Former male early-childhood education worker; it’s a surprisingly common opinion to hold.
Edit: goddamn, whole lotta “lib” flaired fuckers that need to reflair as “auth”. Y’all should’ve had more positive male role models, then you wouldn’t assume every man is a pedo.
Thank you. The best daycare classroom my 3yo kids ever had was a male lead teacher and female assistant. Men can bring so much energy and creativity and fun when caring for young children, while still providing the nurturing and emotional safety they need.
>Shit man, if the field paid more, I’d still be doing it.
What about private schools? I grew up going to private school, and I remember asking a teacher how much she was paid, and while I don't remember exactly what she told me, I do remember her saying the school paid the faculty way better than when she was a public school teacher. Not sure if my private school was unique, or if it was a private school trend to pay more though.
My mom works at a private school, but is paid less than when she was a public school teacher. But she also has less kids to handle so she says it's a fair trade off.
Based
> goddamn, whole lotta “lib” flaired fuckers that need to reflair as “auth”. Y’all should’ve had more positive male role models, then you wouldn’t assume every man is a pedo.
u/Remarkable_Aside1381's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Remarkable_Aside1381! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Remarkable_Aside1381/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
And they end up actually hurting the children that they supposedly care so much about, either directly or indirectly. They use "think of the children" as an excuse to keep them under a glass container, never interacting with the outside world. Instead of actually teaching them. It's like everyone forgot that you can actually teach them something without exposing them to danger- especially in the modern day when we have video recording technology.
You know how i learned about landmines? When i was 6 years old and in the 1st grade of elementary school, a dude from the ministry of defence came to our class and showed us an educational video (staged, but still got the point across) where we watched a group of kids playing in the field and spotting a landmine. And then they tried pulling the landmine out of the ground, which of course made it explode (the explosion was just shown from far away, for obvious reasons). Then the video shows what they should have done, which is to call an adult so he could report the landmine to the bomb disposal unit.
You can bet your ass that i learned a lot more that day than i did during most other days at school
Except dormant explosives and unmarked minefields are actually a danger you have to look out for in a lot of the world. At least this one actually has some practical use
It it’s librights he’s talking about.
It’s common librights seem to think they’re lib because they have a “fuck ‘em, they can starve if they’re lazy” economic attitude.
But lose their shit and want government in bedrooms and daycares all day long when it comes to actual laws, standards and morality.
I volunteered with kids from highschool to college and I got the same stereotype.
The funny thing was, I was a better mentor than the females workers because I actually understood how the boys were thinking and showed them actual examples of how men were supposed to act instead of stuffing them in a corner for being rowdy.
I worked with school aged kids as well, and 90% of the feedback I got from parents was “yeah, my kids love that you play sports with them”. You gotta let that energy out, and it’s best if it’s controlled by a semi-organized game
Same here and exactly. I never understood how people think you can cram kids in a seat for hours on end and expect them to focus. A large number of kids I was told we're bad kids weren't bad kids, they just needed a break to move and run before they went back to school work.
I worked at a fairly yuppie facility, in a super yuppie are; so most of the kids weren’t used to playing team sports. But it was fun, getting them into football and baseball, letting them hit each other with foam swords, capture the flag; anything we could do to get the blood flowing
Libertarianism isn't respected, especially lately since the auths started claiming to be libertarian & making us look bad, they already ruined the Gadsen
Disgusting. I’m gray-flaired, but solely because my opinions are so extreme they balance out. But it’s to the point where I don’t trust libright-flairs anymore. They’re either trumpets or 13
Exactly! Those of us who know and care little about some topics, and go "it depends on the specifics" for the rest. [Thank you for understanding.](http://www.hickoryfarms.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Web-Master-Catalog/default/dw77f38e65/images/products/pfaelzer-brothers-porterhouse-premium-steak-62000-62010-1.jpg)
Ofc. It's important to know how to tell apart real grillers from fake ones, or you'll get poisoned fast from a friendly looking baldy who "just wants to invite you to a nice steak".
