Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: BBC Teens Page
We pay a TV Licence to the BBC; however how the BBC spends some of this money I find disturbing. (A number of adults find the following sufficiently distasteful that they prefer to ignore it. In the meantime, teenagers read it without discretion.) It's provided free and accessed at school, in lessons, and never firewalled. http://www.bbc.co.uk/scoopcps/teens/news/2005/09/12/25766.shtml
Quote:
Q:Is fingering safe?
Could you tell me some things about fingering? Is it dangerous, and if so how? As a doctor is it something that you would encourage us not to do? I fingered myself a couple of times, just to see what it was like. My boyfriend has also fingered me. Please could you tell me why, when I did it it really hurt and when he did it, I really liked it? I don't want to sleep with him just yet (we have been going out for three months), but I do want to do sexual things with him.
A:
As a rule of thumb, put nothing in your vagina that you wouldn't have in your mouth.
On the one hand, fingering is safe sex. Little chance of STIs or pregnancy (that said - beware of spermy fingers). But there are hazards:
1.Fingernails* 2.Dirt 3.Excess prodding
With these in mind, let's answer your questions:
As a doctor, I say: If you fancy a finger - go finger. Just be gentle, clean and closely manicured.
So why is his fingering better than your DIY? Something to do with angles (even the bendiest girls have trouble), and something to do with being turned on by him. Remember turned on = wet + slippy + sensitive vagina = better fingering. Clasp your hands together. No big thrill, is it? Don't tell me it felt the same holding his hand, the first time.
*Incidentally, this is why you never catch your doc down the Nail Bar. Glittery extensions are antisocial during an internal examination.
There are many children as well as teenagers in secondary schools, as young as ten. Since the BBC is considered credible few parents or teachers pay much attention to what is actually on this site, and what is being read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/onelife/sex_relationships/relationships_all/chatt ing_up_skills/
Quote:
Take action
You've spent weeks eyeing them up across the school canteen and have discussed their every move with your mates. But somehow he/she remains a distant figure on your love horizon. So why not take matters into your own hands? Remember - you won't get any action til you take some action.
Repeat after me
Most people would love someone else to make the first move so let that be your mantra on the big day.
Pick a time when they're on their own - then you'll have their undivided attention without their mates sniggering in the background.
Be yourself. Don't jump in with anything too heavy. And don't try any cheesy lines - they're bound to come across as just plain cringey.
'Have you been working out?'
Once you've got them alone and have started working your chat-up charm, you need to make your intentions clear (assuming you've resisted the urge to go straight in for a snog).
Everyone loves flattery, so massage their ego with some heart-felt compliments. Take a deep breath and...ask them.
If they say no
Don't let fear of rejection put you off.
If they knock you back it could be for all kinds of reasons: they're too shy, they're already with someone or maybe their mate fancies you. Whatever the reason, they'll be so flattered that you asked they'll probably let you down very gently.
And when you've done it once, you'll realise that it's not really as big and scary an ordeal as you thought it was. So, what are you waiting for? Get out there!
With respect to the BBC and the capacity of someone(s) on their staff to produce such cunningly worded pages (‘spermy fingers’, ‘doc at the Nail Bar’, ‘bendy girl’, ‘antisocial during an internal examination’ – an internal examination can never be either social or antisocial) I do wonder where they get these staff from. There must be a mechanism at work whereby people are employed who would like to write up sites like this, or have been trained to do so. The recruitment officer must have an interesting job. The following statement fills some of these gaps, from ‘The Great City Academy Fraud’ by Francis Beckett:
Quote:
Capita….is expected to make £200 million in 2006. Among other contracts, it collects the television licence fee…runs large parts of the BBC’s personnel department…..It has a contract to manage the government’s strategy for improving literacy and numeracy in schools. The former executive chairman of Capita is Rod Aldridge, OBE, who also has an interest in academy schools. Pledged £2 million to an academy in Blackburn via his personal charitable trust. His £35 million academy is to specialize in entrepreneurship, and 150 homes are being knocked down to build it.
So Capita makes sure we pay our TV License (one of my original complaints about the BBC teens webpage is that I have paid for that to be there and so have all of you) and has a serious hand in the staffing at BBC. A complaint has been made to the BBC by a senior member of staff at one school. The response of the BBC was to say that ‘someone will get back to you in 10 days.’ That was 18 months ago. As this person said to me: 'As a catholic boys' school we have a problem with our students reading material like this.' Indeed.
Thanks for your posts on these very important subjects.
I took a look at a couple of the organisations you have mentioned, their boards, accounts, funding etc and a little of the DfES Academy blurb etc
What I'm finding hard to see at the moment is the "business case" for these "investors".
I know it's our money that's being invested in these new schools and that the investors seem able to attract huge "donations" at charity dinners etc., and presumably invest their own funds too.
So, in simple "dragon" terms, why should they invest ?
The huge "political case" aside for a minute, the returns don't seem to be immediately obvious. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Thanks for your posts on these very important subjects.
I took a look at a couple of the organisations you have mentioned, their boards, accounts, funding etc and a little of the DfES Academy blurb etc
What I'm finding hard to see at the moment is the "business case" for these "investors".
I know it's our money that's being invested in these new schools and that the investors seem able to attract huge "donations" at charity dinners etc., and presumably invest their own funds too.
So, in simple "dragon" terms, why should they invest ?
The huge "political case" aside for a minute, the returns don't seem to be immediately obvious.
You're right Mark, the returns don't seem to be immediately obvious. (ARK= Absolute Return for Kids.)
I gather they don't want to make a public statement about what their intentions are.
Maybe you have seen this already; if not it may answer your question:
The unfortunate situation with respect to ARK and their agenda, is that the chairman of ARK, Stanley Fink, gives interviews from David Cameron's office.
So if we have a conservative government at this coming election, who is going to be David Cameron's minder? (Stanley Fink, involved in eugenics?)
A recent comment I heard is that David Cameron, if elected, will be controlled by the far right within a couple of months.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
