NHS Trust Tells Parents To Stop Calling Children’s Body Parts ‘Willy’ And ‘Front Bottom’ And To ‘Tell It Like It Is’

First topic message reminder :




Parents have been advised not to call children’s body parts nicknames, such as “willy” or “front bottom”, and use the official words instead.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) stated on its website that using a variety of words to refer to the penis or vulva can be “really confusing for children”.

The NHS trust’s sexual health service, Sandyford, is encouraging parents to “tell it like it is and use accurate terms from an early age”.

Jill Wilson, health improvement lead at Sandyford said: “Many adults were not taught these words growing up and can feel uncomfortable using them as they can be thought of as ‘sexual’ words.

“Young children do not have these associations and usually consider these words to be as normal as ‘hand’ and ‘leg’.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/children-body-parts-words-advice_uk_5901b563e4b081a5c0fadcc5?utm_hp_ref=uk


Makes perfect sense to me.

nuts I say...indeed bollox....to all these "experts"

Hell i was trained...thoroughly i might add, in science and its priciples...and I now no longer have any faith in the majority of its adherents, the body scientific has sold its soul and its independance (of which it was once so proud) to govt and the highest bidder for a few sheckels.

I even. though I might have to surrender one day to their tender ministrations, have little faith in the medical practitioners....Indeeed to the point of now treating all minor injuries that dont require surgery or involve internal injuries my self...nuts to waiting 4-6 hours in casualty (ER room) to have a cut (even a bad one, delivered by circular saw) treated...
nope wash it with peroxide (ow that stings) glue it with superglue (ow that stings even worse) and dress it with povidone iodine dressings....
burns they say anything over the size of a 50p piece should be seen by a medic...yeah right
clean the area..spray with iodine (povidone iodine doesnt really sting?????) and apply burn dressing from chemist job jobbed...

of course anything much worse or requiring "specialist treatment" ...I'm stuck with no options.....would that I could do otherwise.....

as to trusting the rest of the "body scientific." nope...not really.....or, at least...not entirely...I do NOT think they entirely have "our best interests" at heart...

Kind of agree with this. Calling a penis or a vagina silly childish names represses sexuality, especially in women.

Women who refer to their vagina or pussy as their front bottom tend to have hang ups with masturbation and find it hard to express themselves in bed with a man and achieve a "full orgasm".

Whereas women "who know themselves" tend to have a better time sexually.

But that's just my experience.

Lord Foul wrote:nuts I say...indeed bollox....to all these "experts"

Hell i was trained...thoroughly i might add, in science and its priciples...and I now no longer have any faith in the majority of its adherents, the body scientific has sold its soul and its independance (of which it was once so proud) to govt and the highest bidder for a few sheckels.

I even. though I might have to surrender one day to their tender ministrations, have little faith in the medical practitioners....Indeeed to the point of now treating all minor injuries that dont require surgery or involve internal injuries my self...nuts to waiting 4-6 hours in casualty (ER room) to have a cut (even a bad one, delivered by circular saw) treated...
nope wash it with peroxide (ow that stings) glue it with superglue (ow that stings even worse) and dress it with povidone iodine dressings....
burns they say anything over the size of a 50p piece should be seen by a medic...yeah right
clean the area..spray with iodine (povidone iodine doesnt really sting?????) and apply burn dressing from chemist job jobbed...

of course anything much worse or requiring "specialist treatment" ...I'm stuck with no options.....would that I could do otherwise.....

as to trusting the rest of the "body scientific." nope...not really.....or, at least...not entirely...I do NOT think they entirely have "our best interests" at heart...

Run cold water over a burn for a few minutes then wrap in cling film....it works for me.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Kind of agree with this. Calling a penis or a vagina silly childish names represses sexuality, especially in women.

Women who refer to their vagina or pussy as their front bottom tend to have hang ups with masturbation and find it hard to express themselves in bed with a man and achieve a "full orgasm".

Whereas women "who know themselves" tend to have a better time sexually.

But that's just my experience.

Speaking as a woman it's not mine.
Most kids stop using the childish names when they are still young. Just as not many older kids refer to parents as mummy and daddy, their language evolves as they do.

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:nuts I say...indeed bollox....to all these "experts"

Hell i was trained...thoroughly i might add, in science and its priciples...and I now no longer have any faith in the majority of its adherents, the body scientific has sold its soul and its independance (of which it was once so proud) to govt and the highest bidder for a few sheckels.

I even. though I might have to surrender one day to their tender ministrations, have little faith in the medical practitioners....Indeeed to the point of now treating all minor injuries that dont require surgery or involve internal injuries my self...nuts to waiting 4-6 hours in casualty (ER room) to have a cut (even a bad one, delivered by circular saw) treated...
nope wash it with peroxide (ow that stings) glue it with superglue (ow that stings even worse) and dress it with povidone iodine dressings....
burns they say anything over the size of a 50p piece should be seen by a medic...yeah right
clean the area..spray with iodine (povidone iodine doesnt really sting?????) and apply burn dressing from chemist job jobbed...

of course anything much worse or requiring "specialist treatment" ...I'm stuck with no options.....would that I could do otherwise.....

as to trusting the rest of the "body scientific." nope...not really.....or, at least...not entirely...I do NOT think they entirely have "our best interests" at heart...

Run cold water over a burn for a few minutes then wrap in cling film....it works for me.

cling film is good...anything to keep the air out and stop fluid loss....

but I do prefer to use the iodine spray...(or if you can get away with it import some of the neomycin spray from the states though iodine is better as the bugs dont get resistant to it ...ever) and yes running under cold water for several mins is a MUST.....

The phrase "front bottom" is absolute fuckeries.

