I know, that’s not lost on me. And you are right to ask the question.

No.

A trans woman wearing a dress is not porn.

I’m getting ahead of the argument and laying out what I think is the reasonable position. I’m not really complaining, just want to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes being sexually open.

Some well meaning people have damaged kids because they try and push sexuality too young from mistaken notions of what it means to remove the taboos of sexuality.

The summer wildfire and hurricane season is going to be wild.

Between gutting forestry services, national park services, weather services, FEMA… Yeah…

I don’t really disagree. I wasn’t trying to put the ages out as being a hard absolute on what should be taught when. It was more just to layout the progress of how sex ed should be taught as kids grow up.

I wouldn’t say sex ed can be complete by 14. It’s one of those things that I think should be retaught a few times as kids get older. Mainly because 14yo are likely to forget the lessons they learned.

Oh because I’m well informed enough to know that when talks about sexual normalization come up there’s always going to be at least a few people that think that means normalizing it for very young children. It may seem obvious to you and I, it’s not to everyone.

Take for example, this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kentler

Normalizing sex is something that needs at least some nuanced discussion about what that means.

I’m less sure on if anyone has studied that (for obvious reasons). It would be more of “We are having sex and don’t care if the child can see” sort of thing. The normalizing and exposure of sexual acts with kids is what’s known as “grooming” and it’s what child sexual predators use to coerce kids.

Showing a child porn or having sex while they are around. Those have the most definite negative effects. Stuff that borders that is trickier but, IMO, best avoided.

I’m not saying kids shouldn’t be educated on the biology, just that age matters and too young is associated in research with lifelong negative consequences.

Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.

Which I think we agree on. Teaching a 5 year old consent is proper, how sex works is improper. Teaching a 12 year old how sex works is proper, what various sex acts are is improper. Teaching a 16 year old the various sex acts is proper, especially if accompanied by a discussion of STDs, how to prevent them, and how to properly disclose to prior partners you have one.

Sex ed isn’t just one lesson and what can be taught when is a gradient based on age.

Oh I think you’ve added an “ed” where I didn’t (and didn’t intend to). Early sex ed is a positive. Early exposure to sex is not. Sex ed isn’t just about sex and there are aspects of it that can (and should) be taught quite young (like I outline above).

IE, you shouldn’t be educating your 5 year old on the finer details of what a blowjob is. You should be working with them on the proper names of their genitals and the difference between good touch and bad touch. Both of those are sex ed that should eventually be taught to everyone before they become adults. However, age matters.

As to the negative consequences of exposure to sex acts. I’ll point you to a page talking about child sexual abuse. Exposure is sexual abuse (and often a precursor to rape).

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/interim/nature-effects-child-sexual-abuse/effects-child-sexual-abuse.html

Yes and no.

Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development. That doesn’t mean you can’t start sex ed very early, it just means that what you teach is important.

For example, the first thing kids should be taught is the proper name of all their body parts. Call a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina. It’s also important to teach things like “Let mom and dad know if someone wants to see your penis/vagina”. It’s also important to start the concept of consent early “You don’t have to give a hug or let someone touch you if you don’t want to” and extended to “Ask first before giving a hug, it’s ok if someone doesn’t want a hug.”

As kids get older, you should absolutely be having frank conversations about what sex is. You should further have frank conversations about adults soliciting sex from kids “Jerry Seinfeld was a huge creep that raped a high school teen. That wasn’t ok”.

It’s anti-woman.

The real true reason most people are against abortion isn’t because they don’t believe it’s a necessity. It’s because they are afraid that some woman won’t be punished for having sex. Whether or not the fetus survives isn’t the point, it’s that someone has to be punished for enjoying life.

Our gov is showing us what they do with the tax money. It is, in fact, all public information you can get with a couple seconds of digging (and has been that way for a LONG time).

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/

The only real black boxes of the government are military and espionage spending. Everything else is out in the open.

it is more obvious in the book compared to the film.

The film was loosely based on the book and was explicitly written as a critique on fascism and the book. Verhoeven and Neumeier have said as much.

But also, I don’t think you know what fascism is. There’s always people in a fascist state that have a good quality of life. The question is what happens to people that don’t fit in the state mold? What happens to enemies of the state? Who gets classified as an enemy of the state? Who holds power or can hold power in the state? The fact that to be a citizen you’d have to start by joining the state party is de-facto a fascist state.

If you were part of the Nazi party in germany as a non-jew/communist/or someone with a disability. Life was pretty good. So good that US newspapers had Hitler as person of the year and sung him praises. They had commerce and a strong economy with most people having great lives. Nazis were popular and liked by the people because they saw them as making their lives better. And you could get a high ranking position in the government by joining the military and serving a term.

In the film, the enemies were the Arachnids. War started because of the colonization of arachnid territories and extermination was the next order of business. Even though Arachnids are depicted as being thinking and intelligent beings. That was the point of the final scene “It’s afraid!”. Rather than try to understand or communicate with the alien/foreigner/etc, the government prioritized extermination and learning to make it fear them.

Robocop is a scathing critique on capitalism. What’s nuts is I don’t think everyone gets that. It’s literally the underlying theme of the movie.

Same thing happens with starship troopers. People miss the fact it’s a critique of fascism and colonialism even though the movie ends with Nazi uniforms.

These will be the meetings to kick off creating the next season’s flu vaccines. The R&D that goes into these each years requires a fair bit of lead time.

I doubt RFK’s FDA is going to approve another vaccine so let’s buckle up for the next 4 years. Time to say goodbye to the older folk in your life. They are particularly negatively affected by the flu.

Do you really need ANOTHER place to post the same memes again and again?

Yes