#shadowbabbles

[shadowtherat16]

And now time for my favourite game:

“Did I finish’s BSD!Beast or did it finish me?”

[greyshadowquestionsbeing]

A recent post I've seen popped up a few times has got me thinking on relationship and sex education.

Mainly that many places, including where I am, try to sex ed what seems to be earlier than it seems many people expect.

I know this is going to be highly regional, but in the UK, the average age of a child first seeing porn is 11. This is a big reason why - even in many places with lowering teen pregnancy rates - some places are covering everything early.

And by everything I'm including, for 11-14 year olds, sexualities, sexual anatomy, menstruation cycles and options (more in-depth than the primary puberty versions), common and uncommon male and female medical problems involving the reproductive system, pregnancy, abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, the postpartum period, stis, types of sti protection and birth control, the risks of various types of sex in terms stis, pregnancy, and pain issues.

I also cover relationships, red flags, and I spent quite a bit of time drilling in that liking/crushing on someone does not mean an interest in doing all or any sexual acts and someone saying or doing a sexual act with you is not proof that they like or love you.

Part of me thinks, like some of the commenters on that post, that it would be nice if the heavier stuff was a more 14+/KS4 thing, it sadly feels even doing it at 11 (start of KS3/secondary here) means some kids already have a pornified views of sexuality and their peers which is causing major issues. Honestly, I’m not sure whether this will help even if I’d like to think having solid realistic information should. 

So my great conundrum that I'm thinking about is how to balance that, how to give kids good tools and help set both a level of knowledge and help kids develop standard expectations and boundaries without going too far too soon? How do we help kids cope with a sexualized world where we can have 2 11-year-olds in the same class, and one may have no internet access at home and not even know what the word porn means while the other already has open free access to the internet and a porn habit (and yes, this happens).

Things like teaching sexualities seems pretty basic, and I see no need to replace the word ‘attraction’ with other similar words (crushes, love, warm feelings) because they’re all have a level of subjectiveness to them and I think are actually quite different which is something I saw argued a bit on that post, but when it comes to higher level stuff like different types of sex and pornography and such, I feel like there is a bit of a struggle between when’s damagingly too early and when’s neglectfully late with the knowledge of what kids get exposed to and exposing each other to on their own devices.

I know some places struggle to get sex ed at all but thinking idealistic education within our current world, I think there is an issue here that, even excluding abuse of intentional exposure, it’s very difficult to prepare kids for how they will come across sex and sexual images and language around sex in the world as it currently is. What is going in the classroom and even what often parents are teaching...I’m not sure if it can rightfully keep up with trying to get before the average exposure if it gets any younger as I don’t think most of the content currently set for Y7 11-12-year-olds, some of which is quite challenging, can be moved any younger.

I mean, there is a whole other kettle of fish that we do sadly have primary age girls being sexually harassed, threatened, and attacked by their boy peers & so little is being done because schools are cutting adults all over the place that I can’t even begin to touch, but now that schools are basically expected to teach everything, we now have the question of when to discuss all this stuff in schools with such a wide audience. It’s difficult. 

[shadowtherat16]

It’s spring.

You know what that means.

If I die or mysteriously go missing, you will know what happened.

Avenge me.

[shadowtherat16]

I hate it when my body reminds me that I am, in fact, afab

[greyshadowquestionsbeing]

In many spaces, I’ve seen people ask for advice on whether or not to talk about [typically a not obvious trait] in [setting] and if so, how to do so and the risks and so on. 

And a lot of people seem to get upset that some people don’t want to talk about their sexuality or other similar not typically obvious things in the workplace or other specific settings. They use phrases like “being one’s full self” or “authentic” on the reasons why everyone should talk about it. 

Now, I’m all about talking about what you want as long as you feel it is safe and generally recommend that if one wants to do so to try to fit it into a conversation naturally. If you want to do that and feel safe, go for it. Talking doesn’t automatically help, but silence rarely makes problems better. 

However not wanting to talk about a personal trait at work or any other settings does not make someone less themselves. It does not make someone less authentic. It does not make someone less than someone who does. Not wanting to talk about or having a mental or emotional block on a topic does not mean you are less or that you hate yourself or any of that nonsense. 

