Parenting: The New Sex Trafficking
Munchausen by proxy is a mental illness in which the mother (it's almost always the mother) injures or sickens her own child on purpose for attention and sympathy. Grooming is a crime in which an adult nurtures a child over a long period of time to be open to receiving sexual advances.
American parenting is starting to resemble a terrifying combination of both.
How else to explain why girls are being turned out—groomed for extreme antisocial sexual behavior from a young age—not by pimps, but by their parents and teachers?
When it comes to sex ed, I believe in the screenwriting theory known as
Chekhov's gun: if you show a gun in the first act, it must be fired by the third. If you show kids the sex toys (and worse) in the first grade, the sex toys will be used by high school.
Recently, NPR published "
What Your Teen Wishes You Knew About Sex Education." In the article, we meet Electra McGrath-Skrzydlewski, who made a point of telling her fourth-grade daughter Lily, well, everything. "She was very open from the get-go, even before those were things that I needed to know about," her daughter recounts.
Lily came out as pansexual at age 12.
At an institutional level, we are creating a cursed generation of females expert at every imaginable permutation of sex with an infinite number of partners, while largely shunning the other thing, the main thing, the only thing still emitting any heat in the cold, merciless hearth of contemporary life: the dream of forming a family.
Because the shocking truth is:
No one wants to wife a sex expert.
You Can't Kiss the Bride, She's Been Groomed
One reason American parents—mothers mainly—are rushing their daughters onto the Pill or LARC implants (long-acting reversible contraceptives) is to make sure their offspring are not punished with babies in high school. "I can't possibly stop her from doing what comes naturally, but I
can temporarily sterilize her."
The schools do their part by forcing children into mandatory early sex education classes that often include graphic illustrations of sexual positions and expose even kindergarteners to the infinite array of gender variants and sexual orientations newly discovered in the human genome.
Condom demonstrations on bananas? That's so 1999.
High school sophomores now know how to prepare each other's rectums for "safe anal play," which is pitched as a zesty, natural activity for all genders. In 2019, California approved a terrifying, dystopian
new statewide curriculum that includes a seventh-grade lesson that "identified sexual activities such as bathing together and mutual masturbation as safe options to avoid sexually transmitted diseases."
Whew! I don't know about you, but I'm always relieved when I finish preparing some organic, gluten free, plant-based after-school snacks and discover my sixth-grade daughter in the bath with her classmates! Because, you know, it's much harder to transmit chlamydia in water than through intercourse. Bless you, Governor Newsom!
When it comes to sex ed, I live by a very simple rule: if an adult who is not our pediatrician tries to talk to my child about their genitals, this person's kneecaps should expect to meet my crowbar.
Normal adults do not wish to talk about children's genitals or discuss children having sex with children in front of other children. Everyone knows only priests can do that!
It's actually
not the kiddie porn-adjacent sex ed lessons that bother me the most—instead, it's the constant, ad nauseam emphasis on
dating and relationships. Among middle schoolers!
Another
story about the California curriculum included this: "An eighth-grade lesson on sexual orientation described hypothetical dating scenarios of teenagers. It gave an example of a 'ninth grade guy' who has been attracted to and made out only with girls, but who fell in love with another guy and is in a relationship with him. The couple also date other people, but are both dating only guys."
Hang on: are 13- and 14-year-olds even supposed to be in relationships? With multiple people and genders? Aren't relationships reserved for grownups—or at least much older teenagers? If my middle-schooler tried to talk to me about his or her "relationship" with some other pubescent dork, I'd laugh, ground them, and take away their Nintendo Switch. Haha, looks like you're single now, kid!
Why do AWFLS want their daughters to start dating so early? As anyone who has been involuntarily single can confirm, dating almost always
totally sucks. Why do PARENTS (!) want to extend their child's miserable dating window longer and longer, younger and younger? How many years of soul-destroying "dating" are they willing to subject their kid to? Ten years? Twenty? A lifetime of unfulfilled longing?
Shouldn't parents be guiding children to make their dating windows
as short as possible? Imagine if your entire dating history consisted of one date! It would be like pitching the perfect game in baseball.
We met, went on one date, and that was it.
It all reminds me of the moment when Charlotte from
Sex and the City, the ancient Ur text of eternal white female concubinage, cries out plaintively "I've been dating since I was fifteen! I'm exhausted! Where is he already?"
Poor Charlotte. She tried to warn you, you AWFL women!
