"Groomer" Hate Speak and the usual suspects! Fascinating.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Indeed. And that's not even getting into their fondness for child marriage (often tied to their religious beliefs) or the fact that 28 Republicans voted against the Respect for Child Survivors Act recently, with a number of them also being the same people throwing around the groomer accusation, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, to score points with their voter base.

This is the same party that proposed legislation to lower the age of consent, and remove the age requirement from marriage.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Remember, every conservative accusation is a confession. They label LGBTQ people "groomers" to distract from the fact that they are the ones ****ing children.

No child has been molested by a drag queen or at a gay bar, but thousands have been molested by pastors and in churches.

I think that number is well beyond just the thousands.

Think about the ones we don't hear about, the ones the churches managed to cover up. Or don't think about it, because it's true nastiness.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think that number is well beyond just the thousands.

Think about the ones we don't hear about, the ones the churches managed to cover up. Or don't think about it, because it's true nastiness.

It's a legit pedo apocalypse and the Right keeps quiet about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a legit pedo apocalypse and the Right keeps quiet about it.

Yeah, meant the Right around the globe

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Remember, every conservative accusation is a confession. They label LGBTQ people "groomers" to distract from the fact that they are the ones ****ing children.

No child has been molested by a drag queen or at a gay bar, but thousands have been molested by pastors and in churches.

Every conservative is bad? Hypocrites is the right term and these people can be found anywhere.

LGBTQ+ types will also try to groom very young teens in an enabling environment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63785679

I am positive that numerous LGBTQ+ grooming attempts are not reported or these accounts never make it to mainstream media. I recall a man (a teacher) who tried to groom me but failed. He was a good teacher but he mistook my friendly demeanor for opportunity. I did not report him but blocked him and I learned at some point later that he was laid off by the university management. It is possible that somebody else reported him. This case was handled internally.

Gay men will take interest in other men, right? How the line is drawn?
Lesbian women will take interest in other women, right? How the line is drawn?

Queer identity does not work in isolation either. These people feel the need to fit in male spaces (or) female spaces as noted in following case study:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/opinion/trans-athlete-swimming.html

This was the case of a woman transitioning to a man and it worked out.

But what about men identifying themselves as women and seeking access to women spaces? Putting self-proclaimed Trans-women in female spaces can go wrong:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/12-december/ex-inmate-gives-account-of-sex-assault-by-trans-prisoner

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

The self-proclaimed Trans-woman (Stephen Wood) took advantage of the system [self-identification laws] in UK and assaulted multiple women in an enabling environment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11458335/Male-female-Trans-inmates-drive-rising-numbers-rapes-abuse-womens-prisons.html

Australian perspective:

https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/rape_victim_fights_back_after_a_trans_identified_male_was_given

This is why biological screening is important and should take precedence over poorly-conceived self-identification laws.

If a Trans-woman is not comfortable in the company of men then it would be better to grant him space of his own until relevant medical procedures are applied and his biological transition is complete.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, meant the Right around the globe

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Every conservative is bad? Hypocrites is the right term and these people can be found anywhere.

LGBTQ+ types will also try to groom very young teens in an enabling environment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63785679

I am positive that numerous LGBTQ+ grooming attempts are not reported or these accounts never make it to mainstream media. I recall a man (a teacher) who tried to groom me but failed. He was a good teacher but he mistook my friendly demeanor for opportunity. I did not report him but blocked him and I learned at some point later that he was laid off by the university management. It is possible that somebody else reported him. This case was handled internally.

Gay men will take interest in other men, right? How the line is drawn?
Lesbian women will take interest in other women, right? How the line is drawn?

Queer identity does not work in isolation either. These people feel the need to fit in male spaces (or) female spaces as noted in following case study:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/opinion/trans-athlete-swimming.html

This was the case of a woman transitioning to a man and it worked out.

But what about men identifying themselves as women and seeking access to women spaces? Putting self-proclaimed Trans-women in female spaces can go wrong:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/12-december/ex-inmate-gives-account-of-sex-assault-by-trans-prisoner

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

The self-proclaimed Trans-woman (Stephen Wood) took advantage of the system [self-identification laws] in UK and assaulted multiple women in an enabling environment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11458335/Male-female-Trans-inmates-drive-rising-numbers-rapes-abuse-womens-prisons.html

Australian perspective:

https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/rape_victim_fights_back_after_a_trans_identified_male_was_given

This is why biological screening is important and should take precedence over poorly-conceived self-identification laws.

