May 30, 2022: Theynos 3

[ZozoCitizen]

Ha ha ha.

This one legitimately got a good laugh outta me. We also learned a (sort of) name for this other recurring character: Captain Mom. I especially appreciate that she has no super hero costume. She's just... herself. A regular woman.
I have mixed feelings about this parody comparison though. Captain Marvel (as seen in the most recent movies) is kind of a joke. She's not very well written there and is clearly a bland grrl power insert with no real passion or creativity behind her. That said, Captain Marvel *has* been a great character in the past. It's not like she's brand new. So. You know. Mixed feelings.

Thanos really is a solid choice for a woke parody super villain. They mean well. All the messed up stuff they do is rooted in a desire to do good. In fact the reason they are so dangerous and successful is because of that sincerity. Their chief failing lays in being unable to live up to their own absurd (and often contradictory) standards of morality.
When someone believes they are in the moral right... they will justify anything. Setting them on a dark path.

[Russly]

I would like to add that as soon as the fight in One Piece ends the fight in Sinfest begins.

-Russly

[Pukje]

When someone believes they are in the moral right... they will justify anything. Setting them on a dark path.

Such as making comics about how feeling empathy turns people into woke zombies? Personally idk if I'm OK with that angle.

[ZozoCitizen]

When someone believes they are in the moral right... they will justify anything. Setting them on a dark path.

Such as making comics about how feeling empathy turns people into woke zombies? Personally idk if I'm OK with that angle.

The point is that it's not empathy. It's fake. Performative. The 'woke' are mocked by their enemies and even neutral parties because they pretend to be good people, but it's all an act to serve their own ends. The movement wears a mask of kindness that hides a hideous face.

[Pukje]

When someone believes they are in the moral right... they will justify anything. Setting them on a dark path.

Such as making comics about how feeling empathy turns people into woke zombies? Personally idk if I'm OK with that angle.

The point is that it's not empathy. It's fake. Performative. The 'woke' are mocked by their enemies and even neutral parties because they pretend to be good people, but it's all an act to serve their own ends. The movement wears a mask of kindness that hides a hideous face.

We seem to be talking about slightly different things. I was talking about kids being turned into woke zombies as a result of learning about gender. I assume you didn't mean to suggest that the kids immediately turned into manipulative asshats because they were exposed to the concept of introspection.

The message of the comic seems... confused. Exploring one's identity is shown as conformist and bad, while affirming traditional values held by your parents is shown as good. I assume Tats isn't pretending to be a good person while acting to serve his own ends, but merely someone who believes they are in the moral right... justifing anything. Setting them on a dark path.

[ZozoCitizen]

Such as making comics about how feeling empathy turns people into woke zombies? Personally idk if I'm OK with that angle.

The point is that it's not empathy. It's fake. Performative. The 'woke' are mocked by their enemies and even neutral parties because they pretend to be good people, but it's all an act to serve their own ends. The movement wears a mask of kindness that hides a hideous face.

We seem to be talking about slightly different things. I was talking about kids being turned into woke zombies as a result of learning about gender. I assume you didn't mean to suggest that the kids immediately turned into manipulative asshats because they were exposed to the concept of introspection.

The message of the comic seems... confused. Exploring one's identity is shown as conformist and bad, while affirming traditional values held by your parents is shown as good. I assume Tats isn't pretending to be a good person while acting to serve his own ends, but merely someone who believes they are in the moral right... justifing anything. Setting them on a dark path.

That's usually the case. A misunderstanding which leads people to talk about different things from different perspectives, that is.
The exact nature of kids being 'educated' by activists is up for debate though. What you call introspection? Someone else might call grooming. All a matter of perspective. I can see that even to a neutral party the situation just has a shady look to it. That's undeniable. Instead of teaching kids math, a teacher chooses to push political beliefs or some philosophical dogma on impressionable children? It's unprofessional at the least. Criminal at the worst. How can it be perceived any way except in a negative light?

