We're not groomers, you are
(media.communities.win)
Comments (49)
sorted by:
I think, just maybe, the groomers might have gone a little further than telling toddlers not to allow adults to touch their no-no place. That's literally all they need to know about sex until they are almost teenagers.
My thoughts exactly. A simple "if anyone touches you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, you should tell a teacher you trust or your parents" is ALL that is needed for any young child, especially those who haven't even hit puberty yet.
If there're any left in that ever-shrinking pool of candidates, I'd straight up just say get parents or police (for as long as the cops aren't part of the grooming in your area)
When grooming gang victims went to the UK police, the police blamed them for enticing the men.
Fucking hell, don't remind me. 40 years of that shit being swept under the rug- exponentially increases my desire to fed post.
Sadly, you're not really wrong.
One of the key points of groomers is preying on the fact that kids don't know what they should and shouldn't have as boundaries.
Groomers want to show pornography to children. And then they will say, "That man in the TV show let the other man touch his peepee. This is normal. Let me touch your peepee." That's why they are so insistent on having smut in childrens material
Mfw when sonic is a better teacher than most teachers nowadays
Didn't Sonic told us just that decades ago?
Exactly. And the parents can handle that part. It doesn't need to involve some gender-queer teacher who doesn't even understand their own sex/gender.
Turning toddler into trannies is not sex ed.
I found this on Facebook. The poster had deleted any comment asking if he knew what was in the books for these children.
This is a wonderful tactic though. The declaration of helping is hard to fight. If you think you're helping, you will go really far, or feel satisfied.
I dare to ask what half baked study they linked to support their claims showing sexual education starting at 5 years old prevents abuse?
By "sex education" they mean "don't let people touch your no-no areas." They equate that with "hey kids, want some puberty blockers?" It's Motte and Bailey, as usual.
They just pretend all bad things didn't occur, or are already over, so it doesn't matter anymore.
is called motte and bailey argument.
in public they claim they want to teach kids sexual education for their protection
in private they bring forward their gender theory that fits their agenda
the same way they claim CRT is teaching kids about slavery.
do not stop them now, and in 12-15 years you will be fighting the "kids can consent because the school teaches them about sex" crowd
I doubt it will be that long.
And there is truth to what they say; teaching children about their body parts, puberty, and why kids can't have sex with adults is important.
But they're also admitting, in a roundabout way, that these groomers are not simply "teaching sex ed".
But if they don't know what a cleaveland steamer is, how will they know that it's innapropriate?
Gaslighting 101.
By the way, creepy Halloween queer, what's being taught to children about gender?
Public schools really need to back off and these liberal freaks need to stop imagining they know children better than their own parents do.
A PS teacher's role regarding a child's home life should be limited to discussing his progress in his studies with his parents and alerting CPS of any apparent physical abuse or malnutrition. Period. Sex ed (so called) should be limited to lessons on human reproduction, without indoctrination regarding sexuality, no earlier than 7th grade.
"and these liberal freaks need to stop imagining they know children better than their own parents do."
These faggots don't have any kids. That's why they are grooming yours.
I have been told kids need sex ed because they will "have sex anyway, better if they are safe". So what is it now? Just for adults?
What, in pre-school?
I have heard them claim that SOME kids will do (because they are abused, but that doesn't matter), so all need to hear about ass-to-mouth and troonery.
Sex ed is one thing, and there's an argument to be made for teaching students of a certain age about how their bodies work. But there is no reason to teach very young children this stuff, nor is there a reason to teach explicit information that isn't actually sex ed.
I would even argue that teaching older kids about physiology with regard to their own bodies should be the preserve of parents. I don't want the schools, and by extension the government, anywhere near it.
The purview of formal education should be strictly limited to academic subjects. Not only should "sex ed" not be a thing, but neither should nutrition, dietary instruction or any kind of lifestyle advice. All of this nonsense wormed its way into the curriculum because teachers and school administrators gradually got the notion into their heads that they could be better at parenting than the actual parents. This is an idea that needs to be burned out of the school system with fire.
Yep, I think that's it.
Schools are failing to teach science, math, language, history, music, and everything else they've actually been tasked with.
Why should we assume they are in any way able to impart life lessons?
You can claim this online all day, but in real life reality is everyone has an anti-incest aversion to discussing sexual topics with their own children.
I guess you could argue the more kids the better, but everyone is uncomfortable talking about sex with their parents.
You probably have a point, although I would argue that kids should be just as uncomfortable talking about sex with any adult, and that discomfort probably exists for good evolutionary reasons.
Parents should still be the ones who decide when these conversations are appropriate, and how they should take place.
Even if you argue that the idea of "sex ed" in schools for adolescents is in principle a good idea, and I can see where you're coming from, in practice we know that if you give these institutions an inch, they'll take a mile.
The most practical solution as far as I can see is to just implement a zero-tolerance policy on teachers talking about sex to their students.
Interesting how [almost] nothing he rattles off there is the reason we are calling them groomers.
https://www.montclair.edu/newscenter/2020/12/14/experts-sex-education-should-begin-in-kindergarten/
I found the original post, and here is the study the poster says backs up their idea. Enjoy.
It seems the main benefit of early sex education is creating more alphabet people. Wonderful.
These people are perverts all you need to tell kids is don't let people touch below the belt or anything else mind numbingly simple cause it's been working fine for years and it's these pedos that are the problem not the education they (used to)get
The fact they cannot differentiate between base sexuality and fetishes/psychology is a problem.
Even if this was true (which it’s not), this is the parents responsibility, not the governments. Government cannot replace parents, nor should it even attempt to do so.
And what part of any of this requires teaching six year olds about masturbation?
None of it.
All a child needs to know is that adults who touch their privates and say 'this will b our little secret', are bad, bad news.
This would absolutely be true if we were talking about Sex Ed that was happening 30 years ago, where the only thing being identified to teens was basic anatomy.
But that's not what's happening. We're talking about 6 year olds being taught to unquestionably accept Queer Revolutionary principles.
I guess they do not understand the concept of "DOING IT WRONG!".
The ABC strategy is the least controversial in my opinion.
No one gets mad over anything that doesn't work, see: chud.
"We want access to your children so we can molest and groom them, but only to protect them from being molested and groomed."
Gold medalist in mental gymnastics. You know when school shootings happen, and people become hyperfocused about what could have been done to protect the children? Why can't we do that with mutants committing sexual assault on children? Victims suffer long-term consequences from that. One of those consequences is continuing the cycle of abuse.
Listen to this fag.