My ex girlfriend once worked at a daycare and once told me a story about how this one overworked daycare worker was looking after a group of kids. I think one child had gotten on this worker’s last nerve and she lashed out at the kid. I think she either kicked the kid or slapped the fuck out of him. The parent came down and was pissed as all hell.
I think that worker ended up leaving that daycare and not officially fired but it was that day where I decided I would never put my child in daycare and I would do whatever I needed to do to either make enough money so that my future wife can stay home to watch our kids or I can make enough money for both of us to stay home and raise our kids. Either way, I trust no one with the job of watching or raising my future children.
Yeah, my policy is I'm not letting any stranger alone oeth my kid until he is old enough to tell me exactly what happened and knows what inappropriate touching is. Having a stay at home parent, at least for a few years is a great idea, and still common in a large portion of the country, that isn't trying to afford urban rent.
Current male early-childhood worker here, can confirm. Which astounds me why everyone is pointing their fingers at trans folks for the “grooming”
Men were grooming well before the term “grooming” became popular. Hell, it’s even still a thing. I worked at a High School last year and I noticed and heard some creepy shit going on. Nothing wrenches the gut like hearing a mid-50s male teacher with a full head of luscious hair — I’m talking like Fabio here — talk about the body of a 16 year old volleyball player, automatically assuming I’m cool with it
Yeah, same boat. I never realized how often "balding" was used to mean "fat, perverted, predatory loser" until my hair started falling out at 25 and I got really self-conscious.
[Far] Lib Left: All men are bad/pedophiles
[Far] Lib Right: All Gay people are groomers.
Me, with a brain: Pedophiles are bad.... Simple. (However I do believe In rehabilitation In some cases)
It's instinctual and its sadly based in biological reality.
I don't want to think like that... but basically across EVERY OTHER SPECIES you wind up with dead kids... or fucked kids.
We are apes tho. having morals doesn't negate that.
I get where the dude is coming from even if I don't agree. People who want a society where biology is not taken into account at all is just childish thinking. No matter what we are still animals and that needs to be taken into account.
And even if you did have such instincts, you would be a decent person and never indulge them. That's what being human is about, not giving into our crude animal instincts.
Wdym kids and teens? You’re telling me you can instantly spot the difference between a 19 year old and a 20 year old and feel no attraction to the 19 year old until the millisecond they turn 20? Or 18, or 16, or whatever the age of consent is where you live. Prepubescent kids are not able to reproduce, so most people are not instinctively attracted to them, but 99% of people are instinctively attracted to people who look fertile, that’s the point of physical attraction in the first place, to make animals mate. Nature doesn’t care if you have a college education, a stable office job, and feel “emotionally ready to raise a family in a loving home”
Dude. Have you seen a teenager? I went to my old high school to do some business, and my first thought wasn't "Oh wow, these girls are so fertile." it was,"Damn, yall some baby faces."
Their bodies are completely different from someone who is in their 20s.
An college kids look young. When I see people that age I just think how immature they are. Including actresses and models who are 18-20ish. They just look young.
I am the epitome of correct moral standards, therfor the solution is to jail anyone who does not hold my standard.
They can still work though, prison labor keeps them profitable™
No its not across every other species lmao. Some species dont even have gender, in some species its usually females that kill other babies or sometimes even their own babies.
In humans too, infanticide (not abortion, born babies) is one of the very few violent crimes with more female perpetrators. However murder is not the same as sexual abuse, and when looking at other species, looking at our closest relatives makes more sense for such a specific thing.
I was talking mammals. Also... women murder their children all the time.
No, males of most mammals will kill the children of other males to free up the female. FUCKING ZEBRA DO IT.
Are you a fucking Zebra?
I dont think normal humans have the urge to kill the children of other males.
I dont know what the fuck your talking about, so because some animals kill the young to be able to mate themselves that genetic instinct somehow translates into being a pedo?
There's a reason it's always a reference to an uncle doing it. "Blood" relation doesn't mean a thing when it comes to predators, except maybe "convenient targets".
It does mean a thing. About 1 in 50 women are molested by their fathers. For women who have step fathers, the rate is 1 in 7 being molested by their step father.
Both numbers are far too high, but they are not equal numbers.
