“Literal grooming.” You can make your points without such anti-gay bigotry.
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 22, 2022
Accusing teachers of being gay sexual predators has a long vile history. Reagan stood up against it. It’s rank homophobic bigotry - and I don’t accuse people of that often. Attack the ideology. Don’t smear teachers.
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 22, 2022
Posts
87 comments:
having teachers being gay sexual predators has a long vile history.
Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone!
Normally Sullivan is sensible on this stuff, but I'm not seeing the anti-gay bigotry. Where is it?
I don’t see gay teachers being specifically targeted here.
So, teachers are immune from criticism?
"Don't smear teachers."
Yeah, that's what priests are for.
I think this misses a couple of key points. First, that this discussion with K-3 enables actual grooming. Which is a real problem. The fact that it enables opponents of leftist indoctrination to use a tremendously effective argument against allowing them to do so infuriates them. You add that in to KBJ's testimony on outdated child pornography laws, and you have the makings of a realignment in this country not seen in a long time. If I was a Democratic strategist, I would be telling people to shut the hell up for now.
Accusing priests of being gay sexual predators has a long vile history. Reagan stood up against it. It’s rank homophobic bigotry - and I don’t accuse people of that often. Attack the ideology. Don’t smear priests.
Schools, teachers, and school administrators are maximally cowardly about everything. Every decision seems to be made on the basis of what provides the absolute lowest rate of ever being held responsible for a decision, or sued. So it is really creepy and alarming that this topic is the singular area where school staff insist on holding the line, no matter what.
Instead of whining about ‘anti-gay bigotry’, maybe Sullivan should address the issue and defend teaching third graders about hormone therapy and transgenderism.
Of course, nowhere in the original post is the term "gay" or "homosexual" referenced, merely gender. Maybe Sullivan misses the days when gays were the subject of attention, but they are being crowded out of the conversation just like women athletes are being crowded out of the winners' circle.
The association between the Florida anti-grooming law and 'gay' was created by the people who are going around calling it the "Don't say 'gay'" bill even though it does not reference any specific sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sullivan has a point, but not about this post. The curriculum is from the school board, not teachers. Who knows if the teachers even want to teach it? Who knows if the teachers are even gay?
But no, K-3 graders should not be taught this stuff. I helped in elementary school classrooms enough to see that first graders are still young enough to dream of being a kitten, or think they would like to be a girl when a baby sister is born and gets all the attention. I would be furious if someone was trying to put these ideas in my kids heads. It is kind of grooming- they are trying to get little kids to think a certain way about sexuality and gender identity. They are trying to be the powerful adult voice in those areas, so they can influence them.
Iconochasm said...So it is really creepy and alarming that this topic is the singular area where school staff insist on holding the line, no matter what.
Good point. And the same could be said about corporate America. They embrace what makes them more economically competitive, until we get to woke. Then they ignore their customers and betray their shareholders with reckless abandon.
Given a large enough group, there will be Minor Attracted Persons. That's stat 101.
Gay or straight.
When such a group has kids, by force of law, brought to them for hours a day, the MAP are bound to start something. That's human nature 101. Not all MAP, but some.
When the most impressionable, least knowledgeable, most vulnerable are exposed to the proposed curriculum, they become used to hearing various terms and knowing about various behaviors. And then he predatory MAP are in fat city.
There's enough of that crap going on without the education establishment cranking up a massive advantage for the predators, paid for by the parents of said victims.
Not cool.
In twelve months, there is a greater than trivial chance that the Democratic party's appeal will be limited to those who actively and publicly support sexual grooming of 5 - 7 year olds by non-binary individuals as a part of curricular instruction in public schools.
Whom in the party, then, will ask "how did we get here?" This branding exercise is going spectacularly well for the GOP. I watch in wonder, and in horror.
The rabbit hole deepens. Vladimir Putin will not get them out of this bind.
I think Sullivan has a sensitivity to a point that most of us straights are not used to seeing.
It's right to take that into account.
This is the first time I’ve heard that “child grooming” is a homophobic slur against gays. Granted I’m no expert.