Lord Foul wrote:what a dismal, colourless world you envisage...

I mean...the same principle can be applied to EVERYTHING

every expression , be it word, picture, form, or thought can be shoehorned into "only the correct and acceptable form"

like I said the little grey men in little grey boxes scenario....with no room for individulaistic terms and expression....

you start by asking "why all these terms" use only the correct ones"
and end up with you can only buy this one   (orthopedically) correct shoe in this one set colour and style...there is no NEED for any other

and so on....

OMG your excuses get worse by the minute.

The fact is again parents do use the correct form for every other body part other than the sexual ones.

So when they do that, are they living in a dismal colourless world as you call it?

Of course not. They use the correct names, as that is what the names are.

This is and has never been about individualism

It has always been about how parents see and think such words for children are taboo, as if they are wrong to say.

So cut the crap about individualism, that is just complete and utter bull, as you certainly do not find this so called individualism within other body parts.

This has always been about how we have been brought up to be prudes over using the correct terms for sexual body parts

Lord Foul wrote:nuts I say...indeed bollox....to all these "experts"

Hell i was trained...thoroughly i might add, in science and its priciples...and I now no longer have any faith in the majority of its adherents, the body scientific has sold its soul and its independance (of which it was once so proud) to govt and the highest bidder for a few sheckels.

I even. though I might have to surrender one day to their tender ministrations, have little faith in the medical practitioners....Indeeed to the point of now treating all minor injuries that dont require surgery or involve internal injuries my self...nuts to waiting 4-6 hours in casualty (ER room) to have a cut (even a bad one, delivered by circular saw) treated...
nope wash it with peroxide (ow that stings) glue it with superglue (ow that stings even worse) and dress it with povidone iodine dressings....
burns they say anything over the size of a 50p piece should be seen by a medic...yeah right
clean the area..spray with iodine (povidone iodine doesnt really sting?????) and apply burn dressing from chemist job jobbed...

of course anything much worse or requiring "specialist treatment" ...I'm stuck with no options.....would that I could do otherwise.....

as to trusting the rest of the "body scientific." nope...not really.....or, at least...not entirely...I do NOT think they entirely have "our best interests" at heart...

More the idiot you, when there is now plenty of minor injuries units that can deal with cuts and minor burns.

How about you understand you are nothing more than a fossil, failing to have moved with the times.

Maybe if you were not so bone idol and understood there is many facilities or the fact you live in the middle of no where is nobody else's fault, but yours.

Fucking hell, people, the idea isn't to regulate what everyone calls their junk, but to use the correct terms when dealing with kids because when you're a kid the world is confusing enough without learning several dozen names for the same thing.

Nobody's trying to put anybody in a fucking box.

Lord Foul wrote:nuts I say...indeed bollox....to all these "experts"

Hell i was trained...thoroughly i might add, in science and its priciples...and I now no longer have any faith in the majority of its adherents, the body scientific has sold its soul and its independance (of which it was once so proud) to govt and the highest bidder for a few sheckels.

I even. though I might have to surrender one day to their tender ministrations, have little faith in the medical practitioners....Indeeed to the point of now treating all minor injuries that dont require surgery or involve internal injuries my self...nuts to waiting 4-6 hours in casualty (ER room) to have a cut (even a bad one, delivered by circular saw) treated...
nope wash it with peroxide (ow that stings) glue it with superglue (ow that stings even worse) and dress it with povidone iodine dressings....
burns they say anything over the size of a 50p piece should be seen by a medic...yeah right
clean the area..spray with iodine (povidone iodine doesnt really sting?????) and apply burn dressing from chemist job jobbed...

of course anything much worse or requiring "specialist treatment" ...I'm stuck with no options.....would that I could do otherwise.....

as to trusting the rest of the "body scientific." nope...not really.....or, at least...not entirely...I do NOT think they entirely have "our best interests" at heart...

Don't try this at home kids.

The thought occurs, bit of a paedophile dream this really. Now, not only can't they confidently tell you the child told them with their eyes they wanted sex, but as they knew all the anotomically correct words, they were ready for sex.

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Since when has it been the prerogative of an NHS Trust - or the Huffington Post, for that matter - to presume that it has the right to instruct parents on how to bring up their children?

When it matters medically.

So your beef is about the NHS wanting to better educate children.

Prey tell what is wrong with that?

One would have thought that given the recent revelation that hospital blunders, such as leaving swabs or instruments inside people or giving them the wrong medication, had led to around 4,000 avoidable deaths last year, NHS Trusts might reasonably have concluded that actually keeping patients alive commanded a higher priority than telling parents not to talk about willies.

I disagree, the many names is art inspired, personally from monty python

Ben Reilly wrote:Fucking hell, people, the idea isn't to regulate what everyone calls their junk, but to use the correct terms when dealing with kids because when you're a kid the world is confusing enough without learning several dozen names for the same thing.

Nobody's trying to put anybody in a fucking box.

This thread is exactly trying to put everyone in the same box......what happened to free choice without some know all telling parents that for generations they have not been looking after their kids properly......because they say willy rather than penis. .

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:nuts I say...indeed bollox....to all these "experts"

Hell i was trained...thoroughly i might add, in science and its priciples...and I now no longer have any faith in the majority of its adherents, the body scientific has sold its soul and its independance (of which it was once so proud) to govt and the highest bidder for a few sheckels.

I even. though I might have to surrender one day to their tender ministrations, have little faith in the medical practitioners....Indeeed to the point of now treating all minor injuries that dont require surgery or involve internal injuries my self...nuts to waiting 4-6 hours in casualty (ER room) to have a cut (even a bad one, delivered by circular saw) treated...
nope wash it with peroxide (ow that stings) glue it with superglue (ow that stings even worse) and dress it with povidone iodine dressings....
burns they say anything over the size of a 50p piece should be seen by a medic...yeah right
clean the area..spray with iodine (povidone iodine doesnt really sting?????) and apply burn dressing from chemist job jobbed...

of course anything much worse or requiring "specialist treatment" ...I'm stuck with no options.....would that I could do otherwise.....

as to trusting the rest of the "body scientific." nope...not really.....or, at least...not entirely...I do NOT think they entirely have "our best interests" at heart...

More the idiot you, when there is now plenty of minor injuries units that can deal with cuts and minor burns.
yeah? really??? I dont think so...and you dont have to live in the sticks to know it. prevalent in big towns and cities maybe...but thats cos you city types are wussies oh and why idiot...all these minor injuries heal well and fast..you forget ...I KNOW what I'm doing....I dont NEED to attend a medic for this..AND the waiting time at these minor injuries units??? BTW there is a good debate to be has as to why "minor injuries" (get it MINOR injuries) units are needed?? cant you "hill shepherds look after yourselves even for a few seconds?

How about you understand you are nothing more than a fossil, failing to have moved with the times.

I'm well ahead of you

Maybe if you were not so bone idol and understood there is many facilities or the fact you live in the middle of no where is nobody else's fault, but yours.

I'd sooner live "in the middle of nowhere" and be able to shift for myself, than be a totally dependant half wit like you

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:nuts I say...indeed bollox....to all these "experts"

Hell i was trained...thoroughly i might add, in science and its priciples...and I now no longer have any faith in the majority of its adherents, the body scientific has sold its soul and its independance (of which it was once so proud) to govt and the highest bidder for a few sheckels.

I even. though I might have to surrender one day to their tender ministrations, have little faith in the medical practitioners....Indeeed to the point of now treating all minor injuries that dont require surgery or involve internal injuries my self...nuts to waiting 4-6 hours in casualty (ER room) to have a cut (even a bad one, delivered by circular saw) treated...
nope wash it with peroxide (ow that stings) glue it with superglue (ow that stings even worse) and dress it with povidone iodine dressings....
burns they say anything over the size of a 50p piece should be seen by a medic...yeah right
clean the area..spray with iodine (povidone iodine doesnt really sting?????) and apply burn dressing from chemist job jobbed...

of course anything much worse or requiring "specialist treatment" ...I'm stuck with no options.....would that I could do otherwise.....

as to trusting the rest of the "body scientific." nope...not really.....or, at least...not entirely...I do NOT think they entirely have "our best interests" at heart...

Don't try this at home kids.  

Well...not unless you know what you are doing...but even the NHS uses superglue rather than stiching in some cases.....
but true....

if you dont know what and WHY you are doing it...dont do it....

Syl wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Kind of agree with this. Calling a penis or a vagina silly childish names represses sexuality, especially in women.

Women who refer to their vagina or pussy as their front bottom tend to have hang ups with masturbation and find it hard to express themselves in bed with a man and achieve a "full orgasm".

Whereas women "who know themselves" tend to have a better time sexually.

But that's just my experience.

Speaking as a woman it's not mine.
Most kids stop using the childish names when they are still young. Just as not many older kids refer to parents as mummy and daddy, their language evolves as they do.

As a woman it's not mine either.

eddie wrote:The phrase "front bottom" is absolute fuckeries.

So is the expression 'pussy'. But it's one of the most common sexual euphemisms used.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:The phrase "front bottom" is absolute fuckeries.

So is the expression 'pussy'.    But it's one of the most common sexual euphemisms used.

Especially by Trump and Quill.

Ben Reilly wrote:Fucking hell, people, the idea isn't to regulate what everyone calls their junk, but to use the correct terms when dealing with kids because when you're a kid the world is confusing enough without learning several dozen names for the same thing.

Nobody's trying to put anybody in a fucking box.

Glad someone else can see the simplicity of this.

Sadly you are dealing with a bunch of prudish dinosaurs here

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:

When it matters medically.

So your beef is about the NHS wanting to better educate children.

Prey tell what is wrong with that?

One would have thought that given the recent revelation that hospital blunders, such as leaving swabs or instruments inside people or giving them the wrong medication, had led to around 4,000 avoidable deaths last year, NHS Trusts might reasonably have concluded that actually keeping patients alive commanded a higher priority than telling parents not to talk about willies.

And that is your reason to misdirect from the point at hand and now make all NHS staff culpable for mistakes and deaths. As if that someone means we can dismiss the right way to name body parts?

Please explain than nonsense to me?

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


More the idiot you, when there is now plenty of minor injuries units that can deal with cuts and minor burns.
yeah? really??? I dont think so...and you dont have to live in the sticks to know it. prevalent in big towns and cities maybe...but thats cos you city types are wussies      oh and why idiot...all these minor injuries heal well and fast..you forget ...I KNOW what I'm doing....I dont NEED to attend a medic for this..AND the waiting time at these minor injuries units???  BTW there is a good debate to be has as to why "minor injuries" (get it MINOR injuries) units are needed?? cant you "hill shepherds look after yourselves even for a few seconds?    

How about you understand you are nothing more than a fossil, failing to have moved with the times.

I'm well ahead of you

Maybe if you were not so bone idol and understood there is many facilities or the fact you live in the middle of no where is nobody else's fault, but yours.

I'd sooner live "in the middle of nowhere" and be able to shift for myself, than be a totally dependant half wit like you

Lol let me know when you get septicemia from an infected wound and then we will see if you know what you are doing. Its people like you that end up in hospital because you wrongly think you do know better and cost the NHS millions because of this

Blimey your level of insults have just been down graded to nursery level

pffft.....

septicaemia??

maybe from an untreated wound

but give me the stats from
a) those who do treat their own wounds (properly)
and b) hospital aquired septicaemia in similar wounds???

oh and please show figures to support your statement that septicaemia from SELF TREATED minor wounds is a factor costing the NHS millions

or I'll call you an hysterical old biddy

Lord Foul wrote:pffft.....

septicaemia??

maybe from an untreated wound

but give me the stats from
a) those who do treat their own wounds (properly)
and b) hospital aquired septicaemia  in similar wounds???

oh and please show figures to support your statement that septicaemia from SELF TREATED minor wounds is a factor costing the NHS millions

or I'll call you an hysterical old biddy

So you are telling me you are best placed to say whether or not you need a tetanus jab after a wound that is more than 2cm deep?

Then answer when was the last time you had a tetanus jab?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Kind of agree with this. Calling a penis or a vagina silly childish names represses sexuality, especially in women.

Women who refer to their vagina or pussy as their front bottom tend to have hang ups with masturbation and find it hard to express themselves in bed with a man and achieve a "full orgasm".

Whereas women "who know themselves" tend to have a better time sexually.

But that's just my experience.

  I was wondering where you got that!   You can't generalize from specifics, but even at that: Where is your theory of causation?  What about people who refer to their vagina as pussy?  How does it cause hang ups with "masturbation" and expressing oneself "in bed with a man" or achieving "a 'full orgasm'"?

But more importantly, we've got a little drift in our reasoning going on here.  First, the argument was that use of the proper terms will help catch sexual predators.  But here, the argument seems to be that use of the proper terms will avoid sexual repression and other erotic disturbances.

I was taught the theory came first, and thereafter the answers flowed.  Here we seem to be searching for a theory to justify the answer.

I just want someone to explain to me Quill why we use every other correct name for body parts and yet when it comes to the sexual ones, this reasoning goes out the window?

Again this is about how people have been conditioned to be embarrassed and view such words as taboo for children to use, when there is in fact nothing wrong with the correct terms.

You, like me are all about progression, so how is this progression to continue to have people feel ashamed to use the correct terms for the sexual body parts?

Again there is little reason not to use them and no matter the arguments of sexual predators or sexual regression. I still have not seen one valid reason for people to still argue to continue with being embarrassed over such words for the sexual body parts.

If we normalize talking about the body parts and make this uniform, then it clearly is best going forward for everyone.

Anyway, I am that tired I really cannot be bothered to argue.

Thorin wrote:So if they are not harmed from using the wrong terminology, what is stopping them being taught the correct ones then?

I think this answers the question.  By this, we see that the NHS Trust reasoning is to restrict language, not tolerate it.  The counter-argument is to expand labels to include childish and creative names for genitalia.

Your question, didge, frames the real issue: no one is trying to stop the creating or teaching of any term...except the NHS Trust in the OP article.  

NHS Trust wrote:Parents have been advised not to call children’s body parts nicknames, such as “willy” or “front bottom”, and use the official words instead.

The issue of the OP isn't what term do you use, but what terms shouldn't you use.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So if they are not harmed from using the wrong terminology, what is stopping them being taught the correct ones then?

I think this answers the question.  By this, we see that the NHS Trust reasoning is to restrict language, not tolerate it.  The counter-argument is to expand labels to include childish and creative names for genitalia.

Your question, didge, frames the real issue: no one is trying to stop the creating or teaching of any term...except the NHS Trust in the OP article.  The issue of the OP isn't what term do you use, but what terms shouldn't you use.

No that is not what I am saying at all.
What i am saying and what you keep ignoring is that people have been conditioned to believe its wrong to use the right terminology for sexual body parts, as if they are protecting children, when they are not. They are doing this more for their own benefit, because they are embarrassed about the correct use of the words, being spoken. Whilst in the company of others. That is what it really boils down to, as why else invent other labels, which to people see less embarrassing for them?

The NHS are there to teach us about anatomy, physiology, health etc as its there to help one and all. For example if the NHS advises over what is best to eat and what is not best to eat, do parents just ignore this because they think they know best? How about what is best to prevent a child from becoming ill? In every aspect you are claiming education is some how a bad thing, because they are simple advising that parents should stop being embarrassed and refer correctly to sexual body parts.

So again you fail to offer any reason why we should not use the correct terms

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:pffft.....

septicaemia??

maybe from an untreated wound

but give me the stats from
a) those who do treat their own wounds (properly)
and b) hospital aquired septicaemia  in similar wounds???

oh and please show figures to support your statement that septicaemia from SELF TREATED minor wounds is a factor costing the NHS millions

or I'll call you an hysterical old biddy

So you are telling me you are best placed to say whether or not you need a tetanus jab after a wound that is more than 2cm deep?

Then answer when was the last time you had a tetanus jab?

how often do you think you need one?

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you are telling me you are best placed to say whether or not you need a tetanus jab after a wound that is more than 2cm deep?

Then answer when was the last time you had a tetanus jab?

how often do you think you need one?

Its not me to decide, hence my point

Can you decide to say whether you should or not?

I gather its been a long time since you have had one.

The Tdap vaccine is recommended for all 11 through 18 year olds, preferably at age 11 or 12 years. After getting the Tdap vaccine as a preteen or teen, adults need toget a Td (tetanus and diphtheria) booster shot every 10 years to stay protected.27 Jun 2016

Tetanus: Make Sure Your Family Is Protected| Features | CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/features/tetanus/

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think this answers the question.  By this, we see that the NHS Trust reasoning is to restrict language, not tolerate it.  The counter-argument is to expand labels to include childish and creative names for genitalia.

