196

It is if it's not consensual.

Verbal and emotional abuse are still abuse, still count as harm, and psychological abuse is so effective it is used in psychological warfare.

Physical abuse is to physical torture, what verbal&emotional abuse are to psychological torture.

Maybe learn a little about consent so you stop harming others. I've already given you an example of why someone may not want to discuss sex (past trauma), but also, given your personality- they may find YOU distressing to talk with and not a safe person. And by your own words, you aren't.

No, and your sex ed is incomplete if you don't understand this.

No, not every activity is consensual. What consent is, is a deeper question and interaction than what you're making it out to be.

Consent is the foundation of sexual education and sexual interactions.

Freedom of speech is separate, and no, you don't "need the consent of everyone in the room to talk about something," but then you're operating outside of consent, and you may violate emotional boundaries. That includes triggering survivors who may not have expected you to violate social norms and who would have told you, "hey, I don't like talking about sex in front of people because I get panic attacks."

These interactions, being between more than 1 person, require the input of the other people. It's not a great look to force people into accepting sex as you see it or want it.

Still Twitter, opinion still disregarded

me too thanks

So, may I assume you never had the potty talk? Most people are made aware of that very early in their life.

If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably

There is NO "probably" about it. We have brain scans and decades of research proving it is EXTREMELY HARMFUL to children. There are children who've been in sex cults, including in the 70s, who have been interviewed as adults regarding this (to say it profoundly negatively affected them). The most common environmental factor for DID is childhood sexual abuse, and the severity of the DID is usually correlated with the severity of the abuse. Suicide is also extremely common in children with a sexual abuse past, as is heavy substance use in children.

Sexual abuse results in automatic behaviors like bedwetting recurrence after being potty trained, defecating in odd places or playing with feces, masturbating in front of others, dissociation, depersonalization, UTIs and other urinogenital issues... So much so that mandated reporters look for these signs in non-communicating (disabled) kids as signs they've been sexually abused to trigger investigations. No one has ever told these kids how to respond to sexual abuse - their bodies automatically do it. It is automatically harmful at a human instinctual level.

It's 100% absolutely harmful and that has been proved by DECADES of research. I'm disgusted by that sentence, and the fact that you haven't bothered to research that but researched THIS:

Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy.

Why the FUCK did 14 people up vote this shit, Lemmy?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effects+of+sexual+abuse+on+children&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Go do some fucking reading, you absolute pieces of shit

And OBVIOUSLY we should teach kids age-appropriate sex ed.

I'm not the original person, but I was interested and did some digging myself, so here's what I found. I'm primarily citing this paper which seemed to cite a lot of other papers to back up its claims, compared to many others, that just utilized a single survey's results

The paper specifically mentions education all the way down to the preschool level, whereas many other studies didn't do anything below middle-high school.

Parents, teachers, families, neighbors and the media all have important roles in the sexual education of children and give children sexual education from birth without even noticing that they are doing so. Studies have confirmed that sexual education is a lifelong process that starts at birth.

This is the key point: Sexual education is already effectively taught in many ways in non-educational settings, often with traditional heterosexual norms instilled. (e.g. general discussion of relationships and attraction, consent, mentions of people "trying to have a baby," things like that) This is education that the respondents themselves did not consider to exist (the majority said they believed sex education of any form did not begin early in adolescence)

However, most of the general resources I can find around how official sex education curriculum are developed, how parents bring up these topics to their kids, and what kids are actually comfortable with discussing themselves, seems to point to an age-appropriate level of education, based on what they're likely to encounter at their given age range. (e.g. a very young child may be taught to say no if someone asks to see their privates, whereas a young adult may then be taught how to properly use various forms of contraceptives, with the context of different sex positions, because that's the age within which they're most likely to engage in those different positions.)

It seems like the age-adjusted measures work best not because they necessarily bring harm if taught to younger individuals (although there's significantly lacking data on this specific age range and being taught a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum) but rather that it's more possible to teach it to students as they get older, because they form a larger body of existing knowledge around the topic from peers/media/family, that provides the context required to be more easily taught, and they become more comfortable discussing such topics as they grow older and have a larger existing understanding of them.

You could try teaching an extremely comprehensive sex ed curriculum to students who are much younger, but they would probably just be too uncomfortable to actually care/pay attention/truly learn, is what the evidence I can find seems to point to.

I hope they reply, but personally I don't see any reason to keep children ignorant of biology besides our religions making us feel like sex is taboo and unnatural.

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

Look, I was trying to come up with some good hearted explanation for men's behavior (something about not being able to put themselves into womens shoes) because I didn't want to get downvoted to shit again, but frankly I don't care anymore.

Because it mostly comes down to women being fucking horrible communicators and having chronic indecisiveness.

Figure your shit out.