Skip to content

Err, yes?

It adds: “While the family is a place of nurturing and support for many children, it can also be where gender and sexuality are regulated and policed, as many of our interviewees and much research suggest.”

Human sexuality does need to be regulated and policed. That’s a goodly part of what the process of raising children is…..

8 thoughts on “Err, yes?”

  1. Sort of like toilet training.

    I sometimes think all the Freudian stuff about toilet training was just an old fashioned way of talking about sex, by analogy with a slightly more socially acceptable body function.

  2. The entire purpose of being a parent is to stop your teenage child from having sex, whether in company or not.

  3. The Meissen Bison

    When I attended my gender and heterosexuality factory, St Custard’s, gender was prominent only in Mr Ritchie’s ‘First Steps in Eating’, Kennedy’s famous tome and other similar improving works.

    We were discouraged from having anything tied to our sex organs since this could rapidly induce blindness in the immoderate, we were taught.

  4. @TMB – Interesting. At St. Cakes, whether the younger boys got sex was a function of their attractiveness or otherwise to the prefects. Most of us, looking like rutting deer got nothing but access to Mrs. Palm and her 5 lovely daughters.

    That’s British Sex Education in the 70’s for you.

  5. The beginners’ French primer was about Madame Souris which would probably be updated to Madame Sourit with lots of explanations as to why. The next book in the series for the eager linguistic swat featured Madame Lapin which in the sprit of the age could be revised to Madame LaPine.

  6. Boyhood Initiative again? And the American Exiles “involved”?

    Looks like there’s peeps aiming to have the line of Succession shortened Officially.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *