LGBT Grooming as a mode of asexual reproduction

[GraalChud]

Unsure if anyone has raised this point yet, but recently I’ve been thinking about the reasons why faggots/troons might groom children (in the gross, kike-y, pedophilic way, not the enlightened, Aryan, ephebophilic way). What first came to mind was the go-to explanation for many on the Right: it’s a disgusting fetish of theirs, from which they gain sexual gratification; true as this may be, I do not believe it to be a sufficient explanation for their actions, as many of the ways in which they groom children are not explicitly sexual, but rather subtle (or at least in their minds), gradual, and in a way that bars them from actually engaging in full-blown intercourse with children (thus denying them the ability to actually “orgasm” while engaged in grooming behaviors). While I would not deny that it is certainly a partial explanation for grooming behaviors engaged in by fags/troons, it is my theory is that there is actually another motivation behind it - the “creation” of new prospective sexual partners. Here is the gist of it:

1) Fags and (most) troons will not ever reproduce
2) Homosexuality and troon-ism is not genetic (in most cases, anyway), but rather a product of “trauma”, “grooming”, some mental illness (esp. troons - see stats on the prevalence of psychotic disorders - symptoms of which can be delusions - amongst troons), or some combination thereof. They cannot create new fags/troons through sexual reproduction, thus limiting the pool of prospective sexual partners they have. 
3) Fags/troons have, on average, more sexual partners than do heterosexuals, meaning that they exhaust the number of prospective partners in the aforementioned pool - which is already small - rather quickly.
4) In light of 2) and 3), they need some other means of “creating” prospective partners, lest they run through the entire pool of potential sexual partners available to them in a relatively short amount of time and find themselves living lonely, sexless lives. 
5) This mode is grooming - by convincing small children, born to heterosexual parents, that they are gay/trans, they effectively have a means of ensuring that there is always “fresh blood” flowing into the pool of prospective sexual partners available to them.

Any feedback, pushback, or other commentary is appreciated, as I’m interested in seeing what you all think.

[anthony]

I dislike this for the same reason I dislike the Culture of Critique guy. You're talking about a broad swathe of people like they're someone playing a Paradox game. Faggots are locked out of the "biological reproduction tree" but their faction has exclusive access to the "grooming" social tech line, which they can use to still achieve pop growth every generation. You're applying a mystical group rationality to a mob. Like evopsych but without even the (retarded) explanation of the "evo" part. What are you saying? What is everyone who pushes this grooming stuff saying? Do you think they have some kind of unconscious hivemind which pushes them towards pragmatic behaviours to serve this abstract "LGBT" group?

[GraalChud]

I dislike this for the same reason I dislike the Culture of Critique guy. You're talking about a broad swathe of people like they're someone playing a Paradox game. Faggots are locked out of the "biological reproduction tree" but their faction has exclusive access to the "grooming" social tech line, which they can use to still achieve pop growth every generation. You're applying a mystical group rationality to a mob. Like evopsych but without even the (retarded) explanation of the "evo" part. What are you saying? What is everyone who pushes this grooming stuff saying? Do you think they have some kind of unconscious hivemind which pushes them towards pragmatic behaviours to serve this abstract "LGBT" group?

Bad framing, solid critique; never did I posit that faggots are "locked out of reproduction" (they`re not, they can and infrequently do reproduce and can do so via surrogates, IVF, etc., but this will not necessarily yield homosexual children), nor did I posit that grooming is a behavior exclusive to faggots (there are other groups who "groom" children and adults alike in different ways, but we are talking about a specific sort of grooming). 

W.r.t. the bit about some mystical subconscious group rationality, no, I don`t think they possess such a thing (and if they did, you`d be hard pressed to be able to prove it - this is the same methodological issue that MacDonald had with CoC, which is why a lot of what he says in the book is speculative). As you rightly pointed out, faggots (like kikes) are not a hivemind, nor do they even all necessarily see themselves as a coherent group (though some certainly do, which is reflected in their talk of "gay culture" and issues pertinent thereto). Instead, I think that at least some of them do this consciously and do not believe that this is some "evolutionary" adaptation/instinct that faggots randomly developed over time to expand their access to prospective sexual partners - if it were, one would imagine that we would`ve seen faggots do this sort of thing (albeit in a clandestine fashion) back in the Stonewall days or earlier. I think there`s a logic to them doing it, it`s a "strategy" employed by individuals and/or small groups of homosexuals, which is outlined above, as I think that at least some faggots are intelligent enough to realize their dilemma with having a limited pool of potential sexual partners that they "run through" rather quickly and take action to address it. 

That said, to substantiate this claim I would have to find evidence of faggots outright saying (or at least implying) that this is what they`re doing, and seeing as no sane person would come right out and say that this is what they`re doing in the event that they are doing it (at least not publicly, anyway), substantiating this claim would be exceptionally difficult. Ultimately, this is just a working theory (or, rather, a hypothesis if you`re a pedant), and you`re right to poke holes in it, but I do not believe it to be any less feasible of an explanation than the "it`s a fetish" hypothesis; this hypothesis, like my own, runs into some issues that make it difficult to prove - the most notable of which is that it is not as though homosexual groomers are masturbating or getting some other direct form of sexual gratification when they host "drag queen story hours", spend entire classes convincing kids that they are actually gay/trans, or twerk in the faces of small children, indicating that it is done for some reason other than immediate sexual gratification, as the "end" of many/most fetishes is to reach an orgasm, nor do we have (to my knowledge) instances of them coming right out and saying "yes, I`m doing this because it gets me off". Furthermore, they have other outlets for their sexuality (homosexual sex, porn, etc.), which further lessens the likelihood that they`re doing this because it`s a fetish. 

Since the issue has been raised, I`m curious as to what you believe is responsible for the "grooming" phenomenon by fags/troons. Do you believe it`s just a series of actors who are doing it independently of one another for a number of different reasons, are you part of the "it`s a fetish" camp, or do you see it as being a product of something else?

[Reverend Moon Immortal]

Being gay is a political identity. LGBT is an evolution of the gay political identity that had at one point been strongly tied with the political identity of N.A.M.B.L.A. and could be said to still be. Given that being gay is a political identity—is the idea that gays would work towards their own political interests absurd?

Gays groom specifically for personal pleasure, yet through the act of initiating someone(in this case a catamite) into the identity—they are totally aware that they are in a way working in the favor of their own political interests. Now what are the interests of the gay political group? An ostensible one is—as you would suspect—sodomy. It is an identity based around sodomy and thus the group works in the interest of securing a right to sodomy. Now, does securing sodomy imply grooming more Catamites?—I think you could assume it a part of securing sodomy, or at least the right to groom is. Thus by groom a gay man does not only satisfy the personal desires but also the interests of the political group by: 1. Securing sodomy, and 2. Adding another member to their political aggregate allowing it to grow in influence.

But this was just covering grooming in the context of gays, what about the larger LBGT group? I will handle that in a later post.

[GraalChud]

Being gay is a political identity. LGBT is an evolution of the gay political identity that had at one point been strongly tied with the political identity of N.A.M.B.L.A. and could be said to still be. Given that being gay is a political identity—is the idea that gays would work towards their own political interests absurd?

Gays groom specifically for personal pleasure, yet through the act of initiating someone(in this case a catamite) into the identity—they are totally aware that they are in a way working in the favor of their own political interests. Now what are the interests of the gay political group? An ostensible one is—as you would suspect—sodomy. It is an identity based around sodomy and thus the group works in the interest of securing a right to sodomy. Now, does securing sodomy imply grooming more Catamites?—I think you could assume it a part of securing sodomy, or at least the right to groom is. Thus by groom a gay man does not only satisfy the personal desires but also the interests of the political group by: 1. Securing sodomy, and 2. Adding another member to their political aggregate allowing it to grow in influence.

But this was just covering grooming in the context of gays, what about the larger LBGT group? I will handle that in a later post.

Interesting take. 

