and a thing that needs to be announced or represented in media. No one cares, or needs to know, that you don't like sex. More attention seeking nonsense.

The second half of the series has been more bearable

It’s not a ’identity’, it’s sexual orientation, well kind of lack there of.
About one percent of population does not feel sexual attraction and that makes their dating life complicated in a it’s on way.
I’t not any more attention seeking than a person saying they are attracted to same, different or both sexes.
Or telling people they are pregnant, or about to be grandparent or, or, or.
It’s just people talking about themselves, just like everyone else is.
It’s part of life.
Your comment is actually good reason why there should be representation.
And people do seem to care.
And people have a right to talk about themselves and their problems or what’s happening in their lives.
Would you say ”no one cares, no one need to know” if straight/bi/gay person would talk about their dating life?
And asexual is bot talking about their sex life when they say they are an asexual, just like a woman who says they have a boyfriend is not talking about her sex mife.

I understand that asexual people exist, and of course you can talk about it.
But having a flag? Being part of the "queer" community?
And your comment about their FINALLY being an asexual character on SE. It's like me saying, finally a character who doesn't like bananas!

The reason the LGB movement was created was to raise awareness of a repressed minority and campaign for equal rights such as marriage equality. What rights do asexual people not have that they need to march for with their flags flying?

Not liking bananas isin’t seen as a charecter flaw or ilness.
No one will shame you, think you are weird or lacking, or think you are ill if you don’t like bananas.
So this comparison doesn’t work, it’s false dilemma.

I don’t spend time in lgbtqia groups/sites/whatever, but to my understanding it’s not about compatition who’s the most oppressed, but more about support/guide/help/etc to non-hetero people. For people who doesn’t fit in the hetero patriarchal society.

What rights do asexual people not have that they need to march for with their flags flying?

We could just as easily then ask what rights do bisexuals with opposite sex partner people not have that they need to march for with their flags flying?
Would you stop these people from marching too?

Again I don’t hang out / go to any pride places/events etc.
But I still don’t see why asexuals shouldn’t go if they want to.
Also there are homo and bi romantic asexuals, so they have same sex relationships.
Now would you allow them to go?

But doesn’t everyone know people who clearly aren’t that interested in either sex or relationships? When I grew up there wasn’t much visibility for gay people, but I’ve always known plenty of men and women who are not married and don’t have a partner, who live alone or with friends or with family, or who are vocal that they don’t want a relationship or are very happy on their own. I think what people now call “being asexual” has always been pretty socially normal, to be honest. In fact much more so before about the last few decades of the twentieth century. It’s never been either criminalised, or even particularly unusual!

No, I don’t know anyone else other than me.
Everyone else dates, has sex, are in and out of relationships, in long term relationships/married and vast majority has or eventually wants kids.
It’s pretty unusual for you to know many people who don’t date and have sex.

No ide why you had to put asexual in quotes, I guess to really drive in how much you sneer down, but it’s very much real.

And asexual can want a relationship.

Considering how much single, at least women, still face stigma, we really can’t say being single (asexual or not) has even been acceptable.
Not againts the law (but it’s not like that’s the line) but it has been as still is highly unusual.
[I mean long term/lifelong single and not having sex, type of people here now. Not about people who hook-up and date and/or possibly are single parents, that perfectly fine and normal to everyone.]

So, basically I disagree with everything you said 😂

There really isn't any stigma attached be being single. And I genuinely don't have a clue what goes on in the sex lives of most of the people I know and nor do I care.
Stop trying to claim false victimhood.

I think your life experience must be very limited in that case - how old are you? Do you only pay attention to people under 30 or something? Society has always been full of single women and men who don’t date or marry. I knew many when I was growing up - from elderly ladies and men at church to single relatives, neighbours, teachers, parents’ friends. I work with colleagues who have no interest in dating; have friends who I have never known to have a relationship; still have relatives who I’ve never known to do so. I know a fair few clergy who are similar. For most of history you would never know whether these people were shy, disappointed in love, gay, religious, never met the right person, didn’t want to or lost their great love or simply never got the opportunity or whatever. You wouldn’t know because it was IMPOLITE TO ASK. And because people did not base their “identity” around their sexual preferences or lack thereof. That was not considered either a fundamental part of their personality, or something that was public information for others. Because “identity” is a fundamentally twentieth century construct and most people did not want to make their sexual life other people’s business.