Your question, didge, frames the real issue: no one is trying to stop the creating or teaching of any term...except the NHS Trust in the OP article.  The issue of the OP isn't what term do you use, but what terms shouldn't you use.

No that is not what I am saying at all.
What i am saying and what you keep ignoring is that people have been conditioned to believe its wrong to use the right terminology for sexual body parts, as if they are protecting children, when they are not. They are doing this more for their own benefit, because they are embarrassed about the correct use of the words, being spoken. Whilst in the company of others. That is what it really boils down to, as why else invent other labels, which to people see less embarrassing for them?

The NHS are there to teach us about anatomy, physiology, health etc as its there to help one and all. For example if the NHS advises over what is best to eat and what is not best to eat, do parents just ignore this because they think they know best? How about what is best to prevent a child from becoming ill? In every aspect you are claiming education is some how a bad thing, because they are simple advising that parents should stop being embarrassed and refer correctly to sexual body parts.

So again you fail to offer any reason why we should not use the correct terms

I don't think anyone in this thread has implied its wrong to use the correct terminology.
Its only the ones who use the 'correct' terminology (that would be you Thor) who seem to think others are wrong.

You are also the only one banging on about embarrassment, I believe parents call certain body parts  pet names to make it easier for the child to understand....you know...like mama turns into mummy them Mum....so  willy turns into  penis....natural progression of words......simples.

My friend refers to her little grand daughters vagina as a "daisy"....awww....so sweet.

you gather wrong...I'm still within my last 10 yr jab

so atm i dont need one...

(about 4 years to go I think)

and..... how many cases of tetanus in the uk these days??

so would you like to answer

"pffft.....

septicaemia??

maybe from an untreated wound

but give me the stats from
a) those who do treat their own wounds (properly)
and b) hospital aquired septicaemia in similar wounds???

oh and please show figures to support your statement that septicaemia from SELF TREATED minor wounds is a factor costing the NHS millions" ??

And...to an extent I would agree...septicaemia is a bigger threat than tetanus these days..If you dont know how to clean a wound/dont have stuff to do so....

cant beat peroxide owww......
kills the bugs and lifts any contamination out.....

and....I havn't gone rotten yet.......

Thorin wrote:What i am saying and what you keep ignoring is that people have been conditioned to believe its wrong to use the right terminology for sexual body parts, as if they are protecting children, when they are not.

I see some merit in this.  I think there is a stigma of naughty that causes mothers to invent code words that they impress upon their children.

The problem is, your NHS Trust is not saying that.  The OP is saying 'do not call' children's body parts by "nicknames", or, other than their proper or scientific names.

The OP is what started the discussion, and you expressed agreement. So I think it was incumbent upon you, if you wanted to change the message at some point, to affirmatively announce that was what you were doing.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No that is not what I am saying at all.
What i am saying and what you keep ignoring is that people have been conditioned to believe its wrong to use the right terminology for sexual body parts, as if they are protecting children, when they are not. They are doing this more for their own benefit, because they are embarrassed about the correct use of the words, being spoken. Whilst in the company of others. That is what it really boils down to, as why else invent other labels, which to people see less embarrassing for them?

The NHS are there to teach us about anatomy, physiology, health etc as its there to help one and all. For example if the NHS advises over what is best to eat and what is not best to eat, do parents just ignore this because they think they know best? How about what is best to prevent a child from becoming ill? In every aspect you are claiming education is some how a bad thing, because they are simple advising that parents should stop being embarrassed and refer correctly to sexual body parts.

So again you fail to offer any reason why we should not use the correct terms

I don't think anyone in this thread has implied its wrong to use the correct terminology.
Its only the ones who use the 'correct' terminology (that would be you Thor) who seem to think others are wrong.

You are also the only one banging on about embarrassment, I believe parents call certain body parts  pet names to make it easier for the child to understand....you know...like mama turns into mummy them Mum....so  willy turns into  penis....natural progression of words......simples.

My friend refers to her little grand daughters vagina as a "daisy"....awww....so sweet.

I am simply reasoning how people have failed to argue why they should continue to be embarrassed over teaching children the correct terminology.

As again why is it parents can teach their children every other body part correctly but shy away when it comes to the sexual parts of the body? This you and others continue to fail to answer and the simple truth is because you know what I am saying is true. You even further prove this by saying how sweet it is to refer to a small child's vagina by calling it a daisy. I mean would it be sweet to refer to the legs of a girl child as a tender thighs?

You see without changing anything, the terminology is simple and is what it is and cannot be changed to mean anything other than what it actually means. I mean how confusing for a child to then see a daisy itself and think this is a girls vagina.

Like I say, this is more about peoples inability to come to terms with how we should educate our children correctly and again to say parents know best, is simply nonsense, as why else would it be compulsory that all children attend schooling?

At the end of the day you still fail to offer any valid reason why we should not use the correct terms

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:What i am saying and what you keep ignoring is that people have been conditioned to believe its wrong to use the right terminology for sexual body parts, as if they are protecting children, when they are not.

I see some merit in this.  I think there is a stigma of naughty that causes mothers to invent code words that they impress upon their children.

The problem is, your NHS Trust is not saying that.  The OP is saying 'do not call' children's body parts by "nicknames", or, other than their proper or scientific names.

The OP is what started the discussion, so I think it was incumbent upon you, if you wanted to change the message, to affirmatively announce that was what you were doing.

That is wrong quill as they are advising.

As its not being enforced or that there is any repercussions over this for not doing so.

They are simple advising it is better to do so.

I ask again how is it not better to do so?