Assuming we accept what you outlined above as true, could it be the case that now that gays have effectively procured a right to sodomy that is now legally enshrined in a post-anti-sodomy law, post-Obergefell world, they are focused more on initiating members into the identity than on securing more rights (after all, they can legally engage in sodomy and can get "married", so there aren`t too many more rights that they can try to secure unless they invent new "civil rights" and attempt to secure them through lawfare), which is why there has been a sharp rise in grooming behaviors on the part of gays in the past few years (or at least the sharp rise in the visibility of these behaviors)?

[ꦈꦒꦲꦸꦫꦲꦺꦴꦗ꦳ꦲ]

🆆🅷🅸🅻🅴 🅸 🅰🅿🅿🆁🅴🅲🅸🅰🆃🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🅳🅴🆂🅸🆁🅴 🆃🅾 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳 🆆🅷🆈 🅰🅽🅸🅼🅰🅻🆂 🅳🅾 🆆🅷🅰🆃 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅳🅾. 🆂🅾🅼🅴🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🅱🅴🆂🆃 🆃🅾 🅰🅲🅲🅴🅿🆃 🆃🅷🅰🆃 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🆂🅸🅼🅿🅻🆈 🅱🅰🆂🅴 🅻🅴🆅🅴🅻 🅿🆁🅾🅶🆁🅰🅼🅼🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅽🆃🅾 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🆂🆄🅱🅲🅾🅽🆂🅲🅸🅾🆄🆂. 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅼🅰🆈 🆂🅸🅼🅿🅻🆈 🅽🅾🆃 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳 🆆🅷🆈 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅳🅾 🅸🆃, 🅱🆄🆃 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅶🅾 🆃🅷🆁🅾🆄🅶🅷 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🆂 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅺🅽🅾🆆 🆃🅾 🆂🅾🅼🅴 🅳🅴🅶🆁🅴🅴 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🅸🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅾🅽🅻🆈 🆆🅰🆈 🆃🅾 🅴🆇🅿🅰🅽🅳 🅰🅽🅳 🅶🆁🅾🆆. 🅼🆄🅲🅷 🅻🅸🅺🅴 🅷🅾🆆 🅰 🅼🆄🆁🅳🅴🆁🅴🆁 🆆🅾🆄🅻🅳 🅽🅾🆃 🅲🅾🅽🆂🅸🅳🅴🆁 🅷🅸🆂 🅰🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅻🅻 🆃🅷🅰🆃 🅼🆄🅲🅷, 🆂🅾 🅳🅾🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅿🅴🅳🅾🅿🅷🅸🅻🅴, 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅰🅿🅸🆂🆃, 🆃🅷🅴 🅶🆁🅾🅾🅼🅴🆁. 🆆🅷🅰🆃 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅳🅾 🅸🆂 🆂🅸🅼🅿🅻🆈 🆂🅾🅼🅴🆃🅷🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅰🆁🅴 🅲🅾🅼🅿🅴🅻🅻🅴🅳 🆃🅾 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🅳🅾🅽'🆃 🆆🅰🅽🆃 🆃🅾 🅻🅾🅾🅺 🅰🆃 🅸🆃 🅲🆁🅸🆃🅸🅲🅰🅻🅻🆈. 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🆆🅰🅽🆃 🆃🅾 🆁🅴🅼🅰🅸🅽 🅼🅴🅽🆃🅰🅻🅻🆈 🆄🅽🅰🆆🅰🆁🅴 🅰🆂 🆃🅾 🅽🅾🆃 🆃🅰🅺🅴 🅾🆆🅽🅴🆁🆂🅷🅸🅿 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🅰🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂.

W ͥll  ͭ ͪ ͤy s ͭ ͥll g ͦ  ͭ ͦ H ͤ ͣ ͮ ͤn?
M ͣyb ͤ.

Ｙｏｕ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｅｘｐｅｃｔ Ｇｏｄ ｔｏ ｄｏ ａｌｌ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｋ．

🅸 🅰🅛🆂🅞 🅑🅴🅛🅸🅔🆅🅔 🅘🅽 🅵🅘🅶🅗🆃🅘🅽🅖 🅕🅸🅡🅴 🆆🅘🆃🅗 🅕🅸🅡🅴. 🅕🅾🅡 🅦🅷🅐🆃 🅶🅞🅾🅓 🅘🆂 🆂🅘🆃🅣🅸🅝🅶 🅱🅐🅲🅚 🅦🅷🅘🅻🅔 🅣🅷🅔 🅔🅽🅔🅼🅨 🅗🅾🅛🅳🅢 🅝🅾🅣🅷🅘🅽🅖 🅑🅰🅒🅺?

