Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Teaching gender ideology as curriculum to kids under 12 is creepy, and the motives are obvious to the non subverted.
⫸Trans and LGBTQIA+ Discussion⫷
- Thread starter Lovecraft
- Start date
- Status
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
It’s this type of belligerence that keeps these people in power. No one gives af about trans folx, I feel for their plight. Children under twelve dont need to know about the intricacies of your sexual preferences. Full stop. Let’s leave it for tumblr and every other facet of society
Electrum1
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
- Messages
- 29,170
Really makes me wonder why it's so important to the LGBT movement/community to influence other people's children.
Why don't drag queens read LGBT books to adults, instead of elementary aged children in a school library? Why do they want an audience of young children so much?
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Honestly lgbt people are victims, they are just golems to the establishment elites. Either the banks just really cares about the .004% of the population, or they have other motives. Def leaning the latter, but I am pretty jaded.
nepalnt21
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2016
- Messages
- 2,598
belligerence?
me asking what you are even talking about is belligerence?
why can't you expound on what you mean by "gender ideology" and what exactly schools are teaching?
to me that's belligerence... skipping an honest question and going on a rant.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Teaching about any sexual shit to young children as curriculum. The specifics don’t matter, but what ive seen is super creepy. And I don’t consider myself a prude or care what gets people off. Just stop grooming kids with this ideology, I’m good with it in all other places.
bird.is.the.word
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2022
- Messages
- 490
Is there any evidence that being open about sex with kids is harmful?
Electrum1
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
- Messages
- 29,170
Of course being open about having sex with kids is harmful
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Lol these people think drag shows for kids is informative and positive, when non subverted people are simply horrified.
Bagseed
Bluelighter
ffs why can't you stop using antisemite code?
Mr. Krinkle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 29,424
For the record Golems are not anti semite code.
They are actually part of the metaphysical part of the Mosiac tradition and mentioned in several books in Kabbalah studies. They are soulless creatures fashioned from clay.
So that makes them very semite, just not widely known
Bagseed
Bluelighter
I get what you're saying but in the context, he uses it as something under the control of "the bankers" by which he obviously means "the jews".
sorry for offtopic, but droppersneck never actually engages in discussion but uses every topic to rant about his fringe antisemitic conspiracy believes and it gets old fast.
Las Veghost grower
Bluelighter
Talking sex with really young children , just more proof how disturbingly sick the left has become, and people actually buy the bullshit they sell
unodelacosa
Bluelighter
I've never seen any evidence from a clinical trial, journal, or peer-reviewed academic paper, but if you dig deeply enough, there's probably some Victorian-era prude psychologist with claims of something along those lines, at least. Probably some wacko Bible-banger clinicians in there as well.
However, how does one define "harmful" in this context? In some people's minds, prepubescent children should not know anything about sex at all. At the other end of the spectrum there are isolated, indigenous tribes in the Americas, for example, whose couples make no effort to censor their sexual activity from their children. They see it as: 1.) it's natural, 2.) how else would they learn how to do it?, and 3.) sooner or later they'll see animals doing it anyway. It's pretty good logic and incidents of problematic and harmful sexual behavior, rape, incest, etc. are purportedly dramatically lower than in the rest of the surrounding countries' society and there's virtually no child sexual abuse or obvious sexual dysfunction in their culture. Correlation does not prove causation, and there are other factors at play of course, but it's still interesting to consider.
There's a certain Judeo-Christian guilt model and a Victorian prudishness at play in the western world. There's also this c®apitalist™ concept of stealing our sexuality from us when we're kids so they can sell it back to us when we're teens and young adults in the form sexual-innuendo laced marketing and advertising strategy. After all, sex sells and it sells well. That's why it's so often used in advertisements – it works. They steal sex from you when you're a kid to sell it back to you when you're an adult.
As to the anti-trans and LGBTQ sentiment rationale, I think it differs from case to case. For some it's fear of the unknown. For others, it's about the discomfort it gives them when/if they have to discuss it with their children. Usually this indicates a close-minded, cowardly dipshit with a horrible relationship with their child and a lack of communication skills necessary for good parenting, but I admit that's maybe a little judgmental of me to say. Everyone is a product of their respective environment. It wasn't that long ago being gay was seen as an unacceptable/sinful sexual perversion by most of society.