All I see is how parents are clearly embarrassed that they make up dumb words like daisy for a girls vagina.

I mean how confusing is that/ That now a girl thinks her vagina is now a flower?

Lord Foul wrote:you gather wrong...I'm still within my last 10 yr jab

so atm i dont need one...

(about 4 years to go I think)

and..... how many cases of tetanus in the uk these days??

so would you like to answer

"pffft.....

septicaemia??

maybe from an untreated wound

but give me the stats from
a) those who do treat their own wounds (properly)
and b) hospital aquired septicaemia in similar wounds???

oh and please show figures to support your statement that septicaemia from SELF TREATED minor wounds is a factor costing the NHS millions" ??

And...to an extent I would agree...septicaemia is a bigger threat than tetanus these days..If you dont know how to clean a wound/dont have stuff to do so....

cant beat peroxide  owww......
kills the bugs and lifts any contamination out.....

and....I havn't gone rotten yet.......

So if you have had one within the last ten years this has either been through the following:

Through the advise of a GP

Through an accident

Or you asked.

You get me wrong.

You more than anyone argue over having vaccinations and then to claim as you did here you know best, when you don't over a tetanus, places you at risk to ignore this.

Contrary of what you may think, I actually want you to live a long and full life and I would hate to be right here more than anything, as you are being stubborn, because this was more about you being right over me than seeing any sense, that you do not always know what is medically best for you.

You want me to show you the numbers of people that get septicemia?

No problem

Every year in the UK there are 150,000 cases of Sepsis, resulting in a staggering 44,000 deaths – more than bowel, breast and prostate cancer combined.

http://sepsistrust.org/

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think anyone in this thread has implied its wrong to use the correct terminology.
Its only the ones who use the 'correct' terminology (that would be you Thor) who seem to think others are wrong.

You are also the only one banging on about embarrassment, I believe parents call certain body parts  pet names to make it easier for the child to understand....you know...like mama turns into mummy them Mum....so  willy turns into  penis....natural progression of words......simples.

My friend refers to her little grand daughters vagina as a "daisy"....awww....so sweet.

I am simply reasoning how people have failed to argue why they should continue to be embarrassed over teaching children the correct terminology.

As again why is it parents can teach their children every other body part correctly but shy away when it comes to the sexual parts of the body? This you and others continue to fail to answer and the simple truth is because you know what I am saying is true. You even further prove this by saying how sweet it is to refer to a small child's vagina by calling it a daisy. I mean would it be sweet to refer to the legs of a girl child as a tender thighs?

You see without changing anything, the terminology is simple and is what it is and cannot be changed to mean anything other than what it actually means. I mean how confusing for a child to then see a daisy itself and think this is a girls vagina.

Like I say, this is more about peoples inability to come to terms with how we should educate our children correctly and again to say parents know best, is simply nonsense, as why else would it be compulsory that all children attend schooling?

At the end of the day you still fail to offer any valid reason why we should not use the correct terms

I have not said parents should not use the correct terms ......I have said some parents don't because they prefer to use pet names...you are the one saying that's wrong.

Calling a young girls legs 'tender thighs' sounds rather perverted if you don't mind me saying so....plus its a lot harder for a small child to say than 'legs' isn't it?

and how many of THOSE are down to "self treated minor wounds" as opposed to "hospital aquired" infections or UNTREATED minor wounds???

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I am simply reasoning how people have failed to argue why they should continue to be embarrassed over teaching children the correct terminology.

As again why is it parents can teach their children every other body part correctly but shy away when it comes to the sexual parts of the body? This you and others continue to fail to answer and the simple truth is because you know what I am saying is true. You even further prove this by saying how sweet it is to refer to a small child's vagina by calling it a daisy. I mean would it be sweet to refer to the legs of a girl child as a tender thighs?

You see without changing anything, the terminology is simple and is what it is and cannot be changed to mean anything other than what it actually means. I mean how confusing for a child to then see a daisy itself and think this is a girls vagina.

Like I say, this is more about peoples inability to come to terms with how we should educate our children correctly and again to say parents know best, is simply nonsense, as why else would it be compulsory that all children attend schooling?

At the end of the day you still fail to offer any valid reason why we should not use the correct terms

I have not said parents should not use the correct terms ......I have said some parents don't because they prefer to use pet names...you are the one saying that's wrong.

Calling a young girls legs 'tender thighs'  sounds rather perverted if you don't mind me saying so....plus its a lot harder for a small child to say than 'legs' isn't it?

And of what benefit are these pet names to the child?

Are they more to the parents?

That is the point how by not referring to the correct terms can easily be refereed to something very perverse, the point lost on you.

And daisy is harder than vagina to say then?

Really?

All you are doing is living in a bygone age, not able to understand that how once something was taught has not benefited anyone other than saving the parents some red face moments over how their children speak

That is what it boils down to.

As is a parent scared their child might say arm?

Elbow?

Lord Foul wrote:and how many of THOSE are down to "self treated minor wounds" as opposed to "hospital aquired" infections or UNTREATED  minor wounds???

Did you read the link?

I guess not

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I have not said parents should not use the correct terms ......I have said some parents don't because they prefer to use pet names...you are the one saying that's wrong.

Calling a young girls legs 'tender thighs'  sounds rather perverted if you don't mind me saying so....plus its a lot harder for a small child to say than 'legs' isn't it?

And of what benefit are these pet names to the child?

Are they more to the parents?

That is the point how by not referring to the correct terms can easily be refereed to something very perverse, the point lost on you.

And daisy is harder than vagina to say then?

Really?

All you are doing is living in a bygone age, not able to understand that how once something was taught has not benefited anyone other than saving the parents some red face moments over how their children speak

That is what it boils down to.

