[American Thinker] The reasons for the Left's perverse sexualizing of very young children make sense only if you are sexually neurotic. None of it makes sense if you are a rational, healthy, sexually normal person. For example, what is to be gained by first graders learning about drag queens and transsexuality? How is a child's life improved, how is the culture improved when children whose brains are not physically equipped to process such information get exposed to it? If it is the hope of sexualizers that children will be more accepting of perversity, to what end?
No government-schooled child of any age should be taught matters of sexuality, sexual behavior, or sexual identity beyond the egg-sperm basics. There is no legitimate reason for it. Let's back this truck up and reframe the argument: Instead of settling the debate where conservatives concede "age-appropriateness" ground to the sexualizers, reverse this polluted stream and remove all sexual material from all public and private schools and leave these matters to parents. Conservatives have been far too accommodating on this matter.
Why is the Left so anxious to expose to little kids sexually explicit cartoons of two boys (or one man and one boy) engaging in oral sex, as has been depicted in some schoolbooks? To normalize adult sexuality, normal or perverse, for small children is to tell them that it is normal for them to engage in it at their age. It isn't. This is like putting a boulder on an egg. Kids are eggs, easily molded and more easily scrambled. That makes them perfect victims for pernicious child predators. The same goes for transsexual material. Why groom a child into transsexuality, then try to hide it from parents if it is not wrong? Is this mere prurience or something more deeply malevolent?
We have recently discovered many instances of child grooming in and out of the classroom: Many schools eliminated male/female bathrooms in favor of unisex bathrooms, grooming grounds for perverts. Some men insist on being called women and are entering the locker rooms of women and young girls — starkers — flashing their junk and not batting an eye. Is life so dull for sexualizers that they must create some illicit sizzle? Is sexual bombast the only way for some odious people to feel that their damaged presence in the world has meaning?
Online videos laced with explicit content and profanity have been on the rise. They depict pedophiles luring and fondling small children. A simple search of the internet will pull up many pedophiles (almost always men), caught in the act of trying to engage very young children in sexual encounters on buses, in big box stores and elsewhere. What used to be rare has become commonplace. |