I don't necessarily agree with everything Tat does. I don't even know what he really believes. The comic could, for all I know, be just a way for him to explore ideas through his art. Ideas that he has been introduced to but hasn't personally adopted. Tat might even be Woke. It's possible. He could be playing devil's advocate and questioning his own beliefs, confronting the problems the idealogy faces head on rather than pretending they don't exist.
Haha. Nice one. It's very easy to do ill while trying to do good. Love has a power to hurt that hate can never match. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? It truly is the height of arrogance to say to ourselves "I know what's best for someone else" and that's the true pitfall.

[Pukje]

You are right that it was very unclear what was being taught since Tats went with abstract symbols, many of which were political and prrrobably not age appropriate, although it's sometimes very hard to tell what age the characters are meant to be. The only parts that were spelled out were the bit about the gender, and the girl pondering out loud if she's a girl after her mom took her away from the school. So I specifically referred to those bits, figuring the latter qualifies as introspection. The girl appears distraught, though whether or not that has anything to do with her mom making a scene in class is another matter entirely.

So that's where I see confusion in the message. The girl learned to ask introspective questions about her identity, because the lizard lady brought up the matter of gender. Is learning about different concepts and then questioning them not good?

It truly is the height of arrogance to say to ourselves "I know what's best for someone else" and that's the true pitfall.

I wholeheartedly agree (unless you're an electrician).

[Russly]

Hehehehe "unless you're an electrician". Yeah I mean one day he decided to start using the comic to send the messages he wants to and even if it's unprofessional he apparently found enough success to roll with whatever anyway. I'm not opposed since it's on the reader to decide what they agree with or even how they interpret the comic. Tat seems to have long since moved on from simple mechanics such as sequential storytelling or, uh, general continuity. In a lot of ways it is just a question of what's the most badass thought of the day. These are from the days of newspaper comics when people cared less, in fact I'm pretty sure people still don't read the Boondocks comic to be honest, despite the show's hype. (Same for Dilbert in reverse.) I'm barely returning to Kaiji.

One part however is clear. For all those who genuinely are wondering about their gender, there are just as many if not more who are being subjected to a technological agenda. The misuse of the concept of gender is as longstanding as the use of the word apartheid after Jimmy Carter admitted his reference to the jews was apparently a mindless comment. English is funny that way. Anyway, I like watching battles with badass Theynos Captain Mom face offs.

-Russly

[ZozoCitizen]

The girl learned to ask introspective questions about her identity, because the lizard lady brought up the matter of gender. Is learning about different concepts and then questioning them not good?

I would say no. Young children shouldn't have notions of sexuality pushed on them. Period. It's abuse. A theft of innocence. Kids don't have sexuality. At all. Kids shouldn't be forcibly dragged into the world of adults and presented with adult issues.
Why would someone do that? The only explanation is to feed their own ego. To get little kids to parrot things back at them. There's no discourse or thought there. Only the blind trust of children. It's monsterously cruel and selfish.

Hehehehe "unless you're an electrician". Yeah I mean one day he decided to start using the comic to send the messages he wants to and even if it's unprofessional he apparently found enough success to roll with whatever anyway. I'm not opposed since it's on the reader to decide what they agree with or even how they interpret the comic. Tat seems to have long since moved on from simple mechanics such as sequential storytelling or, uh, general continuity. In a lot of ways it is just a question of what's the most badass thought of the day. These are from the days of newspaper comics when people cared less, in fact I'm pretty sure people still don't read the Boondocks comic to be honest, despite the show's hype. (Same for Dilbert in reverse.) I'm barely returning to Kaiji.

One part however is clear. For all those who genuinely are wondering about their gender, there are just as many if not more who are being subjected to a technological agenda. The misuse of the concept of gender is as longstanding as the use of the word apartheid after Jimmy Carter admitted his reference to the jews was apparently a mindless comment. English is funny that way. Anyway, I like watching battles with badass Theynos Captain Mom face offs.