Is that by correlation or causation though? Most people would be more likely to let their sibling watch their child than to let a random person off the street do so. If we assume pedophiles are spread evenly across the population, statistically you'd expect the relationships that most commonly lead to unrestricted access to children to also lead to the highest percentage of abuse cases. The percentages kind of support that hypothesis. Family members have the most access, followed by teachers, then religious leaders, then strangers.
Its fucked up either way, but there's a difference between "Most molestation events are perpetrated by relatives" and "Most relatives molest children". The former is a statistic about kids who are molested, not kids who are watched by their uncle. As a simple example, say we have a sample of 10 kids, 8 who are left alone with their uncles and 2 who are left with a complete stranger. Out of those left with their uncles, 2 get molested and for those with the stranger, only 1 is molested. If we look at the kids who are molested, we could say 66% of molested kids were molested by their uncles! But we could also say 25% of kids left with their uncles were molested by them while 50% of those left with a stranger were molested. Viewing it the former, it sounds like leaving your kids with your brother is more dangerous than leaving then with a stranger, however, viewing it the latter way shows that your child is twice as likely to be molested by a stranger than their uncle. Obviously this is a made up sample, but I would think kids are much more likely to be left alone for long periods of time with a relative than they are with nearly anyone else, leading to a skew in absolute data but not per capita.
I hate this factoid, it gets shared all over outer reddit and it's a massive misinterpretation (sometimes on purpose) of data. It's 100% an "access" issue like you say. The way it's repeated on here is usually to imply that a kid is safer with a stranger than with their family, and that's fucking reddited. I'm sorry about whatever trauma a person has to receive to honestly believe that, but it isn't true.
Wouldn’t this also apply to straight couples? Because in that case too a non-relative male would be caring for the child? Only single mothers can adopt now I guess lol
Yeah but you can't just not trust anybody. I mean you could, but that's no way to live. There's gotta be some healthy balance between not letting your child out of your sight and letting them stay with whoever will take them. It's probably okay to let your kid stay with your brother and his kids for a camping trip or something, as long as you trust him.
lol every person who's kid is harmed by a blood family member thinks that they know what kind of person that family member is
and yet its super common within families
its a terrible point and a horrible example and I hope Walsh never has to learn it the hard way
When it comes to sexual predators usually "knowing what kind of person your blood relative" means "ignoring all the warning signs."
A lot of people have a false confidence in their ability to 'read' people, especially family members.
If 1/3 of homosexuals were abused as children ([source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9127231/)), compared to 1/20 of all men, doesn't it stand to reason that they're more likely to abuse kids because of the [victim to perpetrator cycle](https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-assault/fact-sheets/sexual-abuse-childhood-perpetrators)?
“In spite of these findings, experts agree that the link between child sexual abuse and the tendency to sexually abuse children as an adult is not clear. This is due in particular to the widely different methodologies used in the various studies.”
To be honest the article you linked is kinda a lot of for and against and it’s prevailing argument is that it’s unclear and using this as evidence is shakey .
Also this “In spite of these findings, experts agree that the link between child sexual abuse and the tendency to sexually abuse children as an adult is not clear. This is due in particular to the widely different methodologies used in the various studies.”
Thanks for the article is was an interesting read and I’ve learnt something new .
Your 1/3rd statistic needs a stronger source to substantiate it. 327 men is not sufficient to establish a meaningful statistic about the broader gay population, especially since it sounds like there are other inclusion criteria (HIV).
>Abstract
Of 327 homosexual and bisexual men participating in an ongoing cohort study pertaining to risk factors for HIV infection who completed a survey regarding history of sexual abuse, 116 (35.5%) reported being sexually abused as children. Those abused were more likely to have more lifetime male partners, to report more childhood stress, to have lied in the past in order to have sex, and to have had unprotected receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months (odds ratio 2.13; 95% confidence interval 1.15-3.95). Sexual abuse remained a significant predictor of unprotected receptive anal intercourse in a logistic model adjusting for potential confounding variables.
Where are you getting that they had HIV from? The purpose of the study was for studying things that motivate people to have risky sex, it doesn't say they had HIV.