In fact, when I Google “child grooming definition” nothing about gays pops up. Is giant Google whitewashing homophobia… that’s a serious charge.
Here is my most recent memory of the use of the word “grooming” in this context …
👉🏽 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rotherham-grooming-ring-latest-six-men-jailed-sexual-abuse-sheffield-crown-court-crime-a8637331.html
I have a major problem teaching young children these concepts about gender and sex. The school boards may be setting this into the curriculum but the teachers are enthusiastically embracing the teaching of the concepts and are just as culpable if not more so having the direct contact with the kids. Hell, these same teachers aren’t doing a very good job of teaching these kids the education basic standards based on the scores of reading and math tests. And with many reports in the news where there are teachers telling the kids that they can’t tell their parents about the kid being “gay” or “transgender”, that sure as hell is grooming, just like a pedophile grooming their next underage victim. These kids are going to be so screwed up that we are going to need a lot more mental health professionals in an already strained health system. Unfortunately, these mental health professionals are more and more embracing these “gender bending” concepts from what the kids who have “de-transistioned” have said and it may plunge these kids seeking help back into the deep end of the pool where they may never get out and will drown.
Sullivan is aware of gay men who take advantage of teenage boys. Even Dan Savage was pretty open about it a while back. If straights in general had any idea how much the groomers need to put pressure on children, the criminalization of homosexuality would look less like Victorian England and more like the Taliban.
I recall reading a comic book format biography of a WWII hero (probably Corrie Ten Boom.) Her father is going to work and she is walking with him. She asks him about sex. He asks her to carry his briefcase; she says it is too heavy. He tells her that when she is older, she will be able to carry his briefcase. Likewise, when she is older, she will be ready to learn about sex.
I hope we can agree that third graders aren't ready to carry that briefcase.
So I looked at “libs of tik tok” post and no where does it mention teachers. It explicitly calls out education standards. The standards seem to clearly be grooming children, well below the age of puberty, to become sexually interested (K-2) and sexually active (3-5). Why are these standards? Why is pointing out that these are the standards being called “anti-gay”? If Sullivan opposes both the standards and linking them to homosexuality; then why does he make that link when the original critic did not?
It is like the Florida Parental Rights bill, which calls from banning sexual education in elementary curriculum, being maligned as anti-gay despite homosexuality or gay not appearing in the text. If my children were being taught to masturbate in 4th grade; the concern isn’t the sexual orientation or gender of the teacher. It is the teacher teaching sexual gratification to a 10 year old and particularly a curriculum that insists on such teaching.
Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig (famous Jungian psychiatrist) said that marginal pedophiles make good teachers because they can sustain an interest in what the child is saying where normal adults tune out. (From the Wrong Side: A Paradoxical Approach to Psycholgy, probably the chapter on the sexual abuse of children.)
If you want to talk to other people's young children about sexual deviancy in a controlled, private setting, you can be nothing other than a sick, twisted groomer.
If you want to throw a fit because you're not able to do that without being outed as a predator, you make up something else like "They won't let us say the word gay" and attack that.
In the Twitter Age, people aren't necessarily reacting to the tweets they respond to, but rather to the general situation or the debate or what they take the debate to be, or something else that has irritated them.
If you take the time you can piece together or map out what you are actually reacting to, but Twitter discourages-- one might even say bans--this.
It's not a smear. There's enough instances of exactly that going on. Why else would AS(s) and the neobarbarian establishment react so furiously about stripping them of their "right"(/sarc) to groom kids?
I don't see the anti-gay in this post, either. I don't think about same sex when I hear grooming but apparently Andrew Sullivan does. Having said that, using the term "grooming" distracts from the main point which is that most reasonable people think sex should not be discussed to this degree with children this young. Progressives are now successfully branding any concern about this as homophobia. It reminds me of how they have managed to convince many that requiring an ID to vote is racist voter suppression. Identity politics is a cancer.
I welcome the return of Excitable Andrew to our national discussion. Of course I disagree with him. Introducing other people’s children to sexual concepts is not appropriate for primary school. This is not the “sex ed” debate from the ’70s. It’s grooming. It’s insidious. It’s inappropriate. Progressives just can’t help their totalitarian inclination to wrest children from their parents and should pay the price for their sick obsession with other people’s children.