Incidentally, that’s why I put “asexual” in quotation marks. It’s an incredibly recent coinage that simply bears no relationship to the way most people thought about themselves and their sense of subjectivity before about two or three decades ago. Believe it or not, historical constructs go in and out of use - and it’s an incredibly recent belief that one’s sexual life is an ineluctable part of one’s selfhood. “Identity” is itself a postwar idea; and as late as the 90s many gay, bisexual and lesbian people very firmly resisted the notion that sexuality is a constitutive part of “identity”/the self.

I should know: I’m bisexual myself, if I had to have a label — so your idea that I’m “sneering” is simply wrong. I think if you haven’t any knowledge of people who don’t “date” (a very recent American term in the U.K.), you must be very young or very inexperienced in life. You could get out and meet some older people. Even some (gasp!) actually old people. You’ll find in them a huge variety of life experience and historical knowledge that you appear to not yet know anything about!

@asterel 👏

Ah, condecence when you got nothing else.
I’m plenty old, so plenty of live experience, thank you.

Still don’t know anyone who’s never dated or had sex.
Unless we count literal children and very youn teenagers of course.
Never met anyone long term single either, few women a but they’ve been married before and had kids.

Again, no one is saying is an ’identity’, only people who for some strange reasons don’t like small number of people who happen to not feel sexual attraction (and never can explain what the problem actually is), claim that.

And someone should then explain why so many women make their partner.being a wife/being a mother their identity.
See that all the time.

There really isn't any stigma attached be being single.
Yes there is, even today.

Stop trying to claim false victimhood.
Never done such thing, that’s in your head.

I actually quite liked this series. It got it's sense of humour back and there were several scenes that made me laugh.
Parents were reconciled with kids (Adam) or supported their struggling teens (Cal). Not every story has a happy ending (Jackson). There's a brief foray into coercive relationships and Otis is as ever, better at advice giving than taking.
I thought Eric embracing his faith was rather lovely and I thought that Ellie was very likeable.
The wokesters ended up with a sense of being able to laugh at themselves a bit and were much more relatable by the end.
Jean finally got the hang of her unexpected extra baby and juggling her career.
I think it tied up enough endings to be satisfying but not so many to be completely twee.
♥️Ruby. She's a brilliant character, but never really given enough screen time.
Fab locations and clothing, joyful and colourful.
I might not like the casual acceptance/promotion of elective surgery but it probably would have been difficult not to address the issue at all. It was touched on last series with binding. Maybe more telling is that this is only addressed with characters born female. They decided not to include references to feminisation surgery.

I was horrified by the fundraiser for the soup kitchen story - where they donated the funds instead to a girl's elective "top surgery".

Oh, I know you gave all this money / time to help the homeless with their very basic needs of food and shelter, but a healthy bodied girl would like to mutilate herself, so we thought we'd spend your cash on this one person instead.

God almighty this series is unbearable- it's like propaganda. It's hideous.

I mean I watched it all, but yes I agree. it is like propaganda.

If you are not interested in a sexual relationship then don't have one.

Its called bearding and it's abusive.

Exactly this 👏

Seconded. Great post from asterel.

Finally got to the end.

There were a few good laughs but mostly very box-ticky and yes, lots of propaganda, as others have said. I'd go so far as to say irresponsible propaganda with the Cal storyline at the end "I just can't wait that long"..... It's pushing a very dangerous message that the only possible answer to Cal's distress is top surgery.

However, I did spot something interesting! Episode 6, about 30 mins in. Later on in that episode, Jean is on the radio saying lots of (affirmative) lines relating to gender identity. But before all of that, at the ~30 minute mark, she walks out of a shop and there's a very odd camera zoom on the bag that she's holding. No reason whatsoever for the zoom - both the bag and its contents are totally irrelevant in the story. It looks very out of place, like the way the product placement stuff is done in the Truman show. It's a plain white paper bag with two letters on it: GC. Surely....

I noticed that too!!