And then for others still, it has to do with their religion, or sometimes it's a burnt-in impression of homophobia and gay/trans-hate they learned from the observation of someone they admired at an early age and the impression stuck. Occasionally someone is molested/abused by a person of the same sex and this causes them to blame and hate people attracted to others of the same sex, despite the correlation being a mere coincidence… i.e. among child-molestors and non-molesters there are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. orientations. It isn't being gay that causes pedophilia no more than there's anything particular to Catholic priesthood that causes pedophilia either. It's the fact that priests aren't expected to marry that caused it to become seen to child molesters as a safe-haven without pressure or expectation to marry.
I think for some people, it's a simple matter of them not liking the aesthetic of an effeminate man. They don't care for men with the sassy attitude and vernacular of an urban black woman, nor do they care for the style of a man dressed in women's clothing. Some find it unsettling when they see signs that usually indicate femininity but are interrupted by signs of masculinity and manhood. They might notice long, flowing hair, earrings, and long lashes amid a squared jaw, subtle brow profile, and Adam's apple that usually implies the person is male. Societal trends of asking people for their preferred pronouns are seen as obnoxious, unnecessary and overly politically correct.
Then there's the issue of sports league participation rules and olympic athletic records. For example, it's a heated topic discussing whether or not to allow competitive sports participation, and in what notated form, for someone gender-assigned male at birth—and then, post puberty and once into adulthood, this person has a gender reassignment, changes their given name into a feminine form, and identifies with feminine pronouns. Or let's say at that point, this person with "reassigned gender" gets into MMA, or any sport where having upper body strength gives a clear advantage. Well, higher testosterone grants men (defined here as those with an X and a Y chromosome) certain athletic advantages, especially during puberty when muscle mass, bone density, body frame, weight distribution, and reaction time are all increased and defined (to be fair, women are generally more intelligent than men, have a greater aptitude for empathy and understanding, have a much higher pain threshold, mature more quickly, and are more peaceful people; I want to be clear that women and men are not physiologically identical, but every human is worthy of equal human respect regardless of any differences, typical, stereotypical, or otherwise).
Physically speaking, it would be unfair for a woman in competitive sports to train while taking steroids such as testosterone enanthate. That's why most leagues ban it. So I think there's concern that being assigned male at birth, reaping the rewards of having increased testosterone during puberty, reassigning your gender and then competing against women assigned female at birth can easily be seen as a similar form of unfair advantage. And yet there are trans people who demand society see them as a "woman" or a "man", and definitely not a "trans woman" or "trans man", despite physical signs of the opposite. This person is offended by the suggestion that this misunderstanding is natural, but this is an extreme position, and most trans people I've encountered are really laid back and forgiving whenever people slip up into a PC faux pas, and they don't mind identifying as trans.
Personally I can see both sides of the argument, and I somewhat understand why anti-trans people feel uncomfortable, but I don't sympathize with anti-gay notions, people who want to stand in the way of love, those who harbor a true, hateful phobia of trans and gay people, and I tend to side with the philosophy of live and let live.
spot on. the discussion is meaningless without some definition of the terms.
what is the nature of the discussion? kids? how old specifically? and, yes, define harm.
bird asked for evidence. "of course..." is not evidence.
alasdair
unodelacosa
Bluelighter
Firstly, there's no need to lump together all liberals as holding every view and moral you oppose. I promise there are a shit ton of liberal parents who do not approve of speaking to young children about sex. Not every topic is political. Not everything "this or that". There is too much division in the world, too much "us versus them".
Secondly, consider: it's not the topic that matters so much as the actual content and message. Kids observe their world and have questions. Being tactfully truthful is important. This has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal, and certainly has almost nothing to do with fiscal policies, which is what really matters in politics; everything else is a distraction. And it's obvious both sides pander. Opt out.
I think it's smart for parents to talk to their kids about sex in an honest way. Young children can be clued into generalities but probably don't need excessive details so as not to put disproportionate emphasis on the subject. But knowledge is power and kids can be armed with enough knowledge to understand what to watch out for and have a healthy respect for the proper place sex has in society. I feel this is pretty important to understand.