I note that Andrew immediately exempts all heterosexual teachers from a desire to develop inappropriate relationships with minors in the assumptions he brings to the table with this comment. Are clergy under the same assumptions regarding relationships with vulnerable minors in a church setting?
Pedophilia and homosexuality are two very different things. That point needs to be made and reinforced.
Everyone saying they don’t see the part about gay people hasn’t read the whole tweet. It does mention “sexual orientation,” including gay and bisexual people, before saying: “Let us stop the early sexualization of our children!” Saying we need to save “our children” from being “sexualiz[ed]” by learning about gay people is classic homophobia, and the fact that other things are also mentioned in the post doesn’t make it OK.
"'Literal grooming.' You can make your points without such anti-gay bigotry."
Which appears to assume that only gay men would groom young children.
Anyway, there is no gay here. But the gay defense is brought into play, both by AS and in Florida, to shield the new vanguard in the culture war, the trans offensive and the next teardown of the sexual order on the school front. The further transvaluation of values, so to speak.
Sullivan has been inching his way back to sanity recently. Disappointing to see him operate as a prog tool again.
It is literal grooming. I realize that not all the proponents for this sort of education understand this nor intend it, but it is literal grooming. It is no coincidence that pedophiles and pederasts are drawn to fields of employment that give them access to children and young teens.
There is no place for these sorts of education initiatives. It is a sickness in our society that we are doing these sorts of things, and makes me want to burn the entire education establishment to the ground.
LOL "Classic homophobia" - such BS. The grooming of children for sexual purposes is well documented as being done regardless of sexual preference. It is also well documented - although heavily denied by the pro-gay lobby - that gay men DO GROOM YOUNG MEN in order to drive them toward homosexuality. It is also well documented that the strongest correlation to same sex attraction has nothing to do with inherent biology - it is most strongly correlated with sexual trauma (not correlated to the sex of the perpetrator) at a formative age.
The argument that the pro-gay lobby is trying to shut down is rooted in the fact that what they want to continue to do in schools IS EXACTLY grooming children. They know it, and rather than argue based on facts and realities (which are heavily suppressed by the pro-gay psychology organizations) they just trot out the ol' slander "that's classic homophobia and that's not ok you hater".
Here's a hot tip: "homophobia" doesn't exist. It's a false slander created by fake psychologization of disagreement about the genesis, existence, and morality of same sex sex.
"Homophobia" is an ad hominem. You use it, you lost the argument.
Remember, Lawrence v Texas being a slippery slope was a conspiracy theory.
Andrew Sullivan is a clever man. However, we have learned two things about him:
1. He is so obsessed with his own sexual identity that it dwarfs everything else he is. We saw this when he did a 180 on his entire belief system and his political positions because gay marriage.
2. Related, once he gets obsessed, he grows massive blind spots that take years if not decades for him to notice, despite them being obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention. His recent return as a "classical liberal" had him railing about things that have been going on for decades but he acted like they were novel developments. The less we speak about the entire Palin conspiracy theory the better. He never should have recovered from that.
He's not really useful as an opinion leader as his opinions are completely dependent on what he thinks best pushes his singular agenda which is purely motivated by his personal identity. I do not think he is a grifter like many have been revealed since the emergence of Trump, but he is far from principled. Going to Mr. Sullivan guidance is less about rallying around a coherent political theory and closer to a cult of personality.
And, yes, talking about sex to four-year-olds behind their parents' back makes you a "groomer."
Don't like reckless charges that whites are racist? Stop whining Mr. sensitive!
But charges that Gays are groomers? Anti-Gay bigotry.
Attaks on name calling are hilarious coming from a Gayist like Sullivan whose spent his entire career calling people he doesn't like various names or slapping derogatory labels like "Christianist" on them.
Why people aren't upset and up at arms at their elemetary school kids being taught about sex and Gays is beyond me. But my daughter is grown, and they can fight their own battles. People outside Cook county Chicago should demand to be separate state, or join Indiana.
