This specific grooming was happening at a time in Western culture when it became inappropriate for any adult, in pay of government, to suggest that girls forego sexual liaisons outside marriage.
Our current moral framework is to encourage girls to experiment sexually as though they were boys: as early as a sexual preference is felt, girls…
This specific grooming was happening at a time in Western culture when it became inappropriate for any adult, in pay of government, to suggest that girls forego sexual liaisons outside marriage.
Our current moral framework is to encourage girls to experiment sexually as though they were boys: as early as a sexual preference is felt, girls should express it, and with no commitment either since babies can be aborted if a girl conceives because her contraception fails.
So if the girl liked the alcohol and drugs and attention... by what principle can society say "no" if the girl might be simply exploring her sexual preferences? I bet a lot of adults said nothing because they knew they should not say "no", not anymore.
Behaviour of this type (especially from social workers) is described in Baroness Alexis Jay’s report. The children were seen to have “consented” to the sexual attention, despite the fact that minors cannot consent to sex as a matter of law.
Looking forward to the 2027 BBC police procedural "Groomers", where the rapist perpetrators are all portrayed by white male actors, the victims played by a cast of multi-cultural/racial girls, and of course a strong black female lead to play the cop/journalist/lawyer/mother, who blows the lid on the "groomers", and extracts righteous vengeance/justice.
This moral framework is well described by the phrase “philosophies convenient for predators.” I forget who wrote that phrase, but the essay was focused on Sartre.
This specific grooming was happening at a time in Western culture when it became inappropriate for any adult, in pay of government, to suggest that girls forego sexual liaisons outside marriage.
Our current moral framework is to encourage girls to experiment sexually as though they were boys: as early as a sexual preference is felt, girls should express it, and with no commitment either since babies can be aborted if a girl conceives because her contraception fails.
So if the girl liked the alcohol and drugs and attention... by what principle can society say "no" if the girl might be simply exploring her sexual preferences? I bet a lot of adults said nothing because they knew they should not say "no", not anymore.
Behaviour of this type (especially from social workers) is described in Baroness Alexis Jay’s report. The children were seen to have “consented” to the sexual attention, despite the fact that minors cannot consent to sex as a matter of law.
Looking forward to the 2027 BBC police procedural "Groomers", where the rapist perpetrators are all portrayed by white male actors, the victims played by a cast of multi-cultural/racial girls, and of course a strong black female lead to play the cop/journalist/lawyer/mother, who blows the lid on the "groomers", and extracts righteous vengeance/justice.
This moral framework is well described by the phrase “philosophies convenient for predators.” I forget who wrote that phrase, but the essay was focused on Sartre.
Found it. It’s “theories-convenient-for-predators” and the essay is relevant to a discussion of grooming. https://voegelinview.com/bad-faith-at-sartres-cafe/