Democrats supporting teaching 7-year-olds about blowjos in school is probably an even better issue for Republicans to politically capitalize on than CRT tbh.
Do Democrats actually support that, though?
The GOP attack on CRT
-
Or maybe you are overthinking it lol. Conservatives are more fearful. So it is easy to manipulate them with scare tactics. It's amazing how many people are afraid of CRT when it is a big nothingburger. Really brilliant tactics by the GOP to get more fundraising TBH.
The planet is literally burning up and Republicans want to makeup some bu11$hit moral panic. COVID needs to wipe them all out.
Did you miss the wht supremacy panic last year? There are two sides in this struggle to shape the American civic religion.
White supremacy, in part, led to 1-6. What has CRT done? That's right, STFU.
You haven�t really thought this through. CRT is advocating for ideas that will lead to more wht supremacy.The Ill-Liberal 4-Step
Step 1: It's not really happening
Step 2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal
Step 3: It's a good thing, actually
Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem
-
Do Democrats actually support that, though?
Yes they do. It's part of the national sex education cur/riculum in the US now that they have to train children how to s/u/c/k c/o/c/k in the name of fighting homophobia. What a disgrace to humanity.Lol this isn’t true but did make me laugh.
-
I saw 2d89 in the grocery store last night. He was digging around in his crack with both hands, then he picked his nose, and then he started eating tuna with his bare hands right out of a can! When I went outside, I saw him loading his groceries (nothing but Beast, tuna, and dry cat food). His car had a Trump/Trump 2022 sticker on it.
-
Lol this isn’t true but did make me laugh.
It's absolutely true, there are hundreds of situations where angry parents have confronted school boards about graphic lessons sexualizing their children. This includes children as young as 5 being trained about a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex -- some of these lessons are indicated as appropriate for children over age 10 (which itself is questionable) but specific school districts have assigned them to even younger children.
It's literally in the National Sex Education Standards that middle school students as a "core concept" are required to "define" in a school test setting a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex. The standards themselves were influenced by "gay rights" institutions and written in order to be "inclusive."
-
It's absolutely true, there are hundreds of situations where angry parents have confronted school boards about graphic lessons sexualizing their children. This includes children as young as 5 being trained about a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex -- some of these lessons are indicated as appropriate for children over age 10 (which itself is questionable) but specific school districts have assigned them to even younger children.
It's literally in the National Sex Education Standards that middle school students as a "core concept" are required to "define" in a school test setting a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex. The standards themselves were influenced by "gay rights" institutions and written in order to be "inclusive."And a 'queer' professor at Yale just published an article in the Boston Review arguing that adults should have g/a/y s/e/x in front of children in public places.
The Democrats are fighting a sexual war against children. -
Lol this isn�t true but did make me laugh.
It's absolutely true, there are hundreds of situations where angry parents have confronted school boards about graphic lessons sexualizing their children. This includes children as young as 5 being trained about a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex -- some of these lessons are indicated as appropriate for children over age 10 (which itself is questionable) but specific school districts have assigned them to even younger children.
It's literally in the National Sex Education Standards that middle school students as a "core concept" are required to "define" in a school test setting a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex. The standards themselves were influenced by "gay rights" institutions and written in order to be "inclusive."man, I know you weren't, but kids are getting it on by middle school, and the ones that aren't are lying about it.
sex ed seems like the only responsible thing to do
-
Lol this isn�t true but did make me laugh.
It's absolutely true, there are hundreds of situations where angry parents have confronted school boards about graphic lessons sexualizing their children. This includes children as young as 5 being trained about a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex -- some of these lessons are indicated as appropriate for children over age 10 (which itself is questionable) but specific school districts have assigned them to even younger children.
It's literally in the National Sex Education Standards that middle school students as a "core concept" are required to "define" in a school test setting a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex. The standards themselves were influenced by "gay rights" institutions and written in order to be "inclusive."man, I know you weren't, but kids are getting it on by middle school, and the ones that aren't are lying about it.
sex ed seems like the only responsible thing to do
-
Lol this isn�t true but did make me laugh.
