Per InstaPundit, the Left is up in arms because conservatives are referring to the forced sexualization of five, six and seven year old children in the public schools as “grooming.” You can always tell when we have hit on an effective theme: the Left declares it out of bounds. John Nolte has more, beginning with a response to David French, who likened the forced sexualization of small children to Donald Trump participating in a Playboy video. Right. Whatever the topic, talk about Trump instead. Links in the original are omitted here:
[I]f discussing sex with little kids behind their parents’ backs is not grooming, what is?
Nothing is.
Of course, it’s grooming, but French can’t call it that, for if he does, CNN and MSNBC and The Atlantic might stop asking him to come aboard to signal his own awesome virtue.
And French is not the only Never Trumper who has come out of the closet as a grooming enabler.
Here’s the Bulwark.
Wow. Here’s more from the Bulwark.
Oh, my, groomers really do have a great friend over at the Bulwark.
More:
Decent people do not discuss sex with prepubescent kids who are not their own. Why? Because discussing sex with little kids behind their parents’ backs is called grooming.
There’s no other word for it.
That’s what it is.
It’s grooming little kids into sexual beings ripe for exploitation.
I actually have a pretty clear memory of my kindergarten through third grade years at Mellette Elementary School in Watertown, South Dakota. I don’t know, maybe we were a bunch of rubes. But I don’t recall a single reference by any of my teachers to sex–any kind of sex, let alone the deviant kinds. And I don’t think it occurred to us kids that we were missing out. I am pretty sure that if a teacher had started talking to kids of that age about her sex life, or theirs, she would have been quickly hustled out the door. But that would have been unthinkable and was never thought of.
Of all the evil things liberals are doing these days, trying to sexualize small children has to be high on the list. It makes me think we need an anti-grooming movement. Allie Beth Stuckey nicely turns liberal tactics to a more worthy end:
It’s not enough to be not a groomer. One must be actively anti-grooming. Those who defend themselves against accusations of grooming are simply expressing Groomer Fragility. They harbor secret groomer traits & must be shown the ways they’ve benefited from a systemic grooming.
— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) April 6, 2022
Silence is violence when it comes to the grooming of children. Unless you are actively working to dismantle the systems of grooming, you are upholding the institutions that have oppressed children for centuries. It’s time to listen & learn. Know better so you can do better.
— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) April 6, 2022
Get educated on this, but also don’t make those of us doing this work expend any more energy than we have to by teaching you. Resources on this stuff abound. I recommend starting with the brave @libsoftiktok to see how what this system of grooming looks like.
— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) April 6, 2022
Much more here
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.