Progressivism and the education of women for prostitution

If readers allow, I want to focus on the case of the girl from Santa Catarina 7 months pregnant at 11 years old, who was dating boy two years her senior with whom she was related and shared a roof over her head. As we read in this newspaper, the police have two ways of looking at the situation: either they both raped each other, because neither is of legal age to consent, or the exception “Romeo and Juliet” is taken into account. I can’t find either situation to be reasonable. If it were a girl from 11 and a boy from 15, I would agree with the thesis of Romeo and Juliet, because at 11, even though she is not of legal age to consent, the girl already has enough hormones to feel horny. At , she doesn’t have it. No lust, no passion, no Julieta. Apparently, she was having sex before menarche with a boy who had barely reached puberty. I don’t believe sex was their idea.

So we need to face the following reality: children are learning about sex by imitation, and such a thing is only possible, on a large scale, with a society that has decided that sex is a good thing in itself. This is decidedly the case in the post West 68. Our intellectual elites decided, and the rest little by little complied, that sex is a good thing in itself. Good things in themselves are advertised. Before 68, marriage for love was understood to be a good thing in itself. Children learned by imitation—listening to stories and watching movies—the role they should play in the adult world: men chase after women, who must choose the right man. Romanticism served to approach the subject with many little hearts, without allusions to sex.

There can be a thousand reasons to argue that marriage for love is not a good thing in itself. On the other hand, it can be argued (and I think much more easily) that sex is not a good thing in itself either. Anyway, in the first scenario we had a healthy program to give children an idea of ​​what the adult world is like. How to explain to children the adult world when everything is based on sex? Even if we said to highly wise and deconstructed intellectuals: “Very well, you are right, marriage is oppression and romanticism is like garlands of flowers hiding iron fetters. True freedom consists in enjoying as many bodies as possible with the voracity of someone who eats pudding during a diet”, it would be necessary to ask them: “How do we raise children based on that?”.

Of the two, one. Either children are left to fend for themselves, with no idea what their future as an adult is like – in which case the mischievous people will try to find out for themselves –, or there is talk of sex for children. This is quite the idea of ​​progressives, who consistently and shamelessly insist on sex and gender education as early as possible.

Marry and become an ogress

There was a big change at the beginning of the century 20. Who, like me, was born in 90 in Brazil, watched in childhood the marriage propaganda in two sources: Disney movies and cartoons, in which the girls married the good guys, and in Globo’s soap operas, which always ended up in marriage between a young man and a young man. The children listened to pagode, it’s true, but lines like “My father’s chick ran away with the neighbor’s chicken” told a chicken coop story that was understood as such. When the double meaning was perceived, it was because the hormones had arrived.

By the end of the years 2000, the middle class already had cheap internet. It was the heyday of blogging, and it was also the beginning of the penetration of openly feminist propaganda into society. It started there because 2008 the idea circulated that Sleeping Beauty was a victim of rape because she was not awake. All Disney princesses were problematized and, in their place, nothing was proposed. In the US, the trend must have started earlier. I have a sister years younger, so I remember the princess movie at the time was Shrek – a work full of jokes and references that made adults and grown-ups laugh, but that followed the script of marriage by love. However, instead of a prince, there is an ogre, and the beautiful princess is permanently transformed into an ogre in order to marry. It is questionable the impact that this film had on the girls who had it as an education; after all, losing your beauty is not a good prospect, and it is an observable consequence in not a few marriages. “Who marries becomes an ogress” is a doable lesson. As for men being ogres, I can’t think of a more succinct and effective way of explaining feminism to children.

Ogres are traditionally bad because they look bad. Children associate the good with the beautiful and the bad with the ugly. Good parents and educators will teach you to see beyond appearances. However, it is unreasonable to annihilate as soon as possible any link between good and beautiful, as if we were not able to use any appearance to judge someone. In the end, adults are required not to look at a guy who dresses like a thief and think he’s a thief. The demand made (or rather the confusion imposed) on children is that they do not detect predators. After centuries and centuries of teaching children about evil through witches and monsters, now it is necessary to deconstruct everything.

What would it be like to grow up without the idea of ​​a bogeyman? This is an experience you and I don’t have. However, this is how the media, educators and not a few parents educate children. Generations are formed incapable of understanding that evil can go beyond words and opinions. Some sheep that don’t know about the existence of wolves.

Book general pink

Let’s put ourselves in the place of the girls and women who were born in the present century. The cultural scene is so altered that a film about shooting, beating and bombing – Top Gun – is considered countercultural. TV and movies are in decline; the internet is the vehicle of the moment. In it, an infinity of instagrammers, tiktokers and )female influencers replace TV and movie heroines as role models for girls. It’s a pattern for social photo networks to attract girls; years ago, Tumblr was for them a vehicle for the transmission of a series of mental illnesses linked to the body, such as anorexia, bulimia, self-harm and sudden-onset gender dysphoria.

At the same time, sites where girls expose their pictures are a gimmick of free soft porn. It is no wonder, therefore, that the fashion of turning sugar baby has emerged and taken hold even in a country that prohibits prostitution. The girls take sexy photos, expose them, and then for their hammocks to become a “pink book” (remember that expression?) it’s a leap.

But they expose themselves even before they are old enough to feel horny. Which means that they expose themselves by imitation, because that’s what instagrammers famous do. Before, they imitated what they saw on TV and in comic books; today, they imitate soft porn since childhood. Because? Well, because that’s what you do, because a successful woman is the one who has as much sex as possible with different men without loving any of them and earns as much money as possible. It’s not a very different definition from that of a prostitute.

Parents who let their children loose on the internet thinking they are safe just by being indoors may be letting their daughters become prostitutes.

Mental confusion

Saying that the male sex is bad is a way of turning a woman into a prostitute, because it dehumanizes men in the eyes of women and turns them into mere source of income. Thus, if a girl who grew up in this cultural environment loves a boy, she will be in a situation similar to that of a homosexual teenager of religious upbringing in the 15 decade. She will be disturbed by illicit and despicable feelings, which must be fought in order to become a good prostitute, which is the ideal of a woman proposed by progressives.

At the same time, how sex has become good in itself, it will have no criteria to condemn an ​​abuser. What’s wrong with a teenager having sex? Anything; wrong is not to do. Thus, the man who wants to take advantage of an insecure teenager (which is almost a pleonasm) will not need to make any effort; it will suffice to know how to appeal to the morality that had been instilled in him. If the girl doesn’t want to have sex with him, she can only be an extreme right-wing radical, an abominable fascist, a repressed evangelical.

We look at this type of man and say he’s bad. But saying “bad man” is like saying “round circle”. There are no criteria left to judge male behavior, if a man is bad.

So there must be a type of girl in conflict with the fact of feeling enchanted by some boy (an illicit desire) and, at the same time, At the same time, she feels morally compelled to have sex with any predator who knows how to use progressive speech. She accepts having sex against her will, thus creating a gray area between consent and rape.

Abuse without rape

No popular, we call rape the violent event in which a man penetrates a woman forcibly, or, more rarely, unconscious after being drugged. That’s why the pro-lifers were outraged to learn that the girl from 11 or 15 years “dated” with the almost brother of 12 or 20 . There is no violence involved, as there is consent.

It is a very weird consent, very confusing, since there is no lust. It is a pro forma consent , possibly the result of the desire to imitate adults. The boy’s father and the girl’s mother had sex, they had sex too. They were taught, directly or indirectly, that this is what being an adult is, and children copy in their own way what adults do.

Shortly after this girl’s case, that of a actress born in this century who, exposed by a gossip columnist, explained against her will that she was raped and gave the baby up for adoption. To make matters worse, a pro-life presenter accused her of abandoning the baby. I believe that the deplorable figures of this controversy – the gossip columnist and the presenter – have already received the public scrutiny they deserve. I didn’t want to leave it unnoticed, however, that the actress’ report has a very large inconsistency. She says that she discovered the pregnancy already close to giving birth, and that the menstrual cycle was normal. I don’t think anyone noticed the fact because of the dogma of “the word of the victim”.

Hence I wonder how it would be possible to conduct a police investigation in such a case. If a blatant rape victim is taken by force to a police station and told that she was raped on Mars, is your word credible? The only viable explanation for the lie is that the victim feels guilty about the events and does his best to hide an abusive relationship. This would explain the late “discovery” of pregnancy. I hope that the actress will one day be able to make it clear to herself that she is not the person who should be ashamed of in this story. In any case, it is normal for decent people to be ashamed of going through degrading situations, even without guilt.

I don’t think that this detail of the story should go unnoticed, as it points to the gray area created by progressivism; a gray zone where the young are tame prey for smart predators.

Back to top button