🔥 | Latest

Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects Follow ECTS @SideEffectsNews Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017 Belinda Blumenthal @philomenapunk Follow because we all gay ide Effects @SideEffectsNews Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes agapantoblu: somecunttookmyurl: creaturethatcries: dr-dendritic-trees: karnythia: voidbat: genderfuckt: optimysticals: the-fury-of-a-time-lord: luidilovins: the-modern-satyr: seedydemigod: captainfunkpunkandroll: the-real-eye-to-see: Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again. the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it. This is disgusting hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”. This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood! and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit.  Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go. But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now. Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate. Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that. I really never understood why people don’t just LIE “Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.
Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects
 Follow
 ECTS @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood?
 bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017

 Belinda Blumenthal
 @philomenapunk
 Follow
 because we all gay
 ide Effects @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017
 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes
agapantoblu:

somecunttookmyurl:
creaturethatcries:


dr-dendritic-trees:

karnythia:

voidbat:

genderfuckt:


optimysticals:

the-fury-of-a-time-lord:

luidilovins:

the-modern-satyr:

seedydemigod:

captainfunkpunkandroll:

the-real-eye-to-see:
Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay


That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again.

the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college  where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it   


This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it.


This is disgusting 

hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”.

This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community. 


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood!
and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! 

If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit. 

Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go.
But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now.


Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate.
Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that.


I really never understood why people don’t just LIE
“Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM

I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.

agapantoblu: somecunttookmyurl: creaturethatcries: dr-dendritic-trees: karnythia: voidbat: genderfuckt: optimysticals: the-fury-of-...

Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!? Sl BAPU BAPTIST CHUR(H SUS DISGUST MyCHILD Dortyouatti? SaSin!God condemns W all! BRIAN heed to have a talk 0 CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE TH ISLAMIC TEMPUE I didnt die ona Cross for this BS RADICAL righte homoSexvality ar the last 2.000 yearsold. prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated.
Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!?
 Sl
 BAPU
 BAPTIST
 CHUR(H
 SUS
 DISGUST
 MyCHILD

 Dortyouatti?
 SaSin!God
 condemns W
 all!
 BRIAN
 heed to
 have a
 talk
 0

 CHRISTIANS
 CELEBRATE TH
 ISLAMIC TEMPUE
 I didnt
 die ona
 Cross for
 this BS
 RADICAL

 righte
 homoSexvality
 ar the last
 2.000 yearsold.
prismatic-bell:
the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99:


prismatic-bell:


broken-bits-of-dreams:

prismatic-bell:


aiko-mori-hates-pedos:

artbymoga:
Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP


Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.


WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” 

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. 

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 

4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy).


So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.)


Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:








Much appreciated.

prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymog...

Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread Zachary Fox and 3 others liked A$MR Rocky @ChristianMingel Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids can cause them to be violent adults" Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never turned out violent. That's why l can't wait to hit my own kids when l get them" 1/4/18, 2:44 PM 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes imfemalewarrior: thebaconsandwichofregret: asexual-not-asexual-detective: Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. Except they’re not. The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit. And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse) And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development.  Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them.  -FemaleWarrior, She/They  i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 
Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread
 Zachary Fox and 3 others liked
 A$MR Rocky
 @ChristianMingel
 Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids
 can cause them to be violent adults"
 Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never
 turned out violent. That's why l can't
 wait to hit my own kids when l get them"
 1/4/18, 2:44 PM
 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes
imfemalewarrior:

thebaconsandwichofregret:

asexual-not-asexual-detective:

Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. 

Except they’re not. 
The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit.
And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. 
Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. 
Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse)
And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. 
The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. 

We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development. 
Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them. 
-FemaleWarrior, She/They 

i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 

imfemalewarrior: thebaconsandwichofregret: asexual-not-asexual-detective: Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are d...

Children, Cute, and Facts: pervocracy child handling for the childless urse My current job has me working with children, which is kind of a weird shock after years in environments where a young" patient is 40 years old. Here's my impressions so far Birth 1 year: Essentially a smail cute animal. Handle accordingly, gently and affectionately, but relying heavily on the caregivers and with no real expectation of cooperation Age 1-2: Hates you. Hates you so much. You can smile, you can coo, you can attempt to soothe they hate you anyway, because you're a stranger and you're scary and you're touching them. There's no winning this so just get it over with as quickly and non-traumatically as possible Age 3-5: Nervous around medical things, but possible to soothe. Easily upset but also easily distracted from the thing that upset them. Smartphone cartoons and who wants a stickerrl1?1? are key management techniques Age 6 10: Really cool, actually. I did not realize kids were this cool. Around this age they tend to be fairly outgoing, and super curious and eager to learn. Absolutely do not babytalk, instead, flatter them with how grown-up they are teach them some Fun Gross Medical Facts, and introduce potentially frightening experiences with hey, you want to see something really cool?" Age 11 14: Extremely variable. Can be very childish or very mature, or rapidly switch from one mode to the other. At this point you can almost treat them as an adult, just... a really sensitive and unpredictable adult Do not, under any circumstances, offer stickers. (But they might grab one out of the bin anyway.) Age 15-18: Basically an adult with severely limited life experience. Treat as an adult who needs a littie extra education with their care. Keep parents out of the room as much as possible, unless the kid wants them there. At this point you can go ahead and offer stickers again, because they'll probably think it's funny And they'll want one. Deep down, everyone wants a sticker nurse unlocks secret to raising kids
Children, Cute, and Facts: pervocracy
 child handling for the childless
 urse
 My current job has me working with children, which is kind of a weird shock after
 years in environments where a young" patient is 40 years old. Here's my
 impressions so far
 Birth 1 year: Essentially a smail cute animal. Handle accordingly, gently and
 affectionately, but relying heavily on the caregivers and with no real expectation
 of cooperation
 Age 1-2: Hates you. Hates you so much. You can smile, you can coo, you can
 attempt to soothe they hate you anyway, because you're a stranger and you're
 scary and you're touching them. There's no winning this so just get it over with
 as quickly and non-traumatically as possible
 Age 3-5: Nervous around medical things, but possible to soothe. Easily upset
 but also easily distracted from the thing that upset them. Smartphone cartoons
 and who wants a stickerrl1?1? are key management techniques
 Age 6 10: Really cool, actually. I did not realize kids were this cool. Around
 this age they tend to be fairly outgoing, and super curious and eager to learn.
 Absolutely do not babytalk, instead, flatter them with how grown-up they are
 teach them some Fun Gross Medical Facts, and introduce potentially frightening
 experiences with hey, you want to see something really cool?"
 Age 11 14: Extremely variable. Can be very childish or very mature, or rapidly
 switch from one mode to the other. At this point you can almost treat them as an
 adult, just... a really sensitive and unpredictable adult Do not, under any
 circumstances, offer stickers. (But they might grab one out of the bin anyway.)
 Age 15-18: Basically an adult with severely limited life experience. Treat as an
 adult who needs a littie extra education with their care. Keep parents out of the
 room as much as possible, unless the kid wants them there. At this point you
 can go ahead and offer stickers again, because they'll probably think it's funny
 And they'll want one. Deep down, everyone wants a sticker
nurse unlocks secret to raising kids

nurse unlocks secret to raising kids