Lots of people are advised not to talk about work at home all the time or just don’t want to for many reasons, having that division or set times for it helps many people. The same goes the other way around and in different ways - if you don’t want to talk about your home life at work or you want a particular social media space to only be about family or only be fun random stuff and not discuss certain things, or you don’t want vulnerable identities put on your online work profile as some places of work are doing as a lazyass way to show “look we’re diverse”, that doesn’t make you less you, it doesn’t mean you’re not being authentic or you’re hiding anything. It just means in certain space you want to focus on certain things - even if it’s fun and relaxation. The rest is still there, not talking about it doesn’t make it go away, but all of us doesn’t need to be everywhere with everyone, no matter how much certain spaces push us to expose everything to anyone who shows slight interest. Others’ curiosity doesn’t give them a right to anyone’s information. Living a full life doesn’t mean in full exposure to everyone, it means what makes you feel fully alive as best you can without burning out or putting yourself at a risk you’re not able and wanting to take on.

 If that’s talking about it everywhere, go for it, but it shouldn’t be a standard expected of everyone or treated like we can only be good [trait] person if we do so. 

[greyshadowquestionsbeing]

Having a rough month. It started with a very nice and thoughtful GP who went through some of my records with me. Getting physical copies in an expensive pain and, having done it before, I know even doing that doesn’t mean there won’t be unexplained gaps where professionals just didn’t write anything even on something very important, so this was the first time I had seen many of them - usually I’ve just been told verbally that my results show X rather than any numbers, but I saw charts of my results on her screen. 

Some of the stuff I have been told - including a fairly serious diagnosis - never made it into my records (but I’ve had a literal surgery that no one can find records of so I’m not entirely surprised...), and some of that, including that diagnosis, we can’t find any evidence to support. From what we can tell, after many tests about 5 years ago to screen for even more serious possibilities, this diagnosis came up due to what I’d said about my vague knowledge of my family medical history and some of my symptoms & was used to handwave other ones even though my blood test results have never been anywhere close to what anyone would say as confirmation of that condition - like my results are about a fifth of what they would be if I had this, but I’ve been told repeated - including literally last month by another GP - that my results showed this so its not really my fault I believed them when my blood tests say otherwise. So now we’ve no idea what is going on, I’m not sure which of my symptoms is the most concerning or how to feel about any of this, but I’m getting more tests and referred on because, for once, I have a GP actually following the NICE guidelines rather than bullshitting me.

Today, I got the letter for one of the test appointment and I’m not sure if I’m angry that the “preparing for...” page is very badly written or if I’m upset that I have go through this painful test again when I had this 5 years ago because a specialist might want these details more up-to-date, or if it’s my usual medical anxiety especially as its the same hospital I was attacked in when I was 18, or if I’m upset there is no one left in my bio-family that I could talk to about this to get any further information, or if this is just anger at this further evidence of having the rug pulled out from under me and the wool pulled over my eyes in regards to information about myself that others control, or some ambiguous mix of the above and more. 

So I’m babbling into the void and scrolling through pretty pictures and things, oscillating between all the feelings and none. 

[greyshadowquestionsbeing]

The vast majority of the time I try to at least ignore if not forget the religious stuff that was drilled into me and that I studied to deal with the stuff drilled into me when I was younger.

Sometimes, I get pulled back into it, but I'm generally good at mostly staying out of it.

Today, a childhood friend rarely seen now of a good friend came out of the woodwork with the crazy interpretation that in the story of Lot and his daughters - with the mob - that Lot try to give over his daughter's to the mob was about giving them into marriage... I've read so many commentaries about Genesis and I'd never come across that one before. Like, I've heard the responsibility to hospitality and how that could somehow be seen as more important than protecting his family or that as part his downward spiral he may have thought it was the only way to save the rest of his family, but I've never heard anyone suggest that the 'what is good in your eyes' to a mob who is already threatening people referred to Lot thinking they would choose two of them to marry his daughters.

Like I avoided getting into it, but...I don't get it and my brain is annoyed about it because there is so many years of this stuff in there. Is this something one of the branches teaches or someone trolling ‘cause I even put myself through some of the well-known Bible discussing youtubers and they’re all calling the mob murder-rapists and similar so I can’t figure it out. Like apparently they’ve been in some right wing stuff lately according to someone else, but yeah, I’ve studied quite with evangelicals, a bit with catholics and to a even lesser extent JWs, and spent years studying with chassidic people, and I’ve never met anyone who has taken that interpretation before. I think it annoys me most because the whole point of that part is how horrible the city is, that there isn’t one good person to prevent the city’s destruction...so either this person sees marriage as bad as a mob (I might if the person was anti-marriage) or just, what, trying to save Lot’s reputation in the story that ends horribly for him? I just can’t get where this comes from so babbling about it to hopefully get it out of my head.