The two political philosophy groups of the U.S., the political left and political right, are not inherently "disturbed" or "sick"; please don't be confused into thinking this. It's important to have respect for both ends of the political spectrum b/c we need both sides to keep the other in check. We need liberals to draw some limits and keep things from spinning out of control. Liberals get govt. programs going, and conservatives check them for efficiency and necessity, and they kill off dead weight. Liberals have the far-out imaginations and visions while conservatives are the realists who keep them grounded and make the visions into something realizable instead of having their heads in the clouds. Conservatives keep the liberals from over-regulating the shit out of everything and over-funding bad ideas with idiotic and wasteful strategies. It's a balance. In WWII, the U.S. needed Einstein as much as MacArthur.
But conservatives also need the liberals to keep them in check as well. Someone to look out for civil rights and to get government funding going. They need liberals to challenge their limits and help them expand their minds to some extent, not get bogged down in outdated, old-fashioned thinking that could hamper progress and their own happiness. Conservatives pave the way for big business to excel and pump up national GDP, while liberals make sure the workers are properly represented and have a voice and someone to fight for their rights if needed. If they didn't, the corporations would fail due to the misery of the working class. Both views are not just welcomed but they're encouraged. The fact that we've tolerated both ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum is what makes countries with this balance—like the U.S.—worthy of respect, though of course never free from criticism as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
So what I'm saying is: teaching children the basic facts of human reproduction and sexuality in a non-prurient way is not wrong or bad. Talking sexually with children is immoral and illegal. There is a big difference between talking about sex and talking sexually and that should be pretty obvious to most people and potentially worrisome if someone cannot understand what is meant by this. I think the media tends to train us to make every topic about politics, and I'm asking you to please avoid this impulse. Don't let all these pundits trick you into thinking this is a political super bowl match where only one team can win. Please don't stop being conservative, just remember to see political rivals as still being your fellow human beings. We're all on the same side, and none of us are getting out of this world alive. Political ideology has nothing to do with child abuse.
Last edited:
bird.is.the.word
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2022
- Messages
- 490
It was commonplace in many native American communities to take sex slaves from other tribes. I don't think data in remote indigenous communities is reliable.
I know numerous people who were raised by hippies around sex and nudity and they're all super well rounded individuals.
I honestly think talking about sex is good from any age.
Weirdly, people don't seem to have an issue exposing their kids to violence... But consensual sex is unacceptable.
Mal (or was it defeciT) and others said in the new homophobia thread that it's traumatic for children to see an unerect adult penis. That's crazy imo. I'm surprised how conservative the views are here. I expected BL to be more progressive about this stuff.
Maybe split to another thread?
Last edited:
unodelacosa
Bluelighter
Fair point to consider.
That's what I'm saying.
Right. Or like that GTA 3 hidden "Hot Coffee" mini-game that was such a scandal, whether manufactured or not. That fact that shitty, low polygon nudity was more offensive than the unbelievable hyper-violence on which the game is predicated really is striking.
Seriously? Somebody wasn't just fucking with you perhaps? So Michelangelo's sculpture David and his painting on the Sistine Chapel is traumatic to children? Leonardo's Vitruvian Man traumatizes kids? Amor Vincit Omnia by Caravaggio causing PTSD in young minds? God I hope someone's just playing around. That's being too goddamn sensitive for sure. And what? Make sure kids never see horses or male dogs? Are we supposed to put clothing over male dogs' privates? Lol
Yeah I think there is a conservative contingency made up of reformed former libertines deliberately living what they see now as an "amoral life". At their core and with respect to social philosophy, they tend to be conservative. You've also got to consider that the site is of Australian origin and there is a strong and persistent presence of political conservatives in Australia, both fiscally and socially. It's sometimes hard to be aware of just how many people there are who subscribe to an opposing political ideology to your own. Personally I think some progressive notions are in fact conservative in nature depending on your outlook. But that's like saying everything is relative, which is mostly only true in West Virginia (ah thank you)…
Last edited:
- Status