Counselor arrested for sexual misconduct with student organized school's first drag show

I'm shocked. Who could have foreseen this?

 

Exactly, even comically sexual...........................but SEXUAL none the less. What folly to say otherwise and the key the teacher ENGAGED SEXUALLY with the student.

 

You think that men dressed up as women is sexy?

 

The main element of the OP is about a straight woman and a straight male. Which straight guys like to attend drag shows?

 

Yes, it seems to be the latest fashion in the false slanders that conservatives use in the ongoing campaigns of calumny that have replaced actual substantive discussion of real political issues among these intellectual bankrupts

 

Oh la la!

 

worse, she (or is it they) is a counselor at the school

 

I think men dressing up as women are motivated to look sexy and provocative. I doubt any wear comfortable frumpy moo moo dresses like actual women do.

 

You got the wrong picture

 

There’s nothing sexy about 8 years olds………except to perverts.

 

I did what you recommended, Google the word "groomer", and in addition to grooming animals and people, I came up with the following:

"What is a groomer crime?"

EXCERPT "Adults who build stable and trusting relationships with a child under 18 for the purpose of sexually assaulting the minor are considered groomers. As such, you could face state and federal charges for child grooming if the alleged victim is under 15. Oftentimes, child groomers have existing relationships with a victim.Jul 14, 2021" CONTINUED

Since the English language is so adaptable, it looks like "grooming" is becoming synonymous with influencing, cultivating, seducing, shaping etc.

Thanks,

 

While I respect your effort to look it up, my suggestion was to look up what grooming means. Thus, your result (using "grooming crime") is an example of my complaint about how the word is being misused lately.

My point is simply that this is very dangerous and will result in the very thing Republicans claim they are fighting against - children being sexually abused.

 

Why don't you try elaborating on your thought process there rather than just telling people "go Google it"? HOW do you think that calling people who sexually abuse children "groomers" is going to result in children being sexually abused? Because on its face, that sounds insane. It sounds like you're arguing the equivalent of "don't call murderers 'murderers' because it's dangerous and will result in murders", but for child molesters.

 

I know they are being overtly sexual.

 

I think that you're right however I also think that most people will understand the difference between what is commonly meant by "grooming" and the more malevolent sort of influencing, "grooming" by the context in which it is used.

 

I think you are misunderstanding my point, Grau.

Do you recall the Epstein and Maxwell cases? Maxwell was a groomer. Her role was to scout for children and women and befriend them for the purpose of leading them into sexual exploitation and abuse. I have not read anything that indicated that she, herself, sexually abused those she exploited or that she is a pedophile or bisexual so I'm assuming none of those things are true. Her ONLY role was recruiting and supplying new victims for her clients.

Contextually, pedophiles are not necessarily groomers and groomers are not necessarily pedophiles.

Pedophiles are people that prey upon minors (legally under the age of 18 in the US) for their own sexual desires.
Groomers are people that recruit people for pedophiles. [Note: This doesn't just apply to minors].

Yes, a person can be both but that is not typically the way it works as we saw in the Epstein/Maxwell cases.

Therefore, the current way that "grooming" is being thrown around is reckless because it is creating a red herring. People are becoming suspicious of ALL teachers and completely ignoring all the other roles that adults have in children's daily lives where they could also be vulnerable. If the argument is that all teachers are now suspicious, shouldn't that include everyone that works in our schools, day care facilities, after-school programs and everywhere else? It simply makes no sense to vilify teachers with a very malicious (and misused) label while all the other people our children are exposed to are left out.

The best example we have of how that will "look" decades from now is what has happened within the Catholic church. Many people aren't aware of it but one of the selling points for joining the priesthood was to help young men fight against their homosexual feelings with the idea that if one is abstinent that would just magically go away. Then, add in centuries of religious beliefs so people put their religious leaders on pedestals and countless other players, including the Pope and other RCC leaders, nuns and church personnel willing to ignore the problem and we get exactly what is being exposed now.

• How would that look if people stopped demonizing non-heterosexuality? People struggling with that would not need to hide, sneak around, pretend they are something else.

• How would that look if people didn't put other fallible humans on pedestals? People would not blindly trust that someone is safe JUST because of their job title (and the converse - people are not NOT safe just because of their job title).

As a child abuse advocate, it's very troubling for me because I see the fallout of what this kind of haphazard labeling does and I believe if more people understood what this will lead to by educating themselves about what happens when our political leaders manipulate us with these red herrings and false categorizations, we can truly fight against a system that is basically ignoring our truly missing and exploited children.

 

Every straight male since the beginning of time until about the early 1900s saw men dressed as women in live productions because women didn't work outside the home. Men played ALL the roles.

 

I agree with that but were you to ask them if they preferred to see a woman playing a woman, they would say yes

 

That's probably true.

However, it is also true that non-heterosexuality, while frowned on from a religious standpoint, was not as demonized as it is now. The only reason various denominations are against it is they are in the business of people having as many kids as possible to keep money coming in.

 

Thank you for your clarification.

I think that it was Voltaire who stressed the importance of defining your terms and misapplying the term "groomer" only confuses a very destructive practice.
If I understand you correctly, teachers who don't teach the way that the extreme Right Wing wants them to teach are not groomers like Maxwell.

I respect your work as a child abuse advocate and saw my share of child abuse cases in my former work in the Juvenile Justice system. I found that not all child abuse involves grooming but all groomers are child abusers.
However, just because a teacher is extolling the virtues of Socialism is not the same as recruiting children and training them on how to please influential and wealthy pedophiles.

Thanks, again for your clarification and keep up the good work.

 

You're very welcome. Thank you for being open to considering my pov.

It was. And, it is. This is my deepest concern.

Not exactly, Grau.

What I'm suggesting is that we should NOT be demonizing people SOLELY because of their job title. There are bad and unsavory people in every profession and if we try to use some kind of metric (ie. all teachers) we are overlooking the vulnerabilities in other professions because our brains are being trained to see teachers as "bad" or "devious" or <insert whatever negative adjective>".

A way to see how this actually plays out in real life is to watch the video clips of the Capitol riot. There were hundreds of law enforcement officers there, However, because those rioters did not **look** like the enemy, they were not prepared to deal with the threat until several officers had been attacked. For them, most likely, the "bad guy" was a different race or different religion or different sexuality. They were overtaken solely because their brains were calibrated to not see thousands and thousands of white people as a threat.

So, if you play that scenario out to the current red herring (teachers are groomers because schools want to give children a safe space to talk about sexuality), all the other potential sources for groomers are being overlooked. By demonizing teachers this way, groomers basically have been given an "open invitation" because all they have to do is prey on our children outside of any role within a school. It's very reckless and puts our children at higher risk.

This "theory" also overlooks some very well known facts:

1. Teachers don't make a boatload of money unless they work in some affluent communities. Nobody is rushing the gates to work long hours, live near the poverty line and get mistreated by parents.
2. Teachers have to go through extensive background searches, years of training and continuing education to keep their licenses.
3. Groomers aren't interested in being teachers because they work best out of the public eye. They seek positions that are on the outskirts of connections with children.

Thank you for the compliment and thank you for your contributions in helping our society's children.

Exactly my point.

Absolutely!!! This is my point why this is so very reckless. Groomers aren't out in the open.

It's the same mindset behind the recent trends of stay-at-home moms prostituting. Nobody would suspect what they are doing when the husband is at work and kids are at school. They drive mini-vans, have manicured lawns and volunteer in their communities.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sub...rome..69i57.7180j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That's the point. Secrecy.

• Is it better for people to be open and honest and do whatever they are going to do or to hide, lie, cheat, exploit, manipulate, etc.?
• What if all the people that heard about Sandusky or Cosby or countless others didn't ignore the complaints?
• What if all the people abused by Catholic priests weren't ex-communicated, shamed, blamed and shunned?
• What if every adult took responsibility to protect every child so they can't be silenced?
• What if we didn't blame the victim?
• How many lives could be saved if we cared about those lives after the umbilical cord is snipped?

Again, you're welcome. Thanks for not attacking me or dismissing my pov. I don't usually get that from your side and I sincerely appreciate it.

 

Think they’re taking tips from Democrats. They’re the masters at making words mean whatever they want to paint people however they wish. See racist, bigot, Nazi, homophobe, transphobe, every phobe really ect.

 

After having read the op that is actually your take on this thread?

Any opinion on the statutory rape and perversion going on?

 

They don't seem to like it when they're own tactics are used against them do they?

 

Most predators go where the pickin' are easy.. and of course, will use the authority of their position as cover for there dirty deeds.