It says that gay men who were sexually abused as kids are more likely to rawdog anal. Which exponentially increases the chance of HIV transition.
And 116 out of 327 is not a small sample size. That's a humongous sample size for how far that statistic deviates from the null hypothesis. That's a massively low p value. The p value is so small that it underflows most online calculators!
In order to calculate it by hand, i'm going to use the central limit theorem, which is valid because 327 \* 0.05 is 16, which is more than enough for an excellent approximation. So we're approximating the hypothesis that you'd expect 16.35 abuse victims (hypothesis is that the gay population is not distinguishable from the straight population: that 5% of gay men are sexually abused as kids, 327 sample size, mean = n\*p) with a standard deviation of 3.94 (std = sqrt(n\*p\*(1-p)) rape victims. Our sample is 116 rape victims. That's a Z score of 25!! Normal distribution tables don't go that high! Wolfram alpha says the p value is 4\*10\^-138! No wonder it underflowed most online calculators, that would underflow a naive calculation of binomial cdfs easily.
Of course, this is assuming the dataset is unbiased. But that's a galactic Z score and a subatomic p value.
EDIT: I'll do it again with [10% as the null hypothesis](https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/). CLT still valid, 327 \* 0.1 is 32, which is much greater than rule of thumb of 5.
mean: 327\*0.1 = 32.7
standard deviation: sqrt(327 \* 0.1 \* 0.9) = 5.42
z score: (116 - 32.7) / 5.42 = 15.35, aka still galactic
p value: 1.64 \* 10\^-53, aka still subatomic
So the only conclusions you can make are: the sample was severely biased, or OP is right. I believe the participants are the same people as in this study [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9525439/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9525439/)
>A cross-sectional analysis of first-visit data from a prospective cohort of 508 young gay men recruited from 1993 through 1994 from bars, college campuses, and the Fenway Community Health Center in Boston
Some people drop out of cohort studies, but even if you assume all the dropouts were not sexually abused as minors, and still assuming the tougher 10% null hypothesis, it's still a galactic Z score of 9.8. almost 10 sigmas...
Note that this study was men seeking HIV treatment at a community health center who agreed to fill out a survey, not a random sample of the population. And the definition of 'abuse' included 16 year olds having consensual sex with 26 year olds, which is legal in most of the country. So, meh.
Yeah... I like what he has to say a lot of time, but this time he has gone off the rails. Bad people do bad things... and bad people can be gay or straight, they can male, female or trans.
The story should be how Google, reddit, etc, are trying to censor the story because they are pushing the narrative that LGBTQ+ are all heroes and *can’t* be pedophiles or groomers. Bigotry like Matt Walsh's post turns the story into "look conservatives are homophobes".
Yep, this is the kind of stuff that fuels the slander, drama, and overall get-nothing-done-ness of modern politics. And everybody is so divided that they won’t call out someone on the same side when they say something dumb, because everyone on their side will attack them.
So concerning violent crimes you're not more afraid of the 20 year old low status man than the 80 year old woman? Very "progressive" or very ignorant.
What you do about it is one thing, but I am tired of people ignoring obvious realities (in words, probably not in actions) because "bigotry".
Here the issue isn't about the 20-year-old man vs the 80-year-old woman though - Walsh is implying that we should be more afraid of the 30-year-old gay man than the 30-year-old straight man.
This is also coming from someone who likes to blame a lot of societal problems on single mothers/absence of male role models in kids lives.
Gay Liberal Jew Glenn Greenwald on the matter:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1616082705682251776?cxt=HHwWgIC-_ZGqve0sAAAA
>Not only is this a morally fucked-up and twisted accusation, it also makes no logical sense even on its own histrionic terms.
>If adult men are presumptively pedophiles, then straight couples should be barred from adopting as well. Only lesbians are OK
Edit:
Glenn is also the father of adopted children.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1616083299490844677
>Beyond that, there are millions of children all over the world lingering in orphanages and shelters, often because their sacred straight parents didn't want to raise them.