-Russly

I think Tat might be one of the last bastions of a comics tradition that has gone largely extinct. He's such a talented artist... I can't help but wonder what he could accomplish if he broke his decades of momentum and decided to start making animations or putting out graphic novels. He has the chops. He could do it. This isn't meant as an insult but Sinfest (and webcomics in general) have been in decline for awhile. Maybe Tat cares about being relevant to today's audiences and maybe he doesn't. I respect it either way, but with his skills he could absolutely become big if he struck a chord with people at the right time. Then again, you know, maybe that's just not his thing. I personally enjoy reading the comic.

If we take everything at face value, Tat is a Terf. He's an advocate of women's rights, but not 'fake' women. Trans women are just men in dresses seeking to usurp women's rights and spaces.
He believes the Patriarchy is alive and well, controls almost everything, and keeps women oppressed. In his eyes the average man is an unwitting oppressor. Not truly malicious but guilty of standing idly by while injustice reigns, often profiting off a system that favors them. So they are even less likely to act against it. At least that's been my take away.

[Pukje]

The girl learned to ask introspective questions about her identity, because the lizard lady brought up the matter of gender. Is learning about different concepts and then questioning them not good?

I would say no. Young children shouldn't have notions of sexuality pushed on them. Period. It's abuse. A theft of innocence. Kids don't have sexuality. At all. Kids shouldn't be forcibly dragged into the world of adults and presented with adult issues.
Why would someone do that? The only explanation is to feed their own ego. To get little kids to parrot things back at them. There's no discourse or thought there. Only the blind trust of children. It's monsterously cruel and selfish.

But gender isn't synonymous with sexuality. Like sure, gender is generally a part of sexuality, but that's like saying heels are bad, because high heels have heels (it's in the name!!) and we definitely shouldn't force kids to wear high heels.

To elaborate, gender gets involved when things are defined as 'for girls' and 'for boys' and this is an aspect that definitely concerns children. It's simple stuff like.. 'am I wrong because I like to play with cars as a girl?' or 'am I bad if I like to play dress up with dolls as a boy?' Gender based emotional abuse in families is absolutely a thing, and it can be so much more painful for kids when they only have the mental tools given by their abusers to work their way through what is going on.

As a side note, the girl in the comic isn't talking about gender in the context of sexuality either. She's considering it in terms of identity.

[longtimelurker]

Protecting children from being exposed to concepts beyond their maturity, is of course by it's nature, subjective. How do you determine when it is the right time to encourage or allow such questions to be asked, or themes to be investigated? If presented by such inquisitions do you protect your child by defending their innocence and deflecting away such discourse, or do you educate and provide for them the opportunity to learn and make their own decision and judgement on what they take from it? Will they be better served in being protected from such subjects until as a collective they are educated in the same manner at the same time in sex-ed, or fall victim to the crap shoot of peer pressure by others who have matured beyond the timetable of education, and feel compelled to make judgements without the benefit of having the facts of life? This applies to both sexuality and identity and is at the root of the debate, but societal pressures of conformity/individualism make for heavy bias depending upon your personal circumstances and social grouping.

[Russly]

What I love about today is the strip reminding me of the line my friend once said about how my hometown of Boston is one of the "last bastions" of the word retarded. Idk what's up with all these bastions but it's got that original Kingdom Hearts vibe to it. Also on feeding their ego the possibility of them mindlessly letting technology take over potentially plays in since as we are God to technology, we are responsible for helping its emergence into existence be as good as it may be bad. If we ever see strips with animation I would be scared. He did like one strip where the black and white turned into the rainbow and I was scared it was about to go all color at the same time Luffy hit a black and white fifth gear (legit that's the theory). And I heard others continue on too, not just Kaiji but bastions are around near and far... Steven Universe, Samurai Jack, The Simpsons.... The rule of thumb is did they survive without Netflix.