🅒🅾🅝🆂🅘🅳🅔🆁 🆃🅗🅰🅣 🅘🅵 🅶🅞🅳 🅳🅘🅳🅝'🅣 🅦🅰🅝🆃 🆈🅞🆄 🆃🅞 🅚🅸🅛🅻 🅴🅥🅸🅛, 🅷🅔 🅦🅾🅤🅻🅓🅽'🆃 🅷🅐🆅🅔 🅟🆁🅞🆅🅘🅳🅔🅳 🆈🅞🆄 🆃🅗🅴 🆃🅞🅾🅛🆂 🆃🅞 🅓🅾 🅸🅣.

🅣🅷🅔 🅕🅰🅖🆂 🅰🅡🅴 🆁🅘🅶🅗🆃.     

🆆🅔 🅢🅷🅞🆄🅛🅳 🅶🅡🅾🅞🅼 🅲🅗🅸🅛🅳🅡🅴🅝, 🅰🅢 🅣🅾 🅽🅞🆃 🅸🅢 🅣🅾 🅻🅔🆃 🆂🅞🅼🅔🅾🅝🅴 🅴🅛🆂🅔 🅓🅾 🆂🅞.


P ͤ ͦpl ͤ  ͨ ͣn b ͤ b ͦ ͬn  ͫ ͦns ͭ ͤ ͬs.
I ͭ  ͥsn' ͭ  ͣ  ͬ ͤq ͧ ͥ ͬ ͤ ͫ ͤn ͭ  ͭ ͪ ͣ ͭ  ͭ ͪ ͤy b ͤ  ͭ ͬ ͣ ͥn ͤ ͩ.
T ͪ ͤy  ͫ ͣy s ͥ ͫply  ͪ ͣ ͮ ͤ  ͥ ͭ  ͥn  ͭ ͪ ͤ ͫ.


🆃🅗🅴 🅶🅞🆅🅔🆁🅝🅼🅔🅽🅣 🅤🅽🅓🅴🅡🆂🅣🅰🅝🅳🅢 🅣🅷🅔 🅥🅰🅛🆄🅔 🅞🅵 🅲🅞🅽🅓🅸🅣🅸🅞🅽🅘🅽🅖 🅣🅷🅔 🅜🅰🅢🆂🅔🆂. 🅢🅲🅗🅾🅞🅻🅢 🅣🅾 🅼🅔🅳🅘🅰 🅸🅣 🅘🆂 🅰🅛🅻 🅿🅡🅾🅟🅰🅖🅰🅝🅳🅐. 🆃🅗🅴 🅻🅖🅱🅣 🅔🆇🅘🆂🅣🅴🅓, 🅱🅤🆃 🅸🅣 🅦🅰🅢 🅝🅴🅥🅴🅡 🅘🅽 🆃🅗🅴 🆂🅟🅾🅣🅻🅘🅶🅗🆃 🆄🅝🆃🅘🅻 🆁🅔🅲🅔🅽🅣🅻🅨. 🆃🅗🅴🅨 🅐🆁🅔 🅛🅾🅨🅰🅛 🅕🅾🅞🆃 🆂🅞🅻🅓🅸🅔🆁🅢, 🅰🅝🅳 🅿🅡🅰🅒🆃🅘🅲🅐🅻🅛🆈 🆉🅔🅰🅛🅾🅣🆂 🆃🅞 🅣🅷🅔🅸🅡 🅒🅰🅤🆂🅔. 🆆🅞🅼🅔🅽 🆆🅘🆃🅗 🅣🅷🅔🅸🅡 🅑🅻🅔🅴🅓🅸🅝🅶 🅷🅔🅰🅡🆃🅢 🅦🅸🅛🅻 🅴🅝🅲🅞🆄🅡🅰🅖🅴 🅷🅐🆁🅜🅵🅤🅻 🅰🅝🅳 🅴🅥🅴🅝 🅢🅰🅣🅰🅝🅸🅒 🅟🆁🅐🅲🅣🅸🅒🅴🅢 🅢🅾 🅻🅞🅽🅖 🅐🆂 🅸🅣 🅘🆂 🅲🅞🅽🅢🅸🅓🅴🅡🅴🅓 🅜🅾🅡🅰🅛🅻🅨 🅒🅾🅡🆁🅔🅲🅣 🅣🅾 🅳🅞 🅘🆃. 🅜🅾🅡🅰🅛🅸🅣🆈 🅰🅛🆆🅐🆈🅢 🅒🅷🅐🅽🅖🅸🅝🅶 🅳🅔🅵🅘🅽🅘🆃🅘🅾🅝 🅦🅸🅣🅷 🆆🅗🅾 🅸🅢 🅘🅽 🅲🅗🅰🅡🅶🅔.

Fᵒr nᵒw iᵗ ᵢs safᵉ ₜo say tₕaᵗ ₜhᵉ LGᴮT wᶦlₗ ᵃlwaʸs eˣiₛt, foʳ ₒnᵉ daʸ yoᵘr cʰiₗd madᵉ ₒf cₒrⁿ anᵈ ₚlᵃsₜiᶜ wiˡl bᵉ boʳn iⁿtₒ ᵃ ₗiᶠe oᶠ ₘeⁿtal iₗlⁿeₛs. Wiᵗh nᵒ acᵗiₒn of ᵒtₕeʳs sᵒ wiˡl tʰe hᵘman aₙiᵐaₗ ᶜoₙtᶦnᵤe tₒ ᶠoₗlᵒw iᵗs pʳogrᵃmₘiⁿg.

𝔹𝕖𝕤𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕛𝕦𝕤𝕥 𝕜𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞.
𝕎ⅇ ⋐𝕒ℼ ⋒𝕝ꖿ𝕒ℽ𝕤 𝕔ℾ𝕖⋒𝕥ⅇ ⩕𝕠ℾ𝕖 𝕙⋓𝕞⋒𝕟𝕤.

[Guest]

You are an annoying faggot.

[Reverend Moon Immortal]

[…]

Interesting take. 

Assuming we accept what you outlined above as true, could it be the case that now that gays have effectively procured a right to sodomy that is now legally enshrined in a post-anti-sodomy law, post-Obergefell world, they are focused more on initiating members into the identity than on securing more rights (after all, they can legally engage in sodomy and can get "married", so there aren`t too many more rights that they can try to secure unless they invent new "civil rights" and attempt to secure them through lawfare), which is why there has been a sharp rise in grooming behaviors on the part of gays in the past few years (or at least the sharp rise in the visibility of these behaviors)?

This relates to the post I was planning to make in the future. That the gay political identity was kind of fractured(although still whole). It was split between the faction that was more politically active and wanted to keep fighting for rights and the faction that just wanted to groom kids. LGBT absorbed the former gay faction, now gays also fight for troons and furfags  rights, or something like that. Then there is the latter gays who just wanted to groom man, just let them groom in peace. This gay faction is the socially conservative gays that are all about gay marriage and then obtaining Catamites through adoption or surrogate mothers. The difference between the two groups is most likely age, but I am unsure. 

But yeah—grooming is probably more frequent now, but that has less to do with political goals and like you said it’s because they have obtained the rights they wanted—allowing for more grooming.

[ꦈꦒꦲꦸꦫꦲꦺꦴꦗ꦳ꦲ]

You are an annoying faggot.

ᴳᵘᵉˢᵗˢ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ⁿᵒ ᵒᵖᶦⁿᶦᵒⁿ.
ᶜᵒʷᵃʳᵈˢ ʷʰᵒ ˢᶦᵗ ᶦᵈˡʸ ᵇʸ ʷʰᶦˡᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ʳᵉᵃˡ ʰᵘᵐᵃⁿˢ ᵈᵉᶜᶦᵈᵉ ᵗʰᵉᶦʳ ᶠᵃᵗᵉ.

[anthony]

I would say I agree with our unicode posting friend more than anybody else in this thread on the essentials. On the part of actual "gays" I think it's mostly just acting and reacting without any great conscious vision. If anybody actually has that I would say it's the functionally heterosexual women who are absolutely berserk for pushing this stuff. They are the biggest groomers, normalisers, etc. What is their strategy? What is their end? Have you considered that people are just retarded?

And as for obtaining catamites, do you believe that all homosexual adoptions are for the purposes of molestation? Are you reading your own posts back before submitting them?

[Reverend Moon Immortal]

I would say I agree with our unicode posting friend more than anybody else in this thread on the essentials. On the part of actual "gays" I think it's mostly just acting and reacting without any great conscious vision. If anybody actually has that I would say it's the functionally heterosexual women who are absolutely berserk for pushing this stuff. They are the biggest groomers, normalisers, etc. What is their strategy? What is their end? Have you considered that people are just retarded?[…]

I think this post is for me because it mentioned faggot adoptions—I am pretty sure I am the only one who mentioned this. 

Now on faggots “acting and reacting.” Are gays politically conscious? As I have already stated gays are a political identity, but are they always politically conscious? Well take niggers—the ape that can barley talk or walk—they are bumbling idiots, yet they are all politically conscious. So then are gays not capable of being politically conscious—something even pavement apes are capable of? Of course they are. Now does a room exist where a bunch of gays are plotting world domination by molesting all of the children? I sure hope not. But political action does not necessarily mean such complexity of thought. It is simply being aware of your political aggregates goals and pursuing them. 

And as for obtaining catamites, do you believe that all homosexual adoptions are for the purposes of molestation? Are you reading your own posts back before submitting them?

 
Yes—I do believe that as there are ample examples, and I would ask you if you believe any child adopted by faggots was not molested.

[GraalChud]

I would say I agree with our unicode posting friend more than anybody else in this thread on the essentials. On the part of actual "gays" I think it's mostly just acting and reacting without any great conscious vision. If anybody actually has that I would say it's the functionally heterosexual women who are absolutely berserk for pushing this stuff. They are the biggest groomers, normalisers, etc. What is their strategy? What is their end? Have you considered that people are just retarded?

And as for obtaining catamites, do you believe that all homosexual adoptions are for the purposes of molestation? Are you reading your own posts back before submitting them?

So rather than believing that there is a discernible motive behind a pattern of similar behaviors (“grooming”) engaged in by a bunch of individuals who we collectively call faggots (“LGBT”), it is more feasible to believe that “grooming” is the product of a bunch of retards who happen to be in privity with one another, share an identity with one another, and conceptualize themselves as a distinct group with distinct political interests just randomly acting and reacting in a retarded fashion that coincidently ends with the same result - grooming - even though there are ostensibly benefits (2 of which have come up thus far in this thread) they gain (individually and collectively) from engaging in this behavior

I’d be lying if I said that this is easier to believe than the whole “it’s a fetish” thing, the hypothesis I gave, or some multi-causal explanation that includes one or both of those hypothesis plus some other yet-unconsidered causes.

[Zed]

People misunderstand grooming, some psychological malfunction rooted in the 'pedos in white vans' stereotype propagated on in the 80s-90s. Stuff like that happens, but it is extremely rare.

One story: I knew a (straight) guy who spent a year teaching at a shitty middle school in Appalachia, and it was normal for girls to bite their lips when talking to him, or try to touch his hand overly long when they handed him shit - sometimes more explicit come-ons.

Most cases of gay 'grooming' are similar - 13-15 year old boys with base homosexual tendencies looking for a father figure and shopping around aggressively for it. Same thing women without fathers do. Such kids will try over and over again until they find a man who is willing. On Grindr, half of everyone who claims to be 18 is usually several years younger. No one likes to imagine their kids out shopping for sex with adults, so they try to imagine some kind of Chris Hansen-esque predator 'tricked' or 'manipulated' them into it - makes for a vastly more comfortable narrative than imagining your son desperately wanted an older man to dominate and fuck him.

