Funny events in anti-woke world

[Casual Shinji]

As an outsider looking in Texas banning Anne Frank adaptions over one page certainly seems petty and bizarre, and those pushing for it come off as clowns and freaks. Especially because I just don't buy the idea that those ''parental rights!'' folk genuinely think its '''''porn'''. It so very rarely is so why should they be genuine about it being '''''porn''' THIS time?

While the odd parent who also moonlight as the town drunk might be manipulated into going along with this, the stronger voices among them and especially the politicians pushing for it most certainly can't. To me it seems more like an excuse to ban a work with the message that torturing minority groups is wrong. Because if you're a party with rather...ahem ''tense'' relations with minorities that must be a very vexing message. Its not about ''porn''. Its about control, and about removing one more warning against abysmal treatment of minorities.

They obviously don't want to send the message that the Holocaust wasn't bad, but they also don't want kids to get the clearest and least baised view on it. In a way, it is all about that one page. In conservatives eyes having a more open mind regarding sexuallity, and the sexuallity of teens, means Liberal/Leftism, which means a non conservative view on everything else that went on during World War 2. Everything that goes on in wars in general; who starts them, who benefits from them, who get used as cannon fodder. It's about control, but the removal of sexuallity is one of the steps in attaining that control.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That's not teaching kids healthy ideas about sex, those are unhealthy ideas about sex.

They're entirely healthy ideas about sex for a 13-14 year old, or eighth grade in the US system. You can tell, because the origin of these ideas is a healthy 13-14 year old.

Again, these are not possessions. They are not machines. You cannot control the output simply by restricting the input, because that's not how people work. People sexually mature at different rates, but your typical 13 year old is going to be enormously curious about sex. They will actively seek it out. Their capacity to do so is far, far greater than your ability to hide it, and what they find will not be age-appropriate material about a teenage girl talking about touching boobs, it will be "stepsister stuck in washing machine" or "furry cockvore inflation".

If you are not providing your children with a healthy way to explore or satisfy their curiosity about sex, who is? If you are not countering the brutal and indulgent way sex is presented in adult media, you are conceding any control over your child's education to that media, and bear in mind this is a best case scenario. You'd better hope it's the porn industry teaching your kids about sex, because the alternative (and the historical reality) is far, far worse.

You don't know what these parents are teaching their kids about sexuality, you are making huge assumptions.

If parents believe that this material is inappropriate for their children, then I know that whatever they are teaching their children is not enough. Don't worry though, I'm sure pornhub will fill in the blanks for them.

 

[Ag3ma]

If you are not providing your children with a healthy way to explore or satisfy their curiosity about sex, who is? If you are not countering the brutal and indulgent way sex is presented in adult media, you are conceding any control over your child's education to that media, and bear in mind this is a best case scenario. You'd better hope it's the porn industry teaching your kids about sex, because the alternative (and the historical reality) is far, far worse.

The dream is that prohibition will, one day, work.

In theory, US conservatives are happy for parents to educate their children on sex, and not let anyone else get a look in. The problem comes in practice that then many parents don't educate their children on sex, or do it extraordinarily badly.

 

[tstorm823]

So, when are you gonna try and get GTA banned for sale? Like, this is just sad. And blatantly obvious that it wouldn't be an issue if she were talking about a dude

Never, and it really isn't.

They're entirely healthy ideas about sex for a 13-14 year old, or eighth grade in the US system. You can tell, because the origin of these ideas is a healthy 13-14 year old.

Have you met a 13-year-old in your life? Every idea they come up with is unhealthy and dangerous and needs to be averted. Left to their own devices, they would literally set everything on fire.

 

[Ag3ma]

Have you met a 13-year-old in your life? Every idea they come up with is unhealthy and dangerous and needs to be averted. Left to their own devices, they would literally set everything on fire.

I think you need to meet a better class of 13-year-old.

 

[Gordon_4]

Have you met a 13-year-old in your life? Every idea they come up with is unhealthy and dangerous and needs to be averted. Left to their own devices, they would literally set everything on fire.

If the thirteen year olds you know are so disconnected from reality that they have failed to internalise 'Fire hot, ouch' or have and somehow ignore it, I would suggest the people raising them have fucking failed.

I remember being thirteen. No, I wasn't smart, but I'd been raised well enough to not be a fucking idiot. And been taught well by teachers who knew their shit.

 

[tstorm823]

I think you need to meet a better class of 13-year-old.

I have interacted with kids in multiple positions. Even the best, kindest, smartest kids do stupid, stupid things at that age. They're young enough to not have developed proper respect for dangerous situations, and old enough to do the things they don't realize are really stupid. Quick example: 8-year-old boy at the pool is struggling a little to get to the ladder, he's an excellent swimmer, he's just tired after playing for like 4 hours, and is taking longer to get places, he's not drowning. His 12-year-old sister has the impulse to jump in and help, having never attempted such a thing, and then they both sank and we had to save them. She's neither evil nor unintelligent, she just didn't know what the outcome would be and learned the hard way. Were she younger, she wouldn't have tried that, now she's older and knows better, but in the moment she was at the age where you don't know what you don't know but you've grown enough to try the things you think of.

Even if you want to die on the hill of "some kids are better than that!" (they aren't), you'd have to argue all kids are better than that for Terminal's "the idea came from a teen girl so it must be healthy for teenagers" logic to hold up.

 

[Ag3ma]

Even if you want to die on the hill of "some kids are better than that!" (they aren't), you'd have to argue all kids are better than that for Terminal's "the idea came from a teen girl so it must be healthy for teenagers" logic to hold up.

Sure. 13-year-olds have a great deal of cognitive development to go through: we're not expecting (on average) the emotional stability, wisdom and insight of adults. But nor are they the unmitigated disaster zone you initially presented them as (on average): most of them have a reasonable grasp of morality, cause and effect, and so on.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Have you met a 13-year-old in your life? Every idea they come up with is unhealthy and dangerous and needs to be averted. Left to their own devices, they would literally set everything on fire.

You're claiming this and then saying young teens should NOT get educated on/made aware of sexuality?! You know, left to their own devices as their bodies are rapidly producing sex hormones... Better not talk to them about that, right?

Though the fact that you think every idea a 13-year old comes up with is unhealthy and dangerous is either you being hyperbolic, or you just really have no faith in other people at all.

 

[BrawlMan]

Though the fact that you think every idea a 13-year old comes up with is unhealthy and dangerous is either you being hyperbolic, or you just really have no faith in other people at all.

That and projecting his problems on to other people.

 

[tstorm823]

You're claiming this and then saying young teens should NOT get educated on/made aware of sexuality?! You know, left to their own devices as their bodies are rapidly producing sex hormones... Better not talk to them about that, right?

Though the fact that you think every idea a 13-year old comes up with is unhealthy and dangerous is either you being hyperbolic, or you just really have no faith in other people at all.

I didn't say either of those things. I did not say teens should not be made aware of sexuality, nor did I say every idea a 13 year old comes up with is unhealthy.

You are interpreting the suggestion that publicly displaying sexuality in schools is bad as advocating for ignorance, as though history class is the only exposure. You are interpreting the suggestion that 13 year olds have bad ideas and do stupid things as every idea from a 13 year old is stupid. But I said neither.

Edit: Turns out I did say every idea teens come up with is unhealthy and dangerous. I was being exaggeratory in the moment and then forgot later, but I still definitely said that.

But nor are they the unmitigated disaster zone you initially presented them as (on average): most of them have a reasonable grasp of morality, cause and effect, and so on.

People with reasonable grasps of morality and cause and effect still have bad ideas, do stupid things, and start fires. Especially teenagers.

 

[Bedinsis]

I did not say teens should not be made aware of sexuality, nor did I say every idea a 13 year old comes up with is unhealthy.

Have you met a 13-year-old in your life? Every idea they come up with is unhealthy and dangerous and needs to be averted.

Hmm.

 

[tstorm823]

Hmm.

Fair enough. I blundered that. I will adjust accordingly.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I have interacted with kids in multiple positions. Even the best, kindest, smartest kids do stupid, stupid things at that age.

Very true. For example, my biological mother (who, by the very limited information I have seems like a very kind and smart child) conceived me at 13, which was a pretty stupid thing to do.

But here's the thing. At the time, it was far, far more common for teenagers to make these kinds of mistakes. So, what happened? Did 13 year olds unlock 100% of their brains and ascend to a higher plane of existence?

I was born under the Thatcher administration. A government that actively sought to impose a particular brand of right-wing moralism onto the education system in order to combat "permissive society". A government that intentionally created a moral panic about "activist" teachers being given too much autonomy in order to justify politicization of the curriculum. A government that fundamentally distrusted any form of expertise and felt that everything should be run based on the moral sentiments of what they saw as the "normal" person. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

I am literally living proof that this policy does not work, because when you create a climate where noone is willing to explain basic facts of reality to a child for fear of losing their job, it turns out that doesn't help those children make good decisions. But hey, at least you get to feel superior to them, and isn't that what really matters?

Even if you want to die on the hill of "some kids are better than that!" (they aren't), you'd have to argue all kids are better than that for Terminal's "the idea came from a teen girl so it must be healthy for teenagers" logic to hold up.

What exactly would you say is "unhealthy" about Anne's fantasies or behavior in this case?

 

[tstorm823]

What exactly would you say is "unhealthy" about Anne's fantasies or behavior in this case?

It's all purely objectification, without respect for others.

But here's the thing. At the time, it was far, far more common for teenagers to make these kinds of mistakes. So, what happened? Did 13 year olds unlock 100% of their brains and ascend to a higher plane of existence?

I was born under the Thatcher administration. A government that actively sought to impose a particular brand of right-wing moralism onto the education system in order to combat "permissive society". A government that intentionally created a moral panic about "activist" teachers being given too much autonomy in order to justify politicization of the curriculum. A government that fundamentally distrusted any form of expertise and felt that everything should be run based on the moral sentiments of what they saw as the "normal" person. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

I am literally living proof that this policy does not work, because when you create a climate where noone is willing to explain basic facts of reality to a child for fear of losing their job, it turns out that doesn't help those children make good decisions. But hey, at least you get to feel superior to them, and isn't that what really matters?

What happened is that society got less permissive. It was far more common then, but it's far less common now, because society has changed. People have this idea of the past as super conservative based on 1950s or 1980s pop culture, but no honest look at the past thinks society as a whole was always seriously more restrictive. In specific ways, sure, there was less allowance for something like homosexuality, but do you really think the world is more sexually permissive than the 60s and 70s? Margaret Thatcher held power in basically the 80s, in the 70s there were significant groups pushing to lower the age of consent. You may notice that since then almost the entire world has raised that number, and started treating statutory rape more severely. We look very poorly at the 20 year old sleeping with high schoolers, which is important since adult men 18-25 are the fathers in teen pregnancy a huge (but decreasing) amount of the time.

You are not living proof of the policy not working. The teen birth rate in the UK spiked in the 60s and 70s, and in the time of Margert Thatcher that rate dropped. You were less likely to have been born in the 80s than in the 70s or the 90s, and then the rate has dropped precipitously since then because of cultural changes, to finally get back to where society was before the 60s. The moral sentiments of the normal person have changed. Sure, there's all sorts of fetishism by internet weirdos, but mainstream popular culture is less sexual than it was 50-60 years age, and people are having less sex, especially minors. And here you are, so convinced conservative morals are the problem, that you want to insert sex back into everything and try the disaster of 60s sex culture all over again.

 

[Silvanus]

And here you are, so convinced conservative morals are the problem, that you want to insert sex back into everything and try the disaster of 60s sex culture all over again.

Hmm. Let's look at what the greatest tragedies and failures of public sexual health policy were. We have the refusal to acknowledge the burgeoning AIDS crisis, and to dismiss it as something only affecting gay people and drug users, who were viewed as expendable-- an approach epitomised by Reagan and Thatcher. We have the condemnation of (and lying about) contraception, led by the Pope, leading to disastrous STI transmission and child abandonment. We have the trafficking and sexual slavery operated by institutions of the Irish Catholic Church. We have the utter rank failures of conversion therapy and abstinence sex-ed. We have the ongoing stigmatisation and criminalisation of homosexuality by theocratic conservative governments the world over. We have the corporal and capital punishment of women seen as being "promiscuous" by religious conservative authorities, for such 'crimes' as being the victims of rape. We have young girls refused entry to their own homes during their periods, by traditionalist conservative patriarchs.

 

[Bedinsis]

Welp, I actually read through the graphic novel of Anne Frank's diary this Tuesday. Before I did my generalized opinion was that any adaptation has to make choices, choices that reflects what aspects the adapter considers most worthwhile of the original work. This can include details having to be ejected, plot points being simplified or streamlined, or sections being expanded. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, it just is, and I consider it important that an adapter be given the freedom to make choices. Afterwards people can feel free to say their objections of the choices made.

With this said, I didn't really see anything that I would object to in the novel. I thought it was a bit hard to read Anne's emotions in several scenes due to a rather inexpressive artstyle and replication of Anne's rather formal writing in the text, so I suspect the regular biography would be a better experience. Regarding the sexuality:

1. The Colossus of Rhodes having a penis. The first thing that should be mentioned is that the adaptation does not shy away from having splash panels where a wildly different setting displaying Anne's fantasies(two that leaps to my mind was one where Anne was displayed as Edvard Munch's The Scream after an emotional period and one where all the residents on the annex was wind-up toys, repeating phrases that seemed to embody their character). So it is standing operating procedure to display panels that way. The penis itself: that detail was small enough that I had to look close to even see whether it was there and not just some random ink lines. In other words it's how someone who wanted to draw a Greek statue with a penis would draw it if they were to do it for children: there for accuracy but insignificant enough nobody would raise their eyebrows at it.

2. Toning down the language regarding sex work. I have not read the original biography so I don't know whether toning down or changing lines was common throughout this adaptation. I can speculate til the cows come home about why they chose to tone the language down, but it was such a non-entity of a page that I find it kind of pointless. They could've thought the page would be too long with the line unaltered, they could've thought children reading this story would imagine that sex work is a handy way to make money and not wish to encourage it. Nonetheless, I think I'd prefer the original line, since it actually is mentioning Anne's emotions and thoughts.

3. The scene with Jacq and pressuring her to touch each other's breasts. Others have already stated multiple times what my rough opinion is, that it is helpful for people of today to see teenagers of yesteryear experience struggles they are likely to have encountered, which includes awkward attempts due to a newly awakened libido. The alternative is not learning such stuff which I don't think is a good way to go. From a narrative point of view (and this is something I don't think has been brought up so far) the scene has inherent value, since this is part of a series of entries that leads her to falling a bit for the boy at the annex, Peter, culminating in a kiss. Knowing what her earlier, pre-annex, experience was with physical intimacy is a natural way to display where she's coming from.

Finally, I am a bit questioning about reading this adaptation for school rather than the original biography. Graphic novel adaptations have their place, but the fact that the original biography has been read by teenagers for decades, and they had to go out of their way to depict Anne's imagination to spice things up makes it feel a bit pointless.

 

[Terminal Blue]

In specific ways, sure, there was less allowance for something like homosexuality, but do you really think the world is more sexually permissive than the 60s and 70s?

That's not something that is necessary to think about, because it's just true.

According to one survey in Britain, the average number of partners a 24 year old woman had slept with in the 1960s was 1.7. In the 1970s, that number shot up to 3.7. That sudden change in behaviour is what we call the sexual revolution, and it is certainly a very significant jump. However, in the 2000s, that same number was 5.6. The reason we don't think of ourselves as living in a sexual revolution isn't because people are less sexually permissive, it's because being sexually permissive is no longer revolutionary.

I've read transcripts of consciousness raising groups in the 1970s. Most participants in those groups were young university students who were heavily involved in the counterculture, and yet when they talk about sex (which they do a lot) the stuff they think is so radical and taboo that you need a consciousness raising group to talk through it with is stuff that people today will talk about on their public social media to complete strangers. The level of discourse is not even comparable, because young adults today are vastly, vastly more familiar and comfortable with sex than even the most radical fringe of the 1970s.

The reduction in teen pregnancy is overwhelmingly due to comprehensive sex education programs, which now have decades of statistical evidence to back them up. It turns out, comprehensive sex education does everything conservatives say they want. It delays the age at which children start having sex, it reduces both the frequency and number of partners that teenagers tend to have, it reduces risky behaviour and makes children less vulnerable to abuse and it massively, massively reduces the likelihood of unwanted pregnancy.