As is a parent scared their child might say arm?

Elbow?

You are not listening to anything anyone says Thor, so convinced are you that only YOUR opinion is right.
You are banging on about embarrassment and I don't believe that's the case. Pet words are used because they are easy for the child till they get a bit older.

What did you call your mother and father when you were tiny?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

And of what benefit are these pet names to the child?

Are they more to the parents?

That is the point how by not referring to the correct terms can easily be refereed to something very perverse, the point lost on you.

And daisy is harder than vagina to say then?

Really?

All you are doing is living in a bygone age, not able to understand that how once something was taught has not benefited anyone other than saving the parents some red face moments over how their children speak

That is what it boils down to.

As is a parent scared their child might say arm?

Elbow?

You are not listening to anything anyone says Thor, so convinced are you that only YOUR opinion is right.
You are banging on about embarrassment and I don't believe that's the case. Pet words are used because they are easy for the child till they get a bit older.

What did you call your mother and father when you were tiny?

Mum and Dad

So misdirection claiming I am not listening, when all I have done is read view after view that has failed to offer a valid reason to use pet names. You may not like the fact I go by reason and not what you do by thinking what is best.

So you tell me why change the name for sexual parts and not other body parts, if its not due to a fear of embarrassment?

Why not call the head a noggin or a gigantic melon to a child?

So you claim its easier for the child to learn?

Really?

How is penis far more difficult to understand than sausage?

This is why your answers are at best a load of rubbish

You are claiming that a child needs to understand all other body parts but for the sexual ones, we have to lie to them. Really, you think telling them the correct name is going to harm them some how?

Please explain that to me?

OH and I said huge noggin, as it reminded me of the film, with Mike Myers, "So I married an axe murderer"

Great and funny film

I don't know anyone who referred to their penis as sausage....or front bottom for a vagina come to that, but each to their own.

Live and let live.....I see no harm whatsoever in calling different body parts different names when kids are small.

You see problems...I don't, but to make out that not using the correct terminology puts a child in more danger of being sexually abused or preyed on by a paedophile...or God forbid, confuse a medic into not knowing which bit hurts...is frankly laughable.

By the time my own son started school he knew his willy was a penis, by the time I started school I knew what my vagina was called (I cant remember what my mum called it originally) which just shows its simply not important....a huge fuss about nothing, but no doubt the author has made a few quid by telling people their way is wrong and hers is right.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I see some merit in this.  I think there is a stigma of naughty that causes mothers to invent code words that they impress upon their children.

The problem is, your NHS Trust is not saying that.  The OP is saying 'do not call' children's body parts by "nicknames", or, other than their proper or scientific names.

The OP is what started the discussion, so I think it was incumbent upon you, if you wanted to change the message, to affirmatively announce that was what you were doing.

That is wrong quill as they are advising.

As its not being enforced or that there is any repercussions over this for not doing so.

They are simple advising it is better to do so.

You are avoiding the issue.  We are not talking about enforcement, merely arguments, or "advising" if you wish.

Thorin wrote:I ask again how is it not better to do so?

Better to prohibit...essentially censor certain expressions? That's what your argument says.  Responses? Let's see, it stifles creativity.  One-dimensional thinking.  Scare tactics.  We've been all over that.

Thorin wrote:All I see is how parents are clearly embarrassed that they make up dumb words like daisy for a girls vagina.

Dumb to you, maybe...but Syl and I think it's cute.  Meh...beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  No harm there.

Thorin wrote:I mean how confusing is that/ That now a girl thinks her vagina is now a flower?

Yes, isn't that beautiful?  She grows up with positive connotations for her body, not guilt and fear.  For centuries, certain cultures have taught that vaginas and menstruation are dirty and naughty.  And now we are finally seeing it as something positive and creative.  I think it's wonderful.

Syl wrote:I don't know anyone who referred to their penis as sausage....or front bottom for a vagina come to that, but each to their own.

Live and let live.....I see no harm whatsoever in calling different body parts different names when kids are small.

You see problems...I don't, but to make out that not using the correct terminology puts a child in more danger of being sexually abused or preyed on by a paedophile...or God forbid, confuse a medic into not knowing which bit hurts...is frankly laughable.

By the time my own son started school he knew his willy was a penis, by the time I started school I knew what my vagina was called (I cant remember what my mum called it originally) which just shows its simply not important....a huge fuss about nothing, but no doubt the author has made a few quid by telling people their way is wrong and hers is right.

But people do, the point you keep missing. So you continue to avoid the point that they do, based off your belief to use pointless pet names.

You then misdirect off my points to go back to sexual child abuse, of which actually I have seen the merits of some points people made. Though at present i can say for certainty, that pet names has not prevented child abuse. To then say its laughable over parts when its better to teach a child what their parts is shows you have not got a clue what you are talking about. How does the child explain for example over the phone what is wrong? His mother thinks his penis is hurting, when it could be far worse with the lower abdomen. I teach children how to answer medical questions, in a simple fashion but by using correct medical terms they understand. A child as seen has to sometimes answer for when their parents are ill and the better they are equipped to understand the better it will ensure saving lives. So don't even dare to come out with that crap over what you think is best, when I actually help deal with this daily.

So you and your son knew the correct terminology and shows it did not harm you in any shape or form did it?

Thank you for proving my point.

Now how about you get back to my questions you continually avoid answering?

So you tell me why change the name for sexual parts and not other body parts, if its not due to a fear of embarrassment?

Why not call the head a noggin or a gigantic melon to a child?

So you claim its easier for the child to learn?

Really?

How is penis far more difficult to understand than sausage?

This is why your answers are at best a load of rubbish

You are claiming that a child needs to understand all other body parts but for the sexual ones, we have to lie to them. Really, you think telling them the correct name is going to harm them some how?

Please explain that to me?

Original Quill wrote:

You are avoiding the issue.  We are not talking about enforcement, merely arguments, or "advising" if you wish. Stifles creativity.  One-dimensional thinking.  Scare tactics.  We've been all over that. Dumb to you, maybe...but Syl and I think it's cute.  Meh...beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  No harm there.Yes, isn't that beautiful?  She grows up with positive connotations for her body, not guilt and fear.  For centuries, certain cultures have taught that vaginas and menstruation are dirty and naughty.  And now we are finally seeing it as something positive and creative.  I think it's wonderful.

So education is stiffing to you based only on your view point and not what is better for someone to understand?

Well how do you get a child to learn about a heart attack without them being able to understand the fear of such an event? Is that not preparing them on then how to then deal with such an eventuality with a parent?

You see this is why your reasoning falls apart. When people are trained on the NHS, they do so listening to quite horrific calls, where people actually die, to better prepare them for what they might face. So they get to learn and differentiate agonal breathing for example.

So to say fear is a bad tool, when in fact it actually helps people overcome the shock of a situation, shows you fail to see this educationally. Like Eddie said, her child already understood what it was like for someone to suffer with suffocating by choking. How did she come to learn this and not go into shock when she suffered this?

By the time the child is old enough to use a phone and explain something is hurting he will no doubt know the correct terminology....pet names are just baby names, like mama and moo cow, willy and daisy, choo choo and dindin....for goodness sake, they are harmless.

I just don't see the point you are making in constantly saying its wrong....and stop talking to me as if I am stupid and you are the bleedin oracle....we all bring our kids up in the best we see fit.

And when they turn out to be good, decent happy members of society, it sort of proves that we DID actually know what we were talking about .

Syl wrote:By the time the child is old enough to use a phone and explain something is hurting he will no doubt know the correct terminology....pet names are just baby names, like mama and moo cow, willy and daisy, choo choo and dindin....for goodness sake, they are harmless.

I just don't see the point you are making in constantly saying its wrong....and stop talking to me as if I am stupid and you are the bleedin oracle....we all bring our kids up in the best we see fit.

And when they turn out to be good, decent happy  members of society, it sort of proves that we DID actually know what we were talking about .

Is that why 3 and 4 year old have ended up saving the lives of their parents over the phone syl?

Pet names are just useless, because teaching them brings about confusion, especially, when these children learn the correct terms as they should at school. Its confusing when they know the correct terms, but some other parent mollycoddles their child and has instead called their private part a flower instead. Further confusing other children. What you need is uniform terminology.

Th point is on no other situation do you use other terms to teach a child about any other body part. None, you might say tummy, but its still correct to use. You dont see the point because you continually want to smother children and not allow them to truly be educated. I mean what happens is that you have to end up unteaching the child what wrongs they have learnt from their parents. That is called a waste of time.

You then use the victim card as if I am calling you stupid. No I am not, your reasoning is poor to say the least, so stop deflecting and making it personal. Your issue and its always been your issue, is you simply cannot take criticism

So again for the last time, how about you actually answer my questions

So you tell me why change the name for sexual parts and not other body parts, if its not due to a fear of embarrassment?

Why not call the head a noggin or a gigantic melon to a child?

So you claim its easier for the child to learn?

Really?

How is penis far more difficult to understand than sausage?

This is why your answers are at best a load of rubbish

You are claiming that a child needs to understand all other body parts but for the sexual ones, we have to lie to them. Really, you think telling them the correct name is going to harm them some how?

Please explain that to me?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are avoiding the issue.  We are not talking about enforcement, merely arguments, or "advising" if you wish. Stifles creativity.  One-dimensional thinking.  Scare tactics.  We've been all over that. Dumb to you, maybe...but Syl and I think it's cute.  Meh...beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  No harm there.Yes, isn't that beautiful?  She grows up with positive connotations for her body, not guilt and fear.  For centuries, certain cultures have taught that vaginas and menstruation are dirty and naughty.  And now we are finally seeing it as something positive and creative.  I think it's wonderful.

So education is stiffing to you based only on your view point and not what is better for someone to understand?

Well how do you get a child to learn about a heart attack without them being able to understand the fear of such an event? Is that not preparing them on then how to then deal with such an eventuality with a parent?

As both veya and I have pointed out to you before, you have a very stilted view of what is education.  

Your theory of education is that of information transfer...or fact transfer if you wish.  Ultimately, education is supposed to expand the mind, not constrain it.  If we were to limit the mind, where would de Vinci be?  Where would the 'flat earth' theory be?  All of our great minds, and their intellectual achievements, came about by breaking out of the envelope...and here you are trying to figure out how to get into the envelope...for protection, no less.

Thorin wrote:You see this is why your reasoning falls apart. When people are trained on the NHS, they do so listening to quite horrific calls, where people actually die, to better prepare them for what they might face. So they get to learn and differentiate agonal breathing for example.

So to say fear is a bad tool, when in fact it actually helps people overcome the shock of a situation, shows you fail to see this educationally. Like Eddie said, her child already understood what it was like for someone to suffer with suffocating by choking. How did she come to learn this and not go into shock when she suffered this?

But your advice turns education into the agent of fear.  It's good to have a healthy respect for the dangers of the world, but not to the point of obsession.  It's obsessive to restrict a child's creative instincts because you are possessed of a fear of sexual predators.  Your own life becomes a reaction, not action.

It's the same argument as with terrorism...if you let them steer your life out of fear, they have already won.