The Federalist Has An Argument About 'Cuties' And Gay 'Grooming', Stop Laughing, It's TERRIBLE.

If you could get your child victims pregnant, it would be ... better? Oh, The Federalist, nooooo.

  In what appears to be The Federalist's 85,000th screed about the movie Cuties and why it is bad from someone who definitely has not seen it, writer Matthew Cochran argues that it is a good thing to be "disgusted" by Cuties and that it is important to for parents to "helpchildren understand what is and what is not disgusting."

According to Cochran, degenerate liberals are pushing movies like Cuties — a movie that criticizes the sexualization of young girls — in hopes of normalizing pedophilia, a thing he is very sure we are all trying to do.

 Yes, really:  

Our kids are being exposed to a constant diet of perversion while parents become increasingly afraid of being seen as pearl-clutching bigots. So parents often fail to do anything about it.

 Pedophilia is merely the next big push from this same movement. As such, we should recognize what's next when we start seeing euphemisms like "minor-attracted persons," "child sexuality," and "intergenerational intimacy" being thrown around. We should know where normalization leads. The stigma against molesting children doesn't need to be softened.

Literally no one is doing this. No one wants to "soften" the stigma against molesting children or abusing them in any other way. But the Right doesn't have much of anything going on anymore, ideology-wise, so they're trying to do this whole "We don't like child molestation, and if you're against us then obviously you're for that!" thing. Curious, coming from the party that voted for a man who bragged about spying on teen girls undressing during the Miss Teen USA pageant and also tried to elect Roy Moore, a man banned from the mall for hitting on teen girls. Or that voted for Jim Jordan , who simply refused to cooperate with an investigation into accusations of sexual abuse against the physician for his Ohio State University wrestling team? Or whose President enlisted the help of a man who attempted to transport hundreds of images of child pornography?

I could go on. And for a very long time.

But Cochran quickly makes it clear that this, for him, isn't really about his fear that liberals are running around trying to normalize child molestation. That is, after all, a pretty tough case to make, given that absolutely no one is going around talking about how super great child molestation is. What it's really about is how he is sad that it is no longer socially acceptable to be "disgusted" by people being gay in the same way one would be disgusted by child molestation.

There are also the "Drag Queen Storytime" events cropping up at libraries across the nation. In addition to the readings, many of these include "family-friendly" performances featuring an adult cross-dresser doing a sexualized dance in front of a roomful of kids while parents encourage them to give the dancer money.

Before that, the same kind of retraining of disgust through exposure has been at the heart of the massive over-representation of LGBT characters in film and television. It's the reason every new character in the Arrowverse needs to be gay, "My Little Pony" needed gay ponies, and "She-Ra" needed so many gay princesses. As film and television act as a surrogate experience in our minds, what we see there begins to be perceived as normal — whether it truly is or not.

Yep, pretty sure gay people are normal, buddy. They exist, both on television and off.

He then explains that this, along with "normalizing fornication" and "vilifying the natural family" (it's okay, no one knows what that means) is "grooming."

Prior to all of this, we've had decades of normalizing fornication and vilifying the natural family. For two generations now, the entertainment industry has been continually pushing the envelope of debauchery a little bit at a time — while calling anyone who expressed misgivings a prude or a puritan.

This process is precisely how "grooming" works. Predators try to slowly get their targets used to small actions they would ordinarily find disgusting so that when they finally act, the victim's revulsion doesn't kick in until it's too late.

 Grooming. 

There's a thing that happens with certain buzzwords. They start out meaning a very specific negative thing, and soon enough they are being used to describe basically anything someone doesn't like. "Fake news," "gaslighting," and more recently "Karen" have all gone through this particular transition. I've been thinking "grooming" would be next for a while now, and here we are.

Grooming traditionally means befriending and earning the trust of a child for the purpose of sexually abusing them. It can often involve things like showing them pornography or discussing sex with them in an attempt to normalize the behavior and make them think it's an okay thing, so that when they do attempt to sexually abuse them, they are more likely to get away with it.

The purpose of grooming is abuse. That would not be the purpose of a My Little Pony called "Young Scootaloo" having two moms. Normalizing the existence of gay people is very different from normalizing child molestation, serial killing, terrorism, or any other bad thing Matthew Cochran can come up with. There is also a difference between washing the dishes and robbing a bank. Doing normal things is normal, doing things that hurt people is bad. It's not really that hard.

Who would the "victims" even be in these cases? You know, other than people like Matthew Cochran who would like for it to be socially acceptable to be "disgusted" by people being gay? Is he being personally victimized by She-Ra and the Princesses of Power ? Does he feel lonely?

No. He just thinks that because he is repulsed by gay people and by child molestation, they are both bad. He thinks his disgust for those things is his mind's way of letting him know that women and men and sexuality in general exist only to further the goals of reproduction and family. And apparently he thinks the reason child molestation is bad is because it rarely results in reproduction and the formation of a family — except when it does, which, NO, IS NOT BETTER — and not because it is abuse.

Just as it's easy to perceive the purpose of the heart is to pump blood and, therefore, conditions that inhibit that purpose are disorders, it's just as easy to perceive that the purpose of the sexes and sexuality is reproduction and family. We therefore recognize that conditions that inhibit that purpose are disorders and actions that deliberately damage it are immoral. Because we understand that, we also understand that the normalization of the disorder is a foolish and harmful fantasy that should never be foisted on children.

Very often, our disgust is that first warning klaxon that blares when we encounter disgusting things — compelling us to be skeptical about what we're observing. We would be utter fools to disregard it in a feeble attempt to try and get social justice warriors to stop calling us names.

Neither do we have to immerse ourselves in something disgusting before opining on whether our disgust is truly justified. We don't have to submit to grooming.

So what does it mean if we all find Matthew Cochran disgusting?

[ The Federalist ]

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .