Q-cards of Sexual Choice or Corruptive Sexual Stigma, and Your Children are the Experimental Subjects

Children who are sexually abused, in most cases, develop a hidden hatred towards the opposite sex, if that gender was the offending party. In any event, it will change their future sexual behavior as in unpredictable results. It depends on the child and what it can endure as in the sexual deviancy, that the child will realize as they grow older and compare notes with other children within that relative age bracket. This means, when the child finally discovers they were not partied to everyday behavior, they will be scarred for life with confusion and humility. Most other children will ridicule the abused child out of ignorance and immaturity.

LGBT and like programs attempt to diffuse this stigmatism, however, seems to isolate the child even more because of the so called “protection” the child will receive because of their possible allegiance to the desire to change their sex, or simply cross dress and act (role play) as if they were the opposite sex. The other children will build resentment for this special treatment and will bully the child out in the school yard where the real child politics happens every day. One with a logical mind becomes very confused on the actual purpose of the LGBT and SOGI123 programs. Now, most parents are resenting these movements and their infiltration into our grade and preschools, not to mention Junior High. When certain education fails to capture the parents attention as a good idea, it is usually time to revoke those ideas and return to the drawing board.

But this is nothing new and this type of education was well hidden in the outer curriculums, like special education, especially when the child or teenager was caught with drugs, or under the influence, and as punishment, had to attend these special facilities that presented a much different education to our children and teenagers.

When I was in my mid to late thirties, in the 90’s, I was married to this woman that had two sons and one daughter. The daughter was experimenting with drugs, as most teenagers do, and on one occasion, was caught by the police in school with contraband (marijuana). Back then it was illegal to be in possession of, and today, it is still illegal for a minor to be in possession of, cannabis drugs. In mediation, the child was ordered to attend drug education classes and monitoring in attempt to keep the child away from the drugs and the influences that were a party to her possession and abuse activities.

One day, I was picking her up from this facility and had to wait for her out in the waiting room. I began to flip through pamphlets curious of what they teach in attempt to detour children from falling back and abusing the drug again. In this pamphlet, it described the act of rimming and the tongue condoms available for such an activity if the child was presented this opportunity to “rim” an anus. Immediately, I re-read this pamphlet in disbelief to be sure I did not interpret it wrong. Furious, I took my stepdaughter and the pamphlet home, showing the material to her mother. To make a long story short, the mother did not find anything wrong with the content of this pamphlet and forbid me to pursue this issue with the facility. Being it was her daughter, I reluctantly complied after a heated argument. It would seem her mother did not want the embarrassment of the complaint I would have made. This does show, in the 90’s, this sort of education existed and because it was isolated to the drug abuse class of teenagers, no one really cared. Slowly but surely, it crept into certain schools as redundant educational tools, and now, has become a mandatory curriculum. If this was ok of special education as far as drug abuse was concerned, then why the sudden urge to curtail this type of redundant education?

The quick and simple answer would be politics. Because the Liberals have embraced these certain sexual philosophies and now are pushing it in your face, the conservatives see this as a political opportunity to discredit the liberals concerning the liberal sexual educational movement, along with many other things. The conservatives accuse the liberals of censorship, and at the same time, are censoring these so-called schoolbooks and publications. One may say these publications need to be censored. I say, they need not be in the school curriculum and be available only as an extra elective course with parental approval. This way, there is no need to censor anything and eliminates the need for this conservative “witch hunt” that will most certainly grow out of control, and further their governmental overreach.

The sad fact of child abuse is that when most children experience child abuse from an adult in the sexual category, they usually will turn to drugs when in their teens, and then prostitution to support this drug habitual that develops to cope with the memories of this abuse. Another sad fact is, that in most cases, the child will reject intervention to council the child that has experienced sexual abuse and their families will remain in denial to this possibility of sexual abuse.

The result is clear. What is necessary and what is not. Having sexually diverse people teach kids is not the problem. It is having sexually diverse individuals dress in a manner that is not appropriate to the teachings of young children. Cross dressing is absolutely redundant when teaching young children and the easy way to solve this is to enforce a uniform policy on the teachers and personalities in the way they enforce uniforms on other public servants, in a unisexual fashion, like police or transit drivers. The solutions are clear and uncomplicated. Sexually diverse or not, when around young children, you have a moral obligation.

However, the content of this curriculum must be scrutinized as to what is the bare minimum a child or teen should know when it comes to sex education. Does a child really need to know about tongue condoms or the act of snowballing, felching, anal or oral sex? Is this necessary for a child to develop in an objective manner of choice or is this plain outright sexual grooming that 20 years ago, could have landed someone with a sexual assault charge for applying this influence on a child.

Warning: These are some of the Sexual Q-cards circulating in the corridors of our educational facilities. Some of these cards will offend most people. Please view with discretion.