If a Trans-woman is not comfortable in the company of men then it would be better to grant him space of his own until relevant medical procedures are applied and his biological transition is complete.

You're speaking to a wall friend.

You remember the infamous Duke Lacrosse rape case? When the accuser was outed as a liar, did the Rolling Stone forum posters express any concern for the accused? Or did they condemn the accuser?

Of course not, they were crying about the effects on actual victims.

Which is the same to say they wished the innocent would be convicted, to protect the victims of genuine rape cases. After all they're privileged white men, they have less to lose so take one for the team!

This is how Rob, Whirly, Bash, and their cohorts all think. You can NOT reason with them, they will always rationalize against any argument you can make.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Gay men will take interest in other men, right? How the line is drawn?
Lesbian women will take interest in other women, right? How the line is drawn?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Is this the best you can do? Trolling clown.

Attraction to the opposite sex is commonly expected biological realization (credited to kisspeptin hormone in biological terms), and boys are taught HOW to interact with (and treat) girls by parents at home and/or by teachers in schools. This is "cultural necessity" around the world.

Attraction to the same sex is uncommon biological? realization (i.e., the so-called gay gene is unproven), but people can be stimulated to this effect with encouraging social and environmental factors. Health-related concerns notwithstanding.

How the line is drawn? It can be drawn legally with sensible legislation. I have pointed out the risk of granting self-proclaimed Trans-women access to female spaces with several examples in my previous post. I have also pointed out the risk of "grooming" from the LGBTQ+ types with two examples in my previous post - it would be helpful to create awareness in this respect. But Leftists will choose to ignore these issues on the pretext of inclusivity.

The line can also be culturally drawn. Go out and hit on multiple men in Public spaces and let me know how it went for you. Here is a glimpse:

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-kyiv-lgbt-video-attack/27150912.html

It would be better to restrict this "practice" to so-called gay bars.

Originally posted by cdtm
You're speaking to a wall friend.

You remember the infamous Duke Lacrosse rape case? When the accuser was outed as a liar, did the Rolling Stone forum posters express any concern for the accused? Or did they condemn the accuser?

Of course not, they were crying about the effects on actual victims.

Which is the same to say they wished the innocent would be convicted, to protect the victims of genuine rape cases. After all they're privileged white men, they have less to lose so take one for the team!

This is how Rob, Whirly, Bash, and their cohorts all think. You can NOT reason with them, they will always rationalize against any argument you can make.

Thanks. 👆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

😂

Groomer is yet another term that has become so overused by the right wing social warrior retards that it has essentially lost its meaning. It used to mean manipulating a child to make them easier to molest and abuse, now it just means teaching a child of the reality that gay people exist and should be treated with respect.

Originally posted by BackFire
Groomer is yet another term that has become so overused by the right wing social warrior retards that it has essentially lost its meaning. It used to mean manipulating a child to make them easier to molest and abuse, now it just means teaching a child of the reality that gay people exist and should be treated with respect.

Why does that need to include drawings of sexual intercourse or felito?

One does not need to see physical intimacy to be accepting. I personally find guy on guy sex disgusting, yet would not begrudge equal liberties under law. Doesn't mean I want to see a guy suck another guy off.

Yet kids are shown exactly that.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
😂

I am just responding with the level of discourse his stupidity deserves.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am just responding with the level of discourse his stupidity deserves.

Grooming is a legit social problem and it has no bearing on one's political inclinations, you clown.

Originally posted by cdtm
Why does that need to include drawings of sexual intercourse or felito?

One does not need to see physical intimacy to be accepting. I personally find guy on guy sex disgusting, yet would not begrudge equal liberties under law. Doesn't mean I want to see a guy suck another guy off.

Yet kids are shown exactly that.

Where is that happening?

Originally posted by cdtm
Not just tell, but graphically show.

That's the controversy, some of the books show graphic displays of erections, fondling, sex, felito, anal..

They never went that far in sex ed when I went to school, if they had there would have been the same response we're seeing now from some parents.

Children are vulnerable to grooming and exploitation by [closet] sexual deviants who can be found in any environment. Parents can decide [when] to make their children aware about sexuality. Education institutes should consult parents in this regard if they want to take responsibility. You will not get this unless you are a parent.

Politically motivated grooming is a problem as well.

https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-rise...iberal-groomer/

Nor is paedophilia unique to the progressive Left. Just this week, Tory MP Imran Ahmad Khan was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy, prompting fellow Tory MP and LGBTQ advocate Crispin Blunt to declare angrily that Khan’s conviction was a “dreadful miscarriage of justice” and “nothing short of an international scandal”.

