Today, I am really glad that my daughter is the kind of girl that doesn't care about your magazine. Now, I'm glad you have a Wellness section some kids may not get that kind of info from their parents. But your target audience of 11-17 year old kids are definitely NOT old enough for a how to on Anal Sex. Thank you for having detailed anatomy labeled correctly but that doesn't excuse the lack of good judgement. No 11 year old should be having sex, let alone anal sex, regardless of sexual orientation! Save that how to guide for an audience that is old enough.
Yes, I read the whole article. Not because I needed a how to (FYI, if you're not ready, it hurts) but to find the best angle in which to write this. You put this article in both digital and print. You decided that the girl next door needed to know this. You decided the boy in India needed this. Wherever your content can be accessed, you decided CHILDREN needed this. You didn't consult their parents to see if they wanted them to read it in the pages of your magazine rather than asking them about it. You've taken the parenting out of well, parenting. Does it matter that you had a "Sexpert" write the article or that it was easy to understand? No. What matters is, kids lose their innocence earlier and earlier it seems. Let them be kids a while longer without shoving sex in their faces.
If you want to do something about the lack of GOOD sex ed in schools where they can learn about this and birth control (because anal sex is NOT safe against pregnancy and STDs unless there is a barrier), sponsor legislation to put Abstinence Plus sex ed into schools rather than the archaic Abstinence Only model. If you want to be a voice for kids and sex, keep in mind that at 11 - 13 kids are curious about how their bodies work. Stick with that because they shouldn't be having sex. Your 14 and older audience will probably pick up Vogue rather than your magazine anyway. So, put your sex ed in that space.
Let kids be kids and don't rush them to grow up.
(P.S. I've been talking about sex with my daughter since she was 9 and she's not afraid to ask me questions but I'm awesome like that.)
Wow! I was skeptical, yet optimistic about this film. Three different actors to play Spider-Man in fifteen years. Each actor brought something different to the role. Tobey Maguire was by far the most brooding Peter Parker with a witty alter ego. Andrew Garfield was a happy medium and Tom Holland was brilliantly funny. I also wasn't sure about Tom Holland. I am happy to report he did a stellar job capturing the essence of an awkward teen. His Spider-Man is by far the wittiest of the three and he's downright adorable.
The writers (all six of them) did a great job setting the whole thing in high school; another aspect that I wasn't sure would work but they nailed it. The story was engaging and the plot wove well into the rest of the MCU. (You will have to go see it to understand!)
I'm not going to talk about theme or story structure or characters. What I am going to do is reassure you, this was the best decision Sony made. Each Spider-Man film before was good and contributed in their own way but in my opinion "Homecoming" is the best so far and I have always maintained that Maguire is my favorite.
Oh, stay for the end of the credits!
College graduate, Army vet, single mom, Husky mom, Movie lover, writer