JAC: "Saying we need to save “our children” from being “sexualiz[ed]” by learning about gay people is classic homophobia, and the fact that other things are also mentioned in the post doesn’t make it OK."
Look at the cohort in agreement with the argument you are making - those with the intelligence and discerning attitudes toward human sexuality that you bring to the table. What percentage of the American electorate does that encompass? Go look up the numbers for Americans with children or grandchildren in schools - what is that percentage? Do a Venn diagram on those for overlap. Think honestly about the political realities this illuminates.
Is this a conversation that you would LIKE to be having right now? How did you get here? The jiu jitsu involved in this is impressive, and should be terrifying to progressives when the implications finally hit home.
hasn’t read the whole tweet.
Looks like the entire tweet to me. Maybe you think there are other tweets not presented. That could be, but our job is not to find where Andrew Sullivan is correct nor shame others for not finding the context Sullivan fails to provide. More interesting is most of the arguments here are clear that the issue is not limited to homosexuality. Really nobody here is Saying we need to save “our children” from being “sexualiz[ed]” by learning about gay people. Well except you brought it up and so did Sullivan.
I’ll repeat, the Florida bill also doesn’t prohibit the learning about gay people.
If teachers are forced to - or are willingly TO teach young children confusing and age-inappropriate sexual concepts - I CAN'T SCREAM LOUD ENOUGH AGAINST IT.
Same with racist CRT.
Schools should be teaching subjects like Math, English, History ect. They should NOT be teaching any kind of sex to kids under 10, period. Let the kids be kids. If you are okay with them teaching this, why not teach religion, since it is a huge part of a lot of peoples lives too?? Just because YOU don't agree, it doesn't matter. They are going to FORCE your kid to learn about God. How would you like that?? They should know about it, since so many people believe. There is going to be a slippery slope, if you start forcing this kind of forced education.
A serious comment:
The focus on the notion of grooming obscures the more important motivation for this sort of curriculum. It is the idea that proper instruction in schools will solve problems of human sexuality. Implicitly, this lays the blame for such problems on parents and families. I fear that this will result in blundering interventions into the lives of children. Teachers and administrators should not be identifying and "fixing" these problems, but many will want to give it a try.
I fail to see why homosexuality is so important... So Crucial - to age K- 2nd or 3rd grade.
(and if I refuse to agree, I will be crucified as a homophobic)
Inform us what age is appropriate to leapfrog over the basics of biological sex, and jump right into homosexuality? The response from parents isn't merely homosexual sex - anyway. That's a red herring to blur the subject. (self-absorbed much?)
It's SEX period. Keep your Leftwing insistence of inappropriate sexual discussions away from K-3rd grade.
Can't do it, can ya.
Cohen, regardless of whether children younger than 8 need to "learn about gay people", there's exactly zero reason why public school teachers should be entrusted with that task. They're rarely competent at their core tasks, as is clearly demonstrated by the year over year decline in reading ability and math scores. And quite frankly, one of the major drivers of this decline is the insistence by fools that they expand their portfolio to cover this sort of nonsense.
It does mention “sexual orientation,” including gay and bisexual people, before saying: “Let us stop the early sexualization of our children!”
Again, this is not appropriate for strangers to say to my 5-9 year old child. They have a whole necessary curriculum to address so why venture where you don’t belong? Grooming children is bad whether the teacher is LGBT or not. Children don’t care about adult issues and adults should allow them a childhood free from teachers probing them for their own agenda. WTF is so hard to understand there Cohen?
If a babysitter were to undertake to "educate" the children in her care about sexuality at this age, absent parents and absent opt-in parental permission, would anyone think it was copacetic? If a Cub Scout or Daisy/Brownie leader did it? If a priest or volunteer Sunday school teacher did it?
What if one of these adults were to tell the young child in his or her care that her lesbian mothers were leading an immoral life and the child ought to pursue a life of heterosexuality?
Why on earth should a teacher be exempt from the disapprobation society would rightly feel for the adult doing this? Where is the backing for the implicit claim that a child's sexual identity and accompanying behaviors are so central to the child's well-being that an under-8yo needs to be taught to bring them to the fore?