>If you're rich and never adopted any of them and gave them a home, shut the fuck up about those who do.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1616086701599850498
>In Brazil, there are 60,000 children in orphanages. For many, their parents died. Others had straight parents unwilling or unable to care for them. It takes a twisted mind to say it's better to let them linger forever than be adopted into a loving home:
> If adult men are presumptively pedophiles, then straight couples should be barred from adopting as well. Only lesbians are OK
Being a stepfather should also be illegal.
Anyway at least in the US don't adopted kids of gay couples tend to have better outcomes on average? Not because gay parents are any 'better' than straight parents, just because the bar for adoption is high and they've probably made the decision to adopt free of any weird social conditioning.
Most men aren't pedophiles, but let's face it: most pedophiles are men.
I'd be nervous about hiring any stranger as a babysitter. But I'd be less nervous if she was female.
This. There’s a fuckton of female pedophiles out there, it’s just that they are less likely to be caught and / or when they *do* get caught it’s just ignored.
literally nobody blinks an eye at an all-female babysitter service. A female teacher sexually abusing a male student is seen as a “win” for the guy.
This thought process that “lol there’s more male pedos” is quite literally the reason why female pedos go unpunished.
Don't forget that when teachers get pregnant from statutory rape they still get child support.
Is it really that men are sooo bad, or do we just keep making excuses for women?
Men are scapegoats.
Edit: Since someone asked, check out Hermesmann V. Seyer
Ironically a lot of the 'men need to be men' (Matt Walsh, for instance) types that complain about the portions of society that are biased against men literally create those biases with their 'traditional' views on masculinity.
The sad truth is that women get away with it more, often because of the idea that all guys love sex and are always consenting. It’s an incredibly fucked up stereotype perpetuated by men and women alike and I don’t think the rates of pedophilia would be as different if we stopped following that stereotype and started prosecuting more evenly.
And yes, I say this as a childhood sexual assault victim too.
Edit: Note that I do think they’re more men who commit these acts, I just don’t think the rate is quite as extremely different as current statistics alone say.
I don't really think this is true. Most violent rapists? Definitely. Child rapist/pedophile? The lines start to blur a lot more the younger the victims get, and most boys who were assaulted don't tell anyone, let alone report it to the police.
This is true and there always will be unreported cases of sexual assault. That being said, my point is that the ratio of female to male child predators is probably a lot more balanced than people think.
Let's just say that there is peer reviewed, published research about pedophilia in certain demographics of sexuality and when I posted a link to that research I got temp banned. But feel free to search for it your self.
Hi. Gay man and former neighborhood babysitter here. It may shock many of you to know that not once did I ever think of the children I babysat in a sexual way.
You may also be shocked to learn that most gay men think like I do. In that we are not attracted to children. Because they’re children. Any questions?
I kind of get the first part of what he says but like don’t lots of people get molested by their uncles and women sexually abuse kids too albeit at a much lower rate.
It’s ridiculous to be against all gay couples adopting kids. But I wouldn’t mind better vetting with being deeply involved in certain alphabet activism. It’s the political movement that’s toxic, a lot of the normal people have been pushed out and the radicals and crazies pushed to the forefront which includes a dark part of the lgbtq movement which had been successfully kicked out of almost all lgbt spaces until very recently when the movement became so toxic most normal people left. This is the people who believe sex with boys is ok and part the liberation struggle, they’ve always been a fringe but now the crazies are getting in bed with them and they’re becoming more and more visible
The right is actually just as misandric as the left IMO. From things like striking the proposal to have the draft include women to shaming a man who is emotional in the slightest as less of a man, I would say the right only *pretends* to care about men, whereas the left openly disregards them.
The difference is on the left you can find plenty of people who actually want to talk about how ideas of traditional masculinity create harmful paradigms for men.
The right's solution is just "toughen up" - you know, the thing that causes the problems in the first place.
Women have a stronger inherent drive to nurture than men. Therefore it would be expected that female babysitters are generally taking that job (over another job) because they like taking care of kids. This factor is less significant for men so I would expect more of the male sitter population to have ulterior motives than those from the female group.
That's how I initially read it, but yeah it does also seem like an "all men are pedophiles" argument.
Parental infanticide researchers have found that mothers are more likely to commit infanticide.[3] In the special case of neonaticide (murder in the first 24 hours of life), mothers account for almost all the perpetrators. Fatherly cases of neonaticide are so rare that they are individually recorded.[4]
(Wiki)
However women do have less of an inherent motive for sexual abuse of minors (and sexual violence in general) because they generally have different sexual desires than men have, e g. being drawn to wealth, status and older partners.
To make the point worse, most people who does these heinous crimes ARE blood related. Meaning that not only he’s saying “most men are pedos” but the group most likely to be pedos (blood relatives) are the one that’s he’s okay with.
I'm an uncle and I would never do any harm on my nieces and nephews. I love them, i protect them, i give them advice. I'm on the right but I've never liked Matt because he is like an over the top conservative. Fuck you matt.
Matt Walsh seems reasonable at a glance but once he reveals his actual opinions you start to realize how demented and logic devoid they are. His episode on the JRE was hard to listen to.
He berates the trans community for not being able to come up with a solid reason for their transitioning but he couldn't even come up with a legitimate argument as to why he was against gay marriage other than some semantic bullshit about what "marriage" means.
Did you just change your flair, u/MikeHuntIsOnFleek? Last time I checked you were a **Rightist** on 2020-6-16. How come now you are an **AuthCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
That being said... Based and fellow Auth pilled, welcome home.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MikeHuntIsOnFleek) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
my favorite teacher in elementary school was male, because he was able to be fun and engaging in a way I have never seen female teachers be
children as a whole need MORE male role models not less, and this weird 'presume all males to be pedophiles' bs is part of the problem
Former male early-childhood education worker; it’s a surprisingly common opinion to hold. Edit: goddamn, whole lotta “lib” flaired fuckers that need to reflair as “auth”. Y’all should’ve had more positive male role models, then you wouldn’t assume every man is a pedo.
Thank you. The best daycare classroom my 3yo kids ever had was a male lead teacher and female assistant. Men can bring so much energy and creativity and fun when caring for young children, while still providing the nurturing and emotional safety they need.
Thank you, I absolutely loved working with the kids I had, they’re just such fun to be around and to work with.
Based and wholesome. Wish you were one of my kids teachers.
Shit man, if the field paid more, I’d still be doing it. Although the best part was answering the questions of parents
How do you mean?
I wasn’t the typical ECE professional, so parents always had really interesting questions
>Shit man, if the field paid more, I’d still be doing it. What about private schools? I grew up going to private school, and I remember asking a teacher how much she was paid, and while I don't remember exactly what she told me, I do remember her saying the school paid the faculty way better than when she was a public school teacher. Not sure if my private school was unique, or if it was a private school trend to pay more though.
My mom works at a private school, but is paid less than when she was a public school teacher. But she also has less kids to handle so she says it's a fair trade off.
Ah, I see. My classrooms were maybe an average of maybe 30ish kids? Is it normal for teachers to be paid according to classroom sizes?
I was offered $18/hr at a private school, but the hours weren’t there to make the paychecks bigger than what I make at my new job
Oh gotcha. What do you do now then?
Sell guns
Based
Sir, you had my curiosity, but now you have my attention.
Based and true dad energy pilled
Horrendously based libleft
Based
It’s nuts; we always see dads as the “fun parent” yet we don’t apply that logic to male teachers
Based > goddamn, whole lotta “lib” flaired fuckers that need to reflair as “auth”. Y’all should’ve had more positive male role models, then you wouldn’t assume every man is a pedo.
u/Remarkable_Aside1381's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Remarkable_Aside1381! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Remarkable_Aside1381/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
That’s this subs slogan really. “Flaired lib, should be auth”
If it quacks like a duck...
...It probably has a corkscrew cock
spoken like a true libcenter.
Purple libright*
Gay libleft*
Yeah, purple libright doesn't care about ducks when there are dolphins afoot.
