Like a pear cider that's made from 100% pears

--

TRAP CARD ACTIVATED

No, but seriously, anon, you need to look into what's going on in his classroom because he's probably being taught this trash method instead of phonics. He does not know how to slow down and sound things out because his school has never taught him that. When you tell him to do this, he has no context for what you're even talking about.

This has come up repeatedly here, and I don't have time to froth at the mouth today, but look up "whole language".

This podcast made waves a few years ago when all the lockdown parents discovered, to their horror, that their kiddos weren't being taught to read in the NORMAL FUCKING WAY WE'VE USED FOR LITERALLY CENTURIES and were instead being taught a fake-ass method backed by vibes and antivax-levels of pseudoscience.

But of course it feels intuitively sensible to her. She taught herself to read at age 2. That's the exact kind of experience that does make this method sound reasonable. But like you say, if it's going to happen, it happens very early and without the school curriculum.

As for me, I've said it before, but I assume anon wasn't around: I could not learn to read.

I was in second grade. (First grade? I can't remember. Around then.) Most of my classmates were reading at least a little. Me: nothing. I could not learn.

It was even a god damn private school, but I had to have a fucking tutor. I got dragged over to that lady's office a few days a week for... two months? Four months? It really wasn't that long, as far as I know. I was more than ready to learn. I just needed an actual fucking method that wasn't lying trash. Almost at once I jumped from nothing to reading well above grade level. For the rest of my childhood, I continued to diverge from my classmates in how many words I knew, how well I could read, the works. Every year of grade school makes that gap widen. I was on the desirable side of that gap. I was lucky.

It's obvious how verbal I am from reading my tl;dr on this blog.

But I could not learn to read.

Me at 17: “god I can’t wait to go home and write fanfic”

Me at 21: “god I can’t wait to go home and write fanfic”

The original meme is generally understood to be a very strange depiction of a case (homosexual) adultery. There is a disparaging attitude towards the wife and her obscure decorations (the 'chintz'), which is placed in strange contrast with the rough act of sex without furniture. There is a strongly implied preference for the roughness of the visceral adultery as a form of being "real" as opposed to the "fake" comfort implied by the "chintzes" which presumably cover the bed and other furniture. The passivity of the husband in respect to the decorations implies a level of alienation.

In the above, the poster is describing the same situation with different implications and motivations, with the changes highlighted by capital letters. It comes across in tone as someone harshly correcting a misinterpretation.

First, "his house" is replaced with "their (husband and wife's) house." This emphasizes a shared source of responsibility and ownership. The wife and husband both own the house and contribute to its existence, rather than the wife's choices being an imposition on the husband.

Second, "chintz" is replaced with "antique." "Chintz" is an eclectic word (part of the reason the meme attracted attention), which originally referred to a specific, high quality style of fabric, and later became used to refer to the cheap and gaudy imitations of said fabric, and finally became associated with chap and gaudy things. It is similar to tchotchkes: cheap things whose only purpose is to look impressive (which subsequently fail when one identifies how cheap they are). The word "antique" implies real value, care, and curation. It is a far, far more positive word to describe a given decoration.

Third, the reason "to keep it real" is replaced with "avoid damaging her valuables." This changes the motive for sex on the floor from being a raw rejection of the decoration to consideration for the materials. This is still strange, given the implications of adultery persist (the husband is still married to someone else). The poster clarified in a tag that it is meant to be consensual with the wife's knowing, but that would not generally come across in the early twenty-first century by default, because no relationship is presented between the speaker and the unnamed wife.

The "antiques" are still the possession of the wife in this retelling, rather than being shared with the husband. The antiques are still external to the husband.