this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
478 points (98.8% liked)

Not The Onion

12573 readers
1090 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Removing the anatomy portion of sex ed is absurd, but we'll just file it under the same "everything I don't like is porn" reasoning they've been using. And at least I can understand how someone can think that teaching about birth control only encourages sex.

But what the actual fuck can anyone say to defend removing any discussion about consent‽ I honestly can't understand it. There's literally no reason not to cover it unless you object to the idea that rape and molestation are bad.

What's next, teaching kids that strangers in vans have the best candy? That adults will often reward those who give special favors? The importance of keeping uncomfortable experiences a secret?

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The idea is probably that there is nothing to consent to if you are supposed to practice abstinence.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, the viewpoint these folks operate from is that there's no need to discuss consent because you should never consent prior to marriage (aka abstinence before marriage is always saying no, so there's no need to discuss any other answer) and that marriage is always implied consent at all times (so there remains nothing to discuss because now it's always yes) - the whole idea of talking about consent is built on the implication that there isn't a preordained, socially determined answer but instead that it's a question that needs to be discussed.

[–] GroundedGator@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

All of these things will protect kids from the radical left. Now remember, conservatives project to confess, and read what you wrote again.

But what the actual fuck can anyone say to defend removing any discussion about consent‽

Because women are property. They belong to their father until they are married and then they belong to their husbands. Men and boys have no reason to give consent.

[–] tauonite@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

They really want to fuck them kids, don't they?