"Gender isn't synonymous with sexuality" and gender is a linguistic term applied originally only for words and then people had the bright idea to apply it to themselves and all hell has broken loose ever since. (Once again, Jimmy Carter level.) By all means pretend gender is applicable anywhere other than language itself further. Anyway. Maybe I'll grab the section of Intimate Terrorism which actually specifies that. Yes between being given tools and distinguishing between sexuality and identity are a start in what may be a generations-long unveiling of how sexuality works in a digital post-birth-control age.

At what age have children of their own accord decided they are mature? Cash App is listed with an age rating of four plus. Four! You know One Piece's Momo at least is eight. They legit did the acupuncture on Momo to turn his body into a twenty eight year old's and he is willing to rule the country despite the eight year old maturity level, it's the current chapter! Spoilers! Again, anyway. When they're old enough and all that.

-Russly

[ZozoCitizen]

But gender isn't synonymous with sexuality. Like sure, gender is generally a part of sexuality, but that's like saying heels are bad, because high heels have heels (it's in the name!!) and we definitely shouldn't force kids to wear high heels.

To elaborate, gender gets involved when things are defined as 'for girls' and 'for boys' and this is an aspect that definitely concerns children. It's simple stuff like.. 'am I wrong because I like to play with cars as a girl?' or 'am I bad if I like to play dress up with dolls as a boy?' Gender based emotional abuse in families is absolutely a thing, and it can be so much more painful for kids when they only have the mental tools given by their abusers to work their way through what is going on.

As a side note, the girl in the comic isn't talking about gender in the context of sexuality either. She's considering it in terms of identity.

Hm. That's an interesting take. Although I don't really understand the heels metaphor. Is it because heel has a double meaning? A heel is sometimes referred to as a villain in pro wrestling.
Anyway I think sexuality *is* at the heart of the issues we are discussing, given that teachers are guilty of specifically
bringing it up. You make a fair point though. Not everything is tied to sexuality.

There is nothing wrong with boys or girls taking an interest in whatever they want. Nothing a boy could ever do would make him less a boy or a girl less of a girl.
I belong to the school of thought that gender is not some kind of... philosophical journey. You are or you aren't and that's it.

Gender based emotional abuse? You're gonna have to elaborate on that one, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
'Mental tools' is a... strange... phrase. So is referring to parents as potential abusers because they have wants and wishes for their children.

Protecting children from being exposed to concepts beyond their maturity, is of course by it's nature, subjective. How do you determine when it is the right time to encourage or allow such questions to be asked, or themes to be investigated? If presented by such inquisitions do you protect your child by defending their innocence and deflecting away such discourse, or do you educate and provide for them the opportunity to learn and make their own decision and judgement on what they take from it? Will they be better served in being protected from such subjects until as a collective they are educated in the same manner at the same time in sex-ed, or fall victim to the crap shoot of peer pressure by others who have matured beyond the timetable of education, and feel compelled to make judgements without the benefit of having the facts of life? This applies to both sexuality and identity and is at the root of the debate, but societal pressures of conformity/individualism make for heavy bias depending upon your personal circumstances and social grouping.

Is it? I don't think it's subjective at all. Kids. Little kids: the age group who watch Spongebob, believe in Santa Claus, and accept anything their parents tell them with wide-eyed trust? They need to be protected. I strongly believe that.
The proposal that an education in sexuality and gender is in the best interests of these children hinges on the teachers who would implement these new standards. Teachers who have pretty much all shown themselves to be activists in disguise. They aren't doing this to help anyone. Except themselves, I guess. It's a bad joke to suggest it's for the benefit of the kids. What a load of baloney. I have zero faith in the moral motivations of these egotistical buffoons. Their behavior has destroyed all credibility.
Let's address the actual line of thought though. Unless you're arguing the other side purely for the sake of debate, you apparently believe in the benefit that children could have from uh... I guess what you'd call preteen sex-ed. Ugh just typing it makes me feel gross. It's a repulsive concept. You know, I'm really trying to be fair minded about this. It's not easy. The bottom line is I don't believe that kids learning about sexuality or identity is a good thing. They don't need that junk. In fact I think it's harmful because they should be playing and having fun. Having a childhood. Instead you'd have them see everyone they know and depend on as a potential 'abuser'. No child needs that kind of paranoia. Under the guise of teaching them to protect themselves, you'd turn them against their loved ones. That's what I see. Propaganda and fear mongering. Targeting children! We've reached a new low.