But it’s also true that since the sexual revolution, there has been a knocking on the door of progressive respectability by individuals with an intense interest in assisting the sexual development of children, and sometimes — as in the case of Foucault — questionable motives for doing so. Such activists invariably come armed with the logic of liberalism: using phrases such as “agency”, “consent” and “education”. The resulting queasy blend of pleasure, freedom, education and adolescence burst into flames this week, with news of a theatre production, The Family Sex Show, coming to Bristol that offers “relationships and sex education” supposedly suitable for ages five and up.

Cue public outrage, Mumsnet up in arms, and a petition to scrap the show that at the time of writing has more than 30,000 signatures. It’s a homegrown British version of an increasingly ferocious front in the American culture war in which both sides are entrenched, and convinced of their own righteousness. On one side stand those who argue for ever more extensive sex education in the name of LGBTQ youth and sexual emancipation in general. On the other stand those claiming to defend the authority of parents over their children, which they argue represents children’s best protection against inappropriate adult sexual attention.

So far, this war has raged with characteristically American vigour. Recent examples are legion: Texans in uproar_about “pornographic books” in schools; school masturbation lessons for six-year-olds; drag queens on Nickelodeon. American conservatives are now pushing back at this efflorescence of sex chat for children, calling the vanguards of kid-friendly sexual emancipation “groomers”. On a practical front, conservative states have seen a spate of legislation constraining (or seeking to constrain) the nature and extent of sexual content that may legally be delivered to children in schools.

mmm

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Children are vulnerable to grooming and exploitation by [closet] sexual deviants who can be found in any environment. Parents can decide [when] to make their children aware about sexuality. Education institutes should consult parents in this regard if they want to take responsibility. You will not get this unless you are a parent.

Politically motivated grooming is a problem as well.

https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-rise...iberal-groomer/

Nor is paedophilia unique to the progressive Left. Just this week, Tory MP Imran Ahmad Khan was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy, prompting fellow Tory MP and LGBTQ advocate Crispin Blunt to declare angrily that Khan’s conviction was a “dreadful miscarriage of justice” and “nothing short of an international scandal”.

But it’s also true that since the sexual revolution, there has been a knocking on the door of progressive respectability by individuals with an intense interest in assisting the sexual development of children, and sometimes — as in the case of Foucault — questionable motives for doing so. Such activists invariably come armed with the logic of liberalism: using phrases such as “agency”, “consent” and “education”. The resulting queasy blend of pleasure, freedom, education and adolescence burst into flames this week, with news of a theatre production, The Family Sex Show, coming to Bristol that offers “relationships and sex education” supposedly suitable for ages five and up.

Cue public outrage, Mumsnet up in arms, and a petition to scrap the show that at the time of writing has more than 30,000 signatures. It’s a homegrown British version of an increasingly ferocious front in the American culture war in which both sides are entrenched, and convinced of their own righteousness. On one side stand those who argue for ever more extensive sex education in the name of LGBTQ youth and sexual emancipation in general. On the other stand those claiming to defend the authority of parents over their children, which they argue represents children’s best protection against inappropriate adult sexual attention.

So far, this war has raged with characteristically American vigour. Recent examples are legion: Texans in uproar_about “pornographic books” in schools; school masturbation lessons for six-year-olds; drag queens on Nickelodeon. American conservatives are now pushing back at this efflorescence of sex chat for children, calling the vanguards of kid-friendly sexual emancipation “groomers”. On a practical front, conservative states have seen a spate of legislation constraining (or seeking to constrain) the nature and extent of sexual content that may legally be delivered to children in schools.

mmm

Just google them, it has nothing to do with homosexuality and all to do with a culture of abuse among highly priveledged schools.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yeah, the important thing here is they are both Tory's. Their behaviour stens from their priveledged schooling and possible treatment therein, also the close tie to the church may affect things. Despite his name Khan went to Silcoates School (A Christian Independent School with a sexually scandalous history https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/07/12/scandal-hit-private-school-has-transformed-beyond-recognition--headmaster/) and Blunt to wellington college (a very priveledged Christian Private school also full of sex scandals https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/07/12/scandal-hit-private-school-has-transformed-beyond-recognition--headmaster/)

Just google them, it has nothing to do with homosexuality and all to do with a culture of abuse among highly priveledged schools.