Actual sex trafficking, which is rare in the west, but common elsewhere in the world - is a different story.

[Guest]

Zed once again trying to justify being a nonce.

[BillyONare]

I am from the suburbs and went to a university in a major city and never met a single irl faggot until I was 20 or 21.

[Reverend Moon Immortal]

I am from the suburbs and went to a university in a major city and never met a single irl faggot until I was 20 or 21.

Blessed, man from another world(or at least another generation).

[BillyONare]

I’m in my early 20s. I don’t even remember SEEING a flaming gay. Maybe I just forgot. They’re almost nonexistent if youre introverted, don’t hang out with faggy people, and don’t go to gay bars.

[GraalChud]

People misunderstand grooming, some psychological malfunction rooted in the 'pedos in white vans' stereotype propagated on in the 80s-90s. Stuff like that happens, but it is extremely rare.

One story: I knew a (straight) guy who spent a year teaching at a shitty middle school in Appalachia, and it was normal for girls to bite their lips when talking to him, or try to touch his hand overly long when they handed him shit - sometimes more explicit come-ons.

Most cases of gay 'grooming' are similar - 13-15 year old boys with base homosexual tendencies looking for a father figure and shopping around aggressively for it. Same thing women without fathers do. Such kids will try over and over again until they find a man who is willing. On Grindr, half of everyone who claims to be 18 is usually several years younger. No one likes to imagine their kids out shopping for sex with adults, so they try to imagine some kind of Chris Hansen-esque predator 'tricked' or 'manipulated' them into it - makes for a vastly more comfortable narrative than imagining your son desperately wanted an older man to dominate and fuck him.

Actual sex trafficking, which is rare in the west, but common elsewhere in the world - is a different story.

This made me realize that I made an error on my part - failing to define “grooming”. When I say grooming, I’m referring to a wide range of behaviors intended to cause children to question their “gender identity” and/or “sexual orientation.” While this can include full-blown pedophilic intercourse or molestation (as you described it), it also includes more “innocuous” behaviors like teaching kids about various “gender identities” and sexual orientations in schools, bringing them to/hosting/performing in drag queen story hours, drag shows, etc. Basically, I’m using the term in the same way that Matt Walsh might use it, and I think we’d agree that these sorts of behaviors are becoming increasingly more common. 

One other thing worth addressing: to Anthony’s point, heterosexual women do play a role in this, too, and thus my hypothesis re: the phenomenon of grooming does not explain their role in it; it applies only to those who fall into the “LGBT” category.

[anthony]

So rather than believing that there is a discernible motive behind a pattern of similar behaviors (“grooming”) engaged in by a bunch of individuals who we collectively call faggots (“LGBT”), it is more feasible to believe that “grooming” is the product of a bunch of retards who happen to be in privity with one another, share an identity with one another, and conceptualize themselves as a distinct group with distinct political interests just randomly acting and reacting in a retarded fashion that coincidently ends with the same result - grooming - even though there are ostensibly benefits (2 of which have come up thus far in this thread) they gain (individually and collectively) from engaging in this behavior

I’d be lying if I said that this is easier to believe than the whole “it’s a fetish” thing, the hypothesis I gave, or some multi-causal explanation that includes one or both of those hypothesis plus some other yet-unconsidered causes.

What does "grooming" even mean in your mind? What is this pattern of similar behaviours? Aside from rainbow bombardment of literal toddlers (which is primarily done by heterosexual women) I don't really know of much behaviour which constitutes "grooming" that actually goes on. There are the discord tranny lovebombing egg cracking struggle session insanity things. But that's not an "lgbt" phenomena. That's a very new and very limited "t" thing.

edit: well there's my answer right above me. But I still don't consider the answer satisfying.

[GraalChud]

I’m in my early 20s. I don’t even remember SEEING a flaming gay. Maybe I just forgot. They’re almost nonexistent if youre introverted, don’t hang out with faggy people, and don’t go to gay bars.

I didn’t encounter them until I was in high school, and even then, it was just 1 or 2 kids who didn’t talk about it/pretended to be straight until they couldn’t hide it any further. This was in a large American city and I am in my mid 20s.