JAC's (and of course others') claim that opposition to such teaching is prompted by "homophobia" requires an answer to this question: if the pro-very-early-sexual-education crowd has a problem with adults' imposing (by presenting as normative) heterosexuality on young children, why is it oppressive for others to oppose the teaching of normative homosexuality, transness, or queerness on those same young children? (If they DON'T have a problem with the presentation of normative heterosexuality to young children, they are doing a weird job of showing it.)
There is no place for these sorts of education initiatives. It is a sickness in our society that we are doing these sorts of things, and makes me want to burn the entire education establishment to the ground.
Yes, the political left, and that includes Sullivan, are starting a war with "Breeders," as they call parents. I think there are more of us. College kids may think that 25% of the population is gay but it isn't and the trannies are competing with the gays now.
Public schools are just leftist indoctrination factories now.
Forget reading, writing, math, science, history.
It's SEX SEX SEX!, Comic books, video games, pleasure, no discipline, no excellence, participation trophies, & the obsession with movie stars and pop stars - and more sex.
sex sex sex sex... and more sex.
Is it any wonder the collective left hate school choice? Your child will be forced into this garbage culture, and you as a parent have no say.
I find it rather odd that the topic of age-inappropriate sex has been commandeered by homosexual/male paranoia that they are not getting a proper piece of the action.
This is about NOT about you. This is about age-inappropriate sex. Period.
Straight- gay - transgendered - whatever. Stop insisting and forcing it on YOUNG children who deserve a childhood without Hollywood's pathetic influence. There's enough of that at 4th grade plus.
SEX and violence. don't forget the violence.
Also - this is all from Hollywood. The left's obsession with sex and violence.
Hollywood. (Note the pressure on Disney? - heh that's no accident)
Your children will be forced to shed their natural innocence at young ages and submit to leftist Hollywood sex+ violence garbage culture.
You will be labeled and bullied - called racist and homophobic if you do not submit.
Does one have to be gay to "groom" a child? Just askin', Andrew.
He doth protest too much.
Nobody ever said it was about 'gay' grooming.
But it is an entry (for any predator) to groom kids by introducing subjects that are not age-appropriate.
I don't think only gay teachers are eager to present these issues to 2nd graders.
In a sane society - by that I mean one that is not preoccupied with sex - how would this even be an issue?
As I predicted during the same sex marriage debate, next step*, legalize child molestation. This will begin with homosexuals and trannies because, like blacks, it is a hate crime to mention anything negative about them. Just ask Andy.
* I admit it never occurred to me that men would be competing in womens' sports.
5 years ago i said the age of consent will drop to 13
my bro-in-law, a biden supporter scoffed. This summer theyll be going to the other grooming facility.
Disney.
When you introduce the idea to K - 3 students, make it clear that science has concluded there is no gay gene.
the trannies are competing with the gays now.
*************
Yes they are, because gays have long insisted that they were "born that way", that their sexual preferences are innate and not simply a "lifestyle".
Now trannies come along and say sexual preferences are a social construct and ---voila!---they can change theirs by simply saying so.
Things get really dicey when a trans woman still burdened with male junk tries to hit on a lesbian.
But thw wokerati are still trying to reconcile the contradictions, and meantime YOU have to embrace them.
"Hold xer in your arms, yes you can feel xer disease".
In my public library they brag about their transvestites teaching kids.
Kids don't have a sexuality. I was sucking my thumb when I was six. (I didn't stop until my dad paid me money every day I stopped sucking my thumb).
Kids run around naked without any shame. They cross-dress and don't even think about it. When I was in third grade I changed into a bathing suit in front of a girl and her father yelled at me. Made me cry.
I understand my library just wants to normalize transvestites. But I also understand that kids are too young to be political, or sexual, and you are trying to indoctrinate them. Back the fuck off.
Calling it grooming is effective. “Don’t Say Groomer” response is not.
In 5th grade I wanted to "go with" a girl even though I didn't know what that meant. What do you do when you "go with" a girl? I only had a general idea.
I was going to call her and one of her girlfriends asked me what we are going to talk about. "Love and sex, what else?" I said. I got reported to the principal and he had to talk to both of us.
Also in 5th grade a couple of girls asked me if I knew what a period was. "Of course," I said. They asked me what color a period was. "Brown," I guessed. They laughed at me. Then one of them said, "I guess it might be a little brown."
Does anybody really think the world would be a better place if I had a full grasp of human sexuality at the age of 6? Ignorance is kind of a marker for innocence, in this scenario. Why do you want to make these little kids so worldly and sex-knowledgable?
It is literal grooming. It was the clinical definition of grooming when I was in social services.
Gays are more likely to molest children than the general population. Even gay women are. Scandinavian countries did several studies finding that the first sexual experience of the female children of gay mothers was with one of her adult friends or one of their own “mothers”. (Please G-d at least not the bio one). This is unusual since women are less likely to be sexual predators and this is rarely seen in heterosexual women abusing their friends’or their own sons.
Once you break down social norms and personal boundaries anything goes. Not all gays are pedophiles or rapists but a much higher percentage of them are than in the general population. So much higher that I would never willingly leave a child alone with one I didn’t know extremely well.
It is not controversial to observe that the men and women preying on boys and girls were trans/homos with a socially liberal ideology. Sullivan needs to lose his Pro-Choice religion and divest from diversity dogma (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) that normalizes color blocs (e.g. "people of color"), color quotas (e.g. too many people of Yellow... Asia), affirmative discrimination (e.g. "Jew privilege"), and wallows in conflation of sex, gender, and the transgender spectrum.
"It’s rank homophobic bigotry - and I don’t accuse people of that often."
Hardly ever. Only when he's awake.
It is rather amusing that Sullivan regards "literal grooming" as "anti-gay bigotry". Grooming, after all, describes an adult attempting to make a child be receptive to sexual advances. That is only "anti-gay" if we assume -- as Sullivan clearly does -- that this behavior is "gay". So it turns out that just as "racism" means being aware of racial differences in behavior, "anti-gay bigotry" means being aware -- as Sullivan clearly is -- that perverts are perverse.
If the Sex Ed is accomplished as well as the training in Reading, Writing and Math few if any children will be indoctrinated successfully. You keep up the great work, Public Schools and Teachers' Unions!
Sounds like we need a ruling on this issue.
By Brett Blomme.
A lot of child molestation is heterosexual. Does Sullivan not know this?
"Saying we need to save “our children” from being “sexualiz[ed]” by learning about gay people is classic homophobia, and the fact that other things are also mentioned in the post doesn’t make it OK."
Look, Jack, just because you can't help yourself doesn't mean it's OK to be the way you are. Some people end up maimed when they drive their cars off the road. That's unfortunate. But we don't hire them to teach Driver's Ed just because we feel sorry for them. No one EVER raised a child hoping that child would be homosexual. The fact that you are homosexual doesn't mean that it's OK to be homosexual. It sucks to be you.
The reality, as opposed to the ridiculous fantasy that now passes for acceptable liberal opinion, is that males are more sexually aggressive than females, whether homo- or heterosexual. And their sexual aggression is more likely to be damaging to the people it is directed at. The fact that someone is willing to teach "gender awareness" to six-year-olds is all the evidence I need that he should never be left alone with children.
I suspect the unity of LGBT's various groups makes things troublesome here. While the groups have been historically unified, one of these things is not like the others when it comes to categorization. The Ls, the Gs, and the Bs are all about sexual orientation as it pertains to whom a person is sexually attracted. There is some peripheral stuff in regards to acceptable behaviors of people in things like butch Lesbians and feminine gays but most of it is still about acceptable romantic relationships. The Ts don't really fit into that category. And I suspect that the biggest worry the populace has in regards to this is not whether Tommy has two dads, but whether Tommy becomes Tina in 5th grade. There have been anecdotal cases, particularly among adolescent girls, of multiple numbers of children in the same class declaring that they were now the opposite gender. This looks like a social contagion effect. If you combine this with policies of some schools where the school will not inform parents of their children's 'identity' and many parents are justifiably worried.
