this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
485 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2255 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

All districts are now required to promote abstinence, exclude consent, and remove any pictures of reproductive organs.

The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) has ordered local school districts to submit their sex education plans to the state for approval. The FLDOE has also said the classes must promote abstinence and cannot include discussion of contraception or pictures of reproductive health organs.

The sex-ed takeover removes local discretion when it comes to district sex education classes and materials.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theangryseal@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ed won’t even know where to start with his wiener. You ever read that story about the lady who never got pregnant because her husband had been inserting himself into her urethra opening?

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No, and that sounds impossible. Like, I can’t imagine how that could happen even once. Do you have a source? I can’t find anything.

[–] theangryseal@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I’ll dig for it. Might have been bullshit but I definitely read it.

Who knows? Maybe I’ll end up being the face of bad women’s anatomy on Lemmy. :p

I’ll find it.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I've read that story, too. Still might be bullshit, but who would tell false story about sex on the Internet?

Edit: found it, or at least an example

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Thank you for your willingness to look into it and your potential acknowledgement that the story may have been bullshit. I appreciate that.

I’m pretty sure this can’t have happened, because the urethra is quite narrow and the opening so small, it’s a massive issue to get used to catheters with a tiny diameter. From what I hear, it takes a lot of physical and mental fortitude to be able to insert a catheter into that hole, needing good aim and perseverance, and a lot of design goes into making the cath process less traumatic.

Caths are quite small. Unless a dick was literally a millimetre in diameter, I can’t imagine how that could happen, especially since the vagina is right next to that opening. If you even tried, it would just slip a quarter of an inch towards the opening that would easily accommodate it. It just seems physically impossible.

e: turns out this did happen, in a case where the woman’s hymen never broke (it had to be surgically opened), and the man was under-endowed. It was a rare and unusual combination of anatomy. I stand corrected and retract my previous edit.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The female partner had cribriform hymen and dilated urethral orifice but did not report any problems except infertility and her genital anatomy was normal. The male partner reported concerns over his penile size but was otherwise healthy. After incision of hymen, they were able to have vaginal coitus and successfully conceived. While urethral coitus is rare, it should be suspected in women presenting with infertility and a dilated urethral orifice.

Just a slightly abnormal physiology, which would be spotted and understood better with better anatomy education.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Thanks for the info! I appreciate it.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not going to link it, but in the video I saw, there were two distinct holes behind the hole he was using. So, either he was using a urethra, or she had a second vagina.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

I’d really love to see that video. I can’t find anything like that. I found one article claiming a couple was using the wrong hole, but it was the anus, not the urethra. There are two holes behind that, if you’re facing a certain way. The urethral opening is so tiny that ‘micropenis’ would have to be a vast overstatement.