It's absolutely true, there are hundreds of situations where angry parents have confronted school boards about graphic lessons sexualizing their children. This includes children as young as 5 being trained about a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex -- some of these lessons are indicated as appropriate for children over age 10 (which itself is questionable) but specific school districts have assigned them to even younger children.
It's literally in the National Sex Education Standards that middle school students as a "core concept" are required to "define" in a school test setting a/n/a/l and o/r/a/l sex. The standards themselves were influenced by "gay rights" institutions and written in order to be "inclusive."man, I know you weren't, but kids are getting it on by middle school, and the ones that aren't are lying about it.
sex ed seems like the only responsible thing to do
-
man, I know you weren't, but kids are getting it on by middle school, and the ones that aren't are lying about it.
sex ed seems like the only responsible thing to doStarting a post with, "haha, you are a loser for not having s/e/x at age 11" really is... quite a way to start off an argument about whether deliberate sexualization of young children should happen?
Most children are not engaging in sexual behavior during middle school. Show any survey that indicates otherwise.
Basically all research shows that sexual behavior by children during age range 10-14 is associated with detrimental life impact.
I don't think anyone in this thread said anything against "sex education," but what has changed in the immediate past is that the Democrats now support something euphemistically called "comprehensive sex education" which is designed to be "queer-friendly" by training children how to have o/r/a/l and a/n/a/l sex.A recent meta-analysis shows "comprehensive sex education" is more likely to have harmful than beneficial effect on children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33950605/
-
man, I know you weren't, but kids are getting it on by middle school, and the ones that aren't are lying about it.
sex ed seems like the only responsible thing to do
Starting a post with, "haha, you are a loser for not having s/e/x at age 11" really is... quite a way to start off an argument about whether deliberate sexualization of young children should happen?
Most children are not engaging in sexual behavior during middle school. Show any survey that indicates otherwise.
Basically all research shows that sexual behavior by children during age range 10-14 is associated with detrimental life impact.
I don't think anyone in this thread said anything against "sex education," but what has changed in the immediate past is that the Democrats now support something euphemistically called "comprehensive sex education" which is designed to be "queer-friendly" by training children how to have o/r/a/l and a/n/a/l sex.
A recent meta-analysis shows "comprehensive sex education" is more likely to have harmful than beneficial effect on children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33950605/yeah, I'm not saying I support it, just saying it happens. looking back, I'm glad I didn't get started early, even if I wanted to at the time.
is there research to suggest that sex ed makes kids more likely to have sex? That's what you are assuming.
also, this whole debate seems very 1990s "family values"
-
man, I know you weren't, but kids are getting it on by middle school, and the ones that aren't are lying about it.
sex ed seems like the only responsible thing to do
Starting a post with, "haha, you are a loser for not having s/e/x at age 11" really is... quite a way to start off an argument about whether deliberate sexualization of young children should happen?
Most children are not engaging in sexual behavior during middle school. Show any survey that indicates otherwise.
Basically all research shows that sexual behavior by children during age range 10-14 is associated with detrimental life impact.
I don't think anyone in this thread said anything against "sex education," but what has changed in the immediate past is that the Democrats now support something euphemistically called "comprehensive sex education" which is designed to be "queer-friendly" by training children how to have o/r/a/l and a/n/a/l sex.
A recent meta-analysis shows "comprehensive sex education" is more likely to have harmful than beneficial effect on children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33950605/yeah, I'm not saying I support it, just saying it happens. looking back, I'm glad I didn't get started early, even if I wanted to at the time.
is there research to suggest that sex ed makes kids more likely to have sex? That's what you are assuming.
also, this whole debate seems very 1990s "family values"
-
yeah, I'm not saying I support it, just saying it happens. looking back, I'm glad I didn't get started early, even if I wanted to at the time.
is there research to suggest that sex ed makes kids more likely to have sex? That's what you are assuming.Look at the meta-analysis yourself.
also, this whole debate seems very 1990s "family values"
Present sex ed goes far beyond anything schools were teaching in the 1990s, and basically amounts to structuralized sexual harassment against children by the power structure.
What kind of adult would want to talk to prepubescent children about o/r/a/l s/e/x? What is the plausible reason?