I will say that in regards to grooming, and this behavior I think is more prevalent in media than schools, encouraging young boys to dress up as drag queens is grooming. It seems just one step away from Bacha Bazi practice in Afghanistan. Drag Queening is about dressing up as a hyper-sexualized version of a woman. No Drag Queen wears comfortable slacks, a modest top, and sensible shoes.
The left has no clue as to how all this looks to normal people. Good.
May they learn the hard way.
The most qualified black woman Biden could find for the Supreme Court:
-Doesn't know what a woman is
-Doesn't know when life begins
-Doesn't know what Critical Race Theory is
But does know that, in the computer age, the only victims in child pornography cases are the child pornographers.
I have been subscribed to Andrew Sullivan's Substack (The Weekly Dish) for well over a year now. I went off him when he became the nation's gynecologist-in-chief around 2008, but he's long since stopped ranting about Palin.
On this point, unfortunately, I have to say he's loopy. George Will once (decades ago) said that certain jobs should never be given to those eager for them. Like "sex educator." Or "Ambassador to the UN." What he thinks of this latest "spin" on the former profession I have no idea; there are some things even the WaPo probably doesn't let him talk about.
For most of us -- I mean those not actually in psychiatry -- "grooming" first surfaced as something done by Pakistani men to what they called "English slags" in multiple cities in the North of England. This was all straight, adult men, underage girls. It was and is pervasive, well-organized, and deeply nasty. I can see AS not wanting to be associated with it, but I also don't see (JAC notwithstanding) how he has been.
I think people hear of grooming most often in relation to heterosexual sex trafficking. I don't think people closely associate grooming with gay people the way Sullivan imagines.
Good grooming is always important.
But seriously, I hold most men (and some women) who chose to spend their working lives around kids, in suspicion.
There is no need for kids this age (through grade 5) to learn about any of this. It has nothing to do with gay or not gay. Why so interested in getting 8 yr olds to masturbate? To transition? Little kids don't even have a sex drive and become disturbed for life if adults engage them in sex. Leave them the hell alone. And sullivan is simply wrong: grooming can be hetero or homo--it is not a gay term. It refers to adults trying to get children engaged in sex.
The indoctrination with the gay flag IS gay grooming and kids have no understanding or knowledge of gay/not gay. Again: leave them alone.
On a practical note: given that schools can't teach reading or math, letting them teach about sex will spell the extinction of the human race.
I cannot conceive of an educational benefit to this curriculum. Elementary school-age children are largely unaware of sexuality or sexual preferences. Their world is "adults" and "other kids". That changes with the onset of puberty, and even then, I'm not sure there's any benefit to subjecting students to it.
The left has no clue as to how all this looks to normal people. Good.
May they learn the hard way.
I’m fairly certain they know. What I hope they learn is that it matters…
TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...
LOL "Classic homophobia" - such BS. The grooming of children for sexual purposes is well documented as being done regardless of sexual preference. It is also well documented - although heavily denied by the pro-gay lobby - that gay men DO GROOM YOUNG MEN in order to drive them toward homosexuality. It is also well documented that the strongest correlation to same sex attraction has nothing to do with inherent biology - it is most strongly correlated with sexual trauma (not correlated to the sex of the perpetrator) at a formative age.
============
could AS be in denial - suppressing/repressing - some trauma?
wonder where Milo Yanno is these days
"There have been anecdotal cases, particularly among adolescent girls, of multiple numbers of children in the same class declaring that they were now the opposite gender."
Well, actually, it's not "anecdotal cases", there is a very good book on the sickening phenomenon, Irreversible Damage, by Abigail Shrier. And of course, the usual sick, criminal bastards have done everything they can to cancel her and suppress her book.
Narayanan: I wondered the same about Milo just the other day.
In grooming situations- it would do well to under the victims are the children.
Duh.
*understand*
Duh.
I think people hear of grooming most often in relation to heterosexual sex trafficking.
Yep. And teachers. It happens all the time lately in SoCal. Bunch of them were same sex but most weren’t. I don’t believe high incidents and creepy curriculum are unrelated. I underestimated how hard progressives would defend the indefensible and even Excitable Andy is joining from what he thinks is the center-right.