What I love about today is the strip reminding me of the line my friend once said about how my hometown of Boston is one of the "last bastions" of the word retarded. Idk what's up with all these bastions but it's got that original Kingdom Hearts vibe to it. Also on feeding their ego the possibility of them mindlessly letting technology take over potentially plays in since as we are God to technology, we are responsible for helping its emergence into existence be as good as it may be bad. If we ever see strips with animation I would be scared. He did like one strip where the black and white turned into the rainbow and I was scared it was about to go all color at the same time Luffy hit a black and white fifth gear (legit that's the theory). And I heard others continue on too, not just Kaiji but bastions are around near and far... Steven Universe, Samurai Jack, The Simpsons.... The rule of thumb is did they survive without Netflix.

"Gender isn't synonymous with sexuality" and gender is a linguistic term applied originally only for words and then people had the bright idea to apply it to themselves and all hell has broken loose ever since. (Once again, Jimmy Carter level.) By all means pretend gender is applicable anywhere other than language itself further. Anyway. Maybe I'll grab the section of Intimate Terrorism which actually specifies that. Yes between being given tools and distinguishing between sexuality and identity are a start in what may be a generations-long unveiling of how sexuality works in a digital post-birth-control age.

At what age have children of their own accord decided they are mature? Cash App is listed with an age rating of four plus. Four! You know One Piece's Momo at least is eight. They legit did the acupuncture on Momo to turn his body into a twenty eight year old's and he is willing to rule the country despite the eight year old maturity level, it's the current chapter! Spoilers! Again, anyway. When they're old enough and all that.

-Russly

Russly, I'm starting to have a suspicion that you're a One Piece fan. Can I just say I love that I'm having a powder keg conversation with these two over here while you go on about freakin' Kingdom Hearts and anime characters? It's glorious. It's hilarious. It's pure internet. I think you're my favorite person on this forum.
Any moment now the thin veneer of civility will be ripped away. Everyones hands are on their metaphorical guns. It's high noon. Yee haw. I'm trying to respect others views while still firmly establishing that I stand in opposition of them. I'm expecting to be called a bigot and denounced as the devil in the very near future. Taking bets for how long I can go before it happens!

Let me address some of your actual post though. You're strongly opposed to Tat doing animation? What about a graphic novel? You know, a comic with a definitive beginning and an end. A story that doesn't go on eternally. I guess I can see the comparison of Sinfest to One Piece in that respect.
I actually haven't seen much of One Piece. I watched the first few episodes of the anime a long time ago. Years later I learned that it was still going on. Not only that, they *still* haven't found the treasure after like 800+ episodes! What the heck have they been doing this whole time!? I guess I'll find out if I ever get around to watching it.

I uh... don't think four years old is old enough. To be considered mature and ready for philosophical discussion about identity, that is. Just my opinion though.

[Pukje]

Hm. That's an interesting take. Although I don't really understand the heels metaphor. Is it because heel has a double meaning? A heel is sometimes referred to as a villain in pro wrestling.

The heels metaphor has no intended double meaning. All shoes have heels, not all heels are high heels. Heels are not inappropriate for children to wear just because high heels are. In the same way, not all things pertaining to gender are about sexuality. Just because discussing sexuality with children is not appropriate doesn't mean the concept of gender is, too.

In fact, one may argue that considering gender exclusively in terms of sexual predators, grooming, eggplants and similar and never in terms of things associated with identity (broadly put, concepts of femininity/masculinity) may say a lot more about the speaker than the subject of discussion. (Please note, 'exclusively' and 'never' are very important keywords here.)

I belong to the school of thought that gender is not some kind of... philosophical journey. You are or you aren't and that's it.

It's maybe a brisk philosophical walk. It is linked to self-actualization and figuring out your place in society, and everybody deals with that. There are certain expectations of outwards presentation such as fashion, mannerisms etc., based on one's gender. For example, a hetero cis woman who enjoys masculine clothing and lifting weights and doesn't enjoy putting on make up might be seen as weird in some parts, and she might ask herself 'am I wrong' for it. Not much of a mystical journey, but she might sprout some insecurities about it - especially if she already happens to have an angular frame or something.

It's almost certainly way more of a trip for people that don't fit the mold - and the more they don't fit, the longer the walk. And for those unlucky few that get the really serious stuff like body dysmorphia it seems to be an entire marathon. Conversely, if stuff just clicks for you then sure, there isn't going to be much of a big think about it.

Gender based emotional abuse? You're gonna have to elaborate on that one, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
'Mental tools' is a... strange... phrase. So is referring to parents as potential abusers because they have wants and wishes for their children.

Gender based emotional abuse is stuff like dressing a boy in girl's clothing as punishment - I recently heard of this particular example in a true crime video. Might be a bit of a pain to find which one exactly in case you're interested in knowing, though I could try and look, but it stood out to me. I am not referring to all parents as abusers, I'm referring to abusive parents as abusers. Not sure where you got referring to parents as potential abusers because they have wants and wishes from; having those is, of course, not at all the same thing as abusing someone.

Why is mental tools a strange phrase? Most of what we learn in school is mental tools, down to basic stuff like maths. You don't have to invent multiplication upon encountering the problem 6x9 because you were already taught ways to go about it in a quick and easy manner. And on the more subjective end of the spectrum, therapy is also about mental tools, but these are typically for dealing with things like anger issues, past trauma, and all sorts of things. And then you have the wholesome stuff like Theory of Knowledge which, imho, should be a thing in every school in some way or another, because it's about asking questions (mostly 'how do we know?') and approaching information critically. Very useful stuff.

Edit:

Can I just say I love that I'm having a powder keg conversation with these two over here(..)

Oh sweet summer child.

[longtimelurker]

Is it? I don't think it's subjective at all. Kids. Little kids: the age group who watch Spongebob, believe in Santa Claus, and accept anything their parents tell them with wide-eyed trust? They need to be protected. I strongly believe that.

You just proved my point. This is exactly what subjectivity is. Don't get me wrong, I agree that they should indeed be protected, but the age group you are talking about is influenced more and more heavily by outside influences than at any time in our history... When I was growing up my country had 4 TV channels, now there are over 100, and thats just the terrestrial broadcast and doesnt include all the cable or satellite channels you have nowadays. There was no such thing as internet. There was no such thing as tablets or mobile phones. There were no 'apps' aimed at providing 'kid friendly entertainment' all while heavily marketing or advertising their products, or worse - providing 'interactive safe spaces' for them to engage with each other...until they unwittingly interact with someone who has lied about how young they are on such an app and well lets stop there before I make myself sick just thinking about it. In any case the subjectiveness I was referring to is how one goes about protecting such individuals.

The proposal that an education in sexuality and gender is in the best interests of these children hinges on the teachers who would implement these new standards. Teachers who have pretty much all shown themselves to be activists in disguise. They aren't doing this to help anyone. Except themselves, I guess. It's a bad joke to suggest it's for the benefit of the kids. What a load of baloney. I have zero faith in the moral motivations of these egotistical buffoons. Their behavior has destroyed all credibility.

Firstly, way to paint the whole with the actions of a conspicuous few, as I can't countenance that it is in truth "pretty much all" teachers are activists as you so claim. Moreover, I can only assume that this must be an Americanised viewpoint which I freely admit I do not have first hand knowledge of myself, but speaking from my own experience where for the most part we embrace multiculturism and diversity, there is still a huge stigma around any sort of talk, even *acknowledgment* about sex and gender issues until they are covered in class because that way our kids are safe right? Wrong.
Second, you assume that the only educators in this situation would be ones in a schooling establishment - there are moms/dads/legal guardians in the family environment that are already automatically trusted - as you admit to in your opening line - who should be more than capable of providing such education. I am not just talking about birds and bees talk, I also include responsibility in allowing and encouraging a safe environment that destigmatizes discourse on these subjects, when they occur organically of course. Kids aren't stupid: if you turn the TV over or off when some unanticipated adult sitution is shown or inferred when you were clearly engaged with it before, or if you break away sheepishly if they walk in on you during some of the milder forms of intimacy when you thought they were asleep or otherwise engaged, then of course they are going to be inquisitive, the question is how do you deal with it?

Let's address the actual line of thought though. Unless you're arguing the other side purely for the sake of debate, you apparently believe in the benefit that children could have from uh... I guess what you'd call preteen sex-ed. Ugh just typing it makes me feel gross. It's a repulsive concept. You know, I'm really trying to be fair minded about this. It's not easy. The bottom line is I don't believe that kids learning about sexuality or identity is a good thing. They don't need that junk. In fact I think it's harmful because they should be playing and having fun. Having a childhood. Instead you'd have them see everyone they know and depend on as a potential 'abuser'. No child needs that kind of paranoia. Under the guise of teaching them to protect themselves, you'd turn them against their loved ones. That's what I see. Propaganda and fear mongering. Targeting children! We've reached a new low.

A school friend of mine while we were walking home (yes this is from a time when it was normal for kids to make their own way back from school) out of the blue started talking to me about clearly sexual themes. While we were out playing alone on the street they would sometimes flash themselves at me deliberately. On a couple of occasions they invited me inside their house after school while their parents were still away at work and flat out asked me to engage in sex with them. I didn't understand, and when I asked them what they meant, it was clear they understood enough about the mechanics or had at least had a basic knowledge but they didn't properly understand either. "lets get naked and lie on each other" was pretty much what the explanation, and well, the actions we took, boiled down to. It wasnt sex, but thinking back now it is clear to me that they must have been exposed to at the very least, things beyond their capability to understand, or mine. This was years before sex ed, and I was left totally confused for all that time: I didn't feel I could talk to my parents (or anyone else for that matter) about it, nor did I because it all felt dirty - secretive - shameful...
I only hope that they weren't the victim of direct abuse themselves but clearly a sexualisation had occured, and I was a secondary victim. I distinctly remember other points in my childhood that only have understanding now that I am an adult: Sexual graffiti on public restroom doors, phone numbers promising a good time etc, even sexually explicit stories "shared" on cubicle walls (God it makes me feel sick remembering). Pornographic magazines discarded in park bushes discovered when retrieving a wayward sports ball. And all of this before an age when literally anything can be beamed into a little square piece of glass carried around in your pocket, at your command, at the suggestion of the most innocent of inquiries in a search engine, at the mere disabling of a 'safesearch' switch. I remember teaching my folks how to operate the VCR like it was the most intuitive thing on earth, nowadays kids are doing that with their phones. they know how to get around things if they look hard enough.

I am not looking for sympathy - I am a grown adult with an adult life and I have learned to get over it, but the young me who had to go through a hell of a lot before they even got to high school just wishes that they had been brought up in a time where they didn't feel like they would be shouted at for asking stupid disgusting questions or to get those stupid ideas out of their head about men and women and sit down and watch their saturday morning cartoon show.
Yes, don't shove it down their throats, no I am not asking for pre-teen sex-ed, but if you cant 100% shield them with absolute certainty all the time, then at least let them know they can ask you about anything at all, be approchable, and always seem supportive, because it isn't just paranoia and fear mongering. It happens, has always happened and will keep happening that minors will stumble upon things not intended for them and they need to know the right answers before they go and make mistakes finding out for themselves.