We look very poorly at the 20 year old sleeping with high schoolers, which is important since adult men 18-25 are the fathers in teen pregnancy a huge (but decreasing) amount of the time.

Yes, because teen pregnancy is not the same thing as underage pregnancy, and the risk of teenage pregnancy increases as a person ages. Women aged 18-19 are the mothers in teen pregnancy a huge amount of the time.

Like, you're not completely wrong, but I don't think you understand how or why. It doesn't matter how we view 20 year olds sleeping with high schoolers because, even if the age gap is actually illegal you'd have to be pretty stupid to get caught and the police don't care as much as you probably think they do. It matters how high schoolers view it. The real change, which is largely cultural, is that young people tend to be much more aware of and have much less tolerance for predatory behavior than previous generations.

The teen birth rate in the UK spiked in the 60s and 70s, and in the time of Margert Thatcher that rate dropped.

Yeah, there's an actual reason for that drop, and because I enjoy the irony I'm going to let you guess what it is but I'll give you a clue. It begins with an "a" and ends in a medical waste bin or, more typically, a toilet.

The teen pregnancy rate is not the teen birth rate.

 

[tstorm823]

Hmm. Let's look at what the greatest tragedies and failures of public sexual health policy were. We have the refusal to acknowledge the burgeoning AIDS crisis, and to dismiss it as something only affecting gay people and drug users, who were viewed as expendable-- an approach epitomised by Reagan and Thatcher. We have the condemnation of (and lying about) contraception, led by the Pope, leading to disastrous STI transmission and child abandonment. We have the trafficking and sexual slavery operated by institutions of the Irish Catholic Church. We have the utter rank failures of conversion therapy and abstinence sex-ed. We have the ongoing stigmatisation and criminalisation of homosexuality by theocratic conservative governments the world over. We have the corporal and capital punishment of women seen as being "promiscuous" by religious conservative authorities, for such 'crimes' as being the victims of rape. We have young girls refused entry to their own homes during their periods, by traditionalist conservative patriarchs.

So, the infamously orgiastic gay culture of the 1970's turned HIV into a fast spreading pandemic, and you think the great tragedy is that Ronald Reagan didn't personally stop them?

Characterizing the Magdalene Laundries as "sexual slavery" reads like fanfiction, but more jarring is that you consider even your warped view of them as one of the greatest tragedies in a world where millions of people are actual sex slaves.

Like, you're not completely wrong,

I'm usually completely right, I know

It matters how high schoolers view it. The real change, which is largely cultural, is that young people tend to be much more aware of and have much less tolerance for predatory behavior than previous generations.

Which is how you end up with the students telling their parents that the teacher forced another student to read out loud about feeling ecstasy at the thought of nude female bodies.

Yeah, there's an actual reason for that drop, and because I enjoy the irony...

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself that much? You got yourself so worked up about how you were only born because of the failures of Margert Thatcher's public policy (which you paradoxically think is a bad thing), and now you're gonna try to claim that maybe it was less likely during that time, but only because you were more likely to be aborted. Even though there were also less abortions then in the UK than there are now, both in absolute numbers and in frequency.

 

[Silvanus]

So, the infamously orgiastic gay culture of the 1970's turned HIV into a fast spreading pandemic, and you think the great tragedy is that Ronald Reagan didn't personally stop them?

I think the great tragedy is that Thatcher and Reagan ignored one of the world's most severe public health crises because it was seen as an exclusively gay disease, and they didn't give a shit.

The usual prurient, exaggerated homophobia is noted, of course. Spare me the pearl-clutching about sexual liberation after centuries of religious conservative repression, followed by strident opposition to sex-ed, contraception, public sexual health, or anything else that could've mitigated STIs and stigma.

Characterizing the Magdalene Laundries as "sexual slavery" reads like fanfiction, but more jarring is that you consider even your warped view of them as one of the greatest tragedies in a world where millions of people are actual sex slaves.

Do you think the Magdalene Laundries were the extent of it, then? This is whitewashing solely because it implicates the Catholic Church.

I was talking about failures and tragedies of public sexual health /policy/. So yes, the institutionalised abuse of the Irish Catholic institutions is more directly relevant than the actions of criminal outfits.