Everyone saying they don’t see the part about gay people hasn’t read the whole tweet. It does mention “sexual orientation,” including gay and bisexual people, before saying: “Let us stop the early sexualization of our children!” Saying we need to save “our children” from being “sexualiz[ed]” by learning about gay people is classic homophobia, and the fact that other things are also mentioned in the post doesn’t make it OK.
You must be reading a different tweet. The one above makes no mention of sexual orientation. However, even if there is a tweet that says what you say it does, "sexual orientation" necessarily includes heterosexuality. When people object to small school childrent learning about heterosexuality, is that classic heterophobia?
Why do you feel that it is so necessary to teach small children about sex, including the spectrums of orientation and identity?
"In fact, they are bending over backward to promote the “Don’t say gay” disinformation about Florida’s common-sense Parental Rights in Education bill, which should really be named the “anti-groomer” bill, based on the unhinged reactions of leftists. For those who haven’t actually read the bill, the word “gay” is not mentioned once. It simply bans explicit discussions about sex and gender in classrooms with very young children—something that anyone who isn’t a pervert agrees with."
I would hope that gay parents would agree with the bill.
I bet many do.
Sad to see so many leftists jump right on board to the HIllary-esque lies being told.
Is it "grooming" if one plants a seed that will eventually become a tree one hopes to harvest and/or cut down for its wood? We generally aren't planning to eat the seeds or turn them into chairs.
When leftists want to teach and discuss these ideas with young children, what trees do they hope will grow from those seeds?
These people are hopelessly naive about how pederasts go about grooming children for sexual activity.
A big part of it depends on desensitizing children to sexual topics. Specifically, the pederast seeks to normalize conversation about sex and sexual gratification.
They also seek to drive a wedge between their victims and their victims' parents - by encouraging children to keep special secrets, or by positioning themselves as a 'mentor' who has special understanding of the child's sexuality that their parents won't understand (the squares!)
We see this in teachers who maintain secret changing rooms for students they have encouraged to think of themselves as "trans" or "queer,"
Meanwhile, pederasts and pedophiles (what the scumbags refer to euphemistically as "minor-attracted persons, or MAPs) do not randomly distribute themselves throughout the work force. They self-select to jobs that give them regular access to children.
Walter Breen, the convicted serial child rapist and numismatist wrote an entire book on it called "Greek Love." I can't bring myself to read it (I happen to know his daughter, whom he and his sadistic wife, Sci-fi author Marion Zimmer Bradley also raped as well). But you can get a sense of how Breen operated and get a sense of how he gained access to many, many ready victims by reading his daughter's book, "The Last Closet,' and by doing an easy Google search for "Breendoggle," in which members of the Berkeley literati and sci-fi scene discuss Breen's obvious wildly inappropriate conduct with small children in public (he made no attempt to hide it), and debated whether they should kick them out of their circle so he couldn't continue to victimize and their children. (The community, being Bay Area progtards, was split on the issue.)
Then, as now, the naive and stupid progtards are choosing to sacrifice their children to Molech rather than risk being accused of wrongthink or intolerance among their fellow libs.
after 4 years of suffering . my husband left me and my kids hated me for no reason, i got sacked at work without any genuine reasons, i shared tears daily living a lonely life but i was determined to know what is the cost of my predicament, one day as i was going through some articles on the internet i saw a testimony of mrs Vanessa testifying how she got her life revived by dr Ogbeifun the honest man and i quickly contacted him VIA ( ogbefunhearlingtemple@gmail.com ) and i explained my situation to him and he told me my ex who i broke up with to marry my husband was responsible for my misfortune and he vows to frustrate my life because i didn't marry him.
dr Ogbeifun ask me what i wanted him to do to my ex who is after my life i told him to cast a dead spell on him because as long as he is alive he will never allow me a moment of peace , which he did and within 3 days he was dead and since his death my life have been so transformed, my kids now love me and my husband is back to me i latter got a call to return to work that the sack was a mistake , wow what a miracle .. thanks allot dr Ogbeifun. you can contact dr Ogbeifun via call or whatsapp +2348102574680 or through his email ogbefunhearlingtemple@gmail.com
Post a Comment