[user104658]

I have nothing against teaching proper anatomy to teenagers as this is also something we fail on massively, but that doesn't need to involve sex in any way, or live shows . And again - teens, not primary-school aged children who only need to know the absolute basics.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I have nothing against teaching proper anatomy to teenagers as this is also something we fail on massively, but that doesn't need to involve sex in any way, or live shows . And again - teens, not primary-school aged children who only need to know the absolute basics.

Yes TS
that makes sense

[arista]

From the DM link

[Crimson Dynamo]

And it's to these type of people Labour and the SNP are pandering too

Jesus wept.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

And it's to these type of people Labour and the SNP are pandering too

Jesus wept.

Is there anything you don't blame labour and SNP for ?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Is there anything you don't blame labour and SNP for ?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head but if I do rest assured I will be back to post it

That is if the woke left don't ban thinking

[arista]

[Theatre company ThisEgg slammed 'extremist' parents in Twitter thread]

['Family Sex Show' that urges children
as young as five
to explore 'sexual pleasure'
and 'try sexual practices', and 'draw and label' male and female
genitals has been
cancelled following a backlash among thousands of
angry and concerned parents.

Theatre company ThisEgg has complained
it had been forced to scrap its shocking show,
which encourages young children to
explore sex and sexuality,
'before it opened' in Bristol and Norwich
after nearly 40,000 parents
signed a petition calling for it to be axed.]





https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cancelled.html

[user104658]

I feel I need to add clarity to what I said before, as the counter I always run into is "this is nonsense, the LGBTQ community is absolutely not pushing to accept P"

I just want to clarify that I am absolutely aware of that, and it is NOT what I'm saying. I don't think there's any push or inclination from the community to accept paedophilia.

Rather, it's the "P" that's actively pushing to be included under the umbrella... and I personally don't think there's a strong or vocal enough opposition to this from people who consider themselves to be a part of the LGBTQ community. I see a lot of people who would rather convince themselves it's not happening. I think - and I understand this is for obvious reasons - there's an inherent inclination to be understanding and inclusive so while they don't accept, it's difficult to vocally and clearly reject.

And the issue then is... There isn't and never has been any real requirement for "established member agreement" in adding a group to the LGBTQ umbrella. "Kinks" and "Furries" successfully added themselves under the same banner as gay and trans people (I honestly will never understand why this isn't considered more offensive - although I know gay people who do find it offensive) so why wouldn't "Minor Attracted Persons" (urgh) believe they can plant a flag as a minority group under the same heading?

Frankly it needs to be nipped in the bud, hard, or it's going to happen. And then gay men minding their own business are going to find themselves lumped back in with paedophilia to the same extent they were decades ago.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I feel I need to add clarity to what I said before, as the counter I always run into is "this is nonsense, the LGBTQ community is absolutely not pushing to accept P"

I just want to clarify that I am absolutely aware of that, and it is NOT what I'm saying. I don't think there's any push or inclination from the community to accept paedophilia.

Rather, it's the "P" that's actively pushing to be included under the umbrella... and I personally don't think there's a strong or vocal enough opposition to this from people who consider themselves to be a part of the LGBTQ community. I see a lot of people who would rather convince themselves it's not happening. I think - and I understand this is for obvious reasons - there's an inherent inclination to be understanding and inclusive so while they don't accept, it's difficult to vocally and clearly reject.

And the issue then is... There isn't and never has been any real requirement for "established member agreement" in adding a group to the LGBTQ umbrella. "Kinks" and "Furries" successfully added themselves under the same banner as gay and trans people (I honestly will never understand why this isn't considered more offensive - although I know gay people who do find it offensive) so why wouldn't "Minor Attracted Persons" (urgh) believe they can plant a flag as a minority group under the same heading?

Frankly it needs to be nipped in the bud, hard, or it's going to happen. And then gay men minding their own business are going to find themselves lumped back in with paedophilia to the same extent they were decades ago.

Hear hear! The gay community should be absolutely raging at the damage all this "cause coat tailing" is doing to their reputation and all the great work they've put it in over many years

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

LGBTQ

No.

It's LGBT.

[bots]

kinks i can work out but what the heck is a furry?

i hope its not what i think it could be

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

kinks i can work out but what the heck is a furry?

i hope its not what i think it could be

where did you see furry

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

kinks i can work out but what the heck is a furry?

i hope its not what i think it could be

To be blunt - it's not beastiality, it's humans dressed up as animals, usually having sex outdoors/in the woods etc.

Essentially... it is a kink, but for whatever reason it gets its own whole category. And although this one is an "each to their own" situation - adults can have whatever kind of sex they want so long as it's consensual - I still personally will never understand why it's legit for this to be under the same "umbrella" as homosexuality. Massively offensive to most gay adults, and wildly confusing for gay adolescents.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be blunt - it's not beastiality, it's humans dressed up as animals, usually having sex outdoors/in the woods etc.

Essentially... it is a kink, but for whatever reason it gets its own whole category. And although this one is an "each to their own" situation - adults can have whatever kind of sex they want so long as it's consensual - I still personally will never understand why it's legit for this to be under the same "umbrella" as homosexuality. Massively offensive to most gay adults, and wildly confusing for gay adolescents.

And why do they need an Umbrella to be under anyway? They want people to accept the way they like to have sex? WHY? I don't care or want to know how other people have sex

[Parmy]

I care about how paedos have sex...

I think we should all care about that.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I care about how paedos have sex...

I think we should all care about that.

I was talking about the "furries" in my post not paedophiles obviously........

[Kizzy]

a Twitter statement, it said: "These public performances would have offered safe and positive learning to children, young people and guardians about rights, bodies, sex and relationships".

They said audiences were given information about the content before booking "so they could make an informed decision" as to whether to watch it.

The opposition had "prevented families from opting to attend something that was transparent, consensual and legal," ThisEgg added.

From the article.

I don't see why the issue of sex and consent has to be acted out on stage. It's the law and if parents or guardians are willing to take their children to something like this then a simple birds and bees chat should be easy. There is also lots of age appropriate literature on this subject. I don't see the point. All the singing and silly costumes are just confusing and unecessary.

[arista]

It was being debated Live
on GBNewsHD


Inya's show






Both Women debating it
said it was not suitable
for 5 year olds