There is no excuse to not understand why we age gate things. Children cannot understand or consent to the colossal consequences - medical, psychological, social or otherwise attached to sex. Therefore we do not want to normalise or introduce them to these acts until they can.
No he’s not talking about sex ed, and basic conversations of biology. Which of course need to be taught. The wider context is discussing & defending kids attending highly sexualised events:
i’m dying on the hill that children should not be anywhere near adult themed shit. whether that be drag shows or kink. and if the overton window has shifted so far that i’m a reactionary for this take then so be it.
Parents are still the least likely to abuse their own kid!
Umm... About that...
They're the most likely. If a kid is abused, the first look should immediately be at the parents, since that will uncover the perp in most cases.
Not saying a societal expectation that parents actually, you know, parent, isn't a good thing to want or to strive towards, but yeah, parents aren't the most unabusive entities.
It's the same as saying that white people are the most likely to commit rape in the U.S. It's technically true, but that's only because there are more white people in the U.S., and adjusted for per-capita numbers tells a completely different story.
No he’s not talking about sex ed, and basic conversations of biology. Which of course need to be taught.
It's not obvious that sex ed needs to be taught in school, and the religious right in retrospect was quite correct in the 80s when they predicted it would lead to teaching children about condom usage, gay sex, and fetishes (the existence of which are basic facts about sex and biology, putting aside moral arguments for or against them).
It's also a basic fact of biology/anthropology that humans tend to segregate themselves into tribes and along racial/ethic lines and treat each members of other tribes, races, and ethnicities with suspicion and hostility. And that some humans have more aggressive tendencies and are more likely to commit rape and murder. Do we teach children those things in a "neutral" context, or do we preface those discussions with "and these things are all bad, so don't do them"
It is simply not possible to decouple education from a particular moral context. And the decision to include or exclude "basic conversations" on particular topics is itself a decision to some extent driven by morals and values, given the practically unlimited "basic conversations" that are possible and the limited time there is to teach them.
it would lead to teaching children about condom usage
Preventing kids from getting pregnancies/STDs seems pretty reasonable to me. Most people lose their virginity at 15/16, some even at 12/13, better to teach them how to do it safer make sense- the problem is some places refuse to teach abstinence which is as retarded as abstinence-only sex ed.
Preventing kids from getting pregnancies/STDs seems pretty reasonable to me
If you're Catholic, you probably don't want your children to be taught that their usage is an acceptable and reasonable alternative to abstinence when your religion says you shouldn't use them.
So, when are you both going to stop shilling for the female supremacist brainwashing that psychologically affects their sexuality greatly?
Oh? Never? Right...
Let me know when these freaks are going to start pushing to teach men of their value and devaluing women, then they can pretend to be caring about protecting kids.
Shoe is a leftist cuckold and Lauren is a race baiting tradthot.
Both are the epitome of female opposition to feminism. Completely fake and with an agenda of their own.
Why doesn't she talk about why migration is so common? About the economic reasons for growing the population, about women tanking the birth rate by being unlikable since 2016, eclipsing birth rate dips from economic crises? Easier to race bait than address the issue.
https://twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/1396598947364294656
https://twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/1396602185027244035
https://web.archive.org/web/20210523225903/https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1396592520881135619
Umm... About that...
They're the most likely. If a kid is abused, the first look should immediately be at the parents, since that will uncover the perp in most cases.
Not saying a societal expectation that parents actually, you know, parent, isn't a good thing to want or to strive towards, but yeah, parents aren't the most unabusive entities.
In absolute numbers, yes. Not per-capita.
It's the same as saying that white people are the most likely to commit rape in the U.S. It's technically true, but that's only because there are more white people in the U.S., and adjusted for per-capita numbers tells a completely different story.
It's not obvious that sex ed needs to be taught in school, and the religious right in retrospect was quite correct in the 80s when they predicted it would lead to teaching children about condom usage, gay sex, and fetishes (the existence of which are basic facts about sex and biology, putting aside moral arguments for or against them).
It's also a basic fact of biology/anthropology that humans tend to segregate themselves into tribes and along racial/ethic lines and treat each members of other tribes, races, and ethnicities with suspicion and hostility. And that some humans have more aggressive tendencies and are more likely to commit rape and murder. Do we teach children those things in a "neutral" context, or do we preface those discussions with "and these things are all bad, so don't do them"
It is simply not possible to decouple education from a particular moral context. And the decision to include or exclude "basic conversations" on particular topics is itself a decision to some extent driven by morals and values, given the practically unlimited "basic conversations" that are possible and the limited time there is to teach them.
Preventing kids from getting pregnancies/STDs seems pretty reasonable to me. Most people lose their virginity at 15/16, some even at 12/13, better to teach them how to do it safer make sense- the problem is some places refuse to teach abstinence which is as retarded as abstinence-only sex ed.
If you're Catholic, you probably don't want your children to be taught that their usage is an acceptable and reasonable alternative to abstinence when your religion says you shouldn't use them.
So, when are you both going to stop shilling for the female supremacist brainwashing that psychologically affects their sexuality greatly?
Oh? Never? Right...
Let me know when these freaks are going to start pushing to teach men of their value and devaluing women, then they can pretend to be caring about protecting kids.
As it is, it's just a deflection.
By female supremacist brainwashing did you mean feminism? Because both of them are vocal critics of it.
Shoe is a leftist cuckold and Lauren is a race baiting tradthot.
Both are the epitome of female opposition to feminism. Completely fake and with an agenda of their own.
Why doesn't she talk about why migration is so common? About the economic reasons for growing the population, about women tanking the birth rate by being unlikable since 2016, eclipsing birth rate dips from economic crises? Easier to race bait than address the issue.