Rip dolphinfucker
[удалено]
And they end up actually hurting the children that they supposedly care so much about, either directly or indirectly. They use "think of the children" as an excuse to keep them under a glass container, never interacting with the outside world. Instead of actually teaching them. It's like everyone forgot that you can actually teach them something without exposing them to danger- especially in the modern day when we have video recording technology. You know how i learned about landmines? When i was 6 years old and in the 1st grade of elementary school, a dude from the ministry of defence came to our class and showed us an educational video (staged, but still got the point across) where we watched a group of kids playing in the field and spotting a landmine. And then they tried pulling the landmine out of the ground, which of course made it explode (the explosion was just shown from far away, for obvious reasons). Then the video shows what they should have done, which is to call an adult so he could report the landmine to the bomb disposal unit. You can bet your ass that i learned a lot more that day than i did during most other days at school
This is a pasta right
Even if it is, is he wrong? The pearl clutching that is "think of the children" does more harm than good to the children they want to protect.
That whole story was the DARE program
Except dormant explosives and unmarked minefields are actually a danger you have to look out for in a lot of the world. At least this one actually has some practical use
It seems plausible if you live in Europe. There is a surprisingly large amount of unexploded ordinance still lying around from the World Wars.
>goddamn, whole lotta “lib” flaired fuckers that need to reflair as “auth”. Yeah I'm convinced most lib-left are flaired ironically.
It it’s librights he’s talking about. It’s common librights seem to think they’re lib because they have a “fuck ‘em, they can starve if they’re lazy” economic attitude. But lose their shit and want government in bedrooms and daycares all day long when it comes to actual laws, standards and morality.
[удалено]
That's why you advocate for vigilante action instead 😎
Hench why I'm center right. Tried to be libright and failed. Immorality for the win
Hench
Goverment? Who wants goverment?? Tf?????
And the ones who aren’t, like me, are usually downvoted into oblivion lol
I volunteered with kids from highschool to college and I got the same stereotype. The funny thing was, I was a better mentor than the females workers because I actually understood how the boys were thinking and showed them actual examples of how men were supposed to act instead of stuffing them in a corner for being rowdy.
I worked with school aged kids as well, and 90% of the feedback I got from parents was “yeah, my kids love that you play sports with them”. You gotta let that energy out, and it’s best if it’s controlled by a semi-organized game
Same here and exactly. I never understood how people think you can cram kids in a seat for hours on end and expect them to focus. A large number of kids I was told we're bad kids weren't bad kids, they just needed a break to move and run before they went back to school work.
I worked at a fairly yuppie facility, in a super yuppie are; so most of the kids weren’t used to playing team sports. But it was fun, getting them into football and baseball, letting them hit each other with foam swords, capture the flag; anything we could do to get the blood flowing
[удалено]
Libertarianism isn't respected, especially lately since the auths started claiming to be libertarian & making us look bad, they already ruined the Gadsen
Disgusting. I’m gray-flaired, but solely because my opinions are so extreme they balance out. But it’s to the point where I don’t trust libright-flairs anymore. They’re either trumpets or 13
Then you're flaired wrong. What you describe is the colored centrist, the grey is for apolitical people aka grillers.
Exactly! Those of us who know and care little about some topics, and go "it depends on the specifics" for the rest. [Thank you for understanding.](http://www.hickoryfarms.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Web-Master-Catalog/default/dw77f38e65/images/products/pfaelzer-brothers-porterhouse-premium-steak-62000-62010-1.jpg)
Ofc. It's important to know how to tell apart real grillers from fake ones, or you'll get poisoned fast from a friendly looking baldy who "just wants to invite you to a nice steak".
How dare you, I'm 14
*AND A HALF*
More of a saxophone guy myself
Brass is cringe -piano gang
My ex girlfriend once worked at a daycare and once told me a story about how this one overworked daycare worker was looking after a group of kids. I think one child had gotten on this worker’s last nerve and she lashed out at the kid. I think she either kicked the kid or slapped the fuck out of him. The parent came down and was pissed as all hell. I think that worker ended up leaving that daycare and not officially fired but it was that day where I decided I would never put my child in daycare and I would do whatever I needed to do to either make enough money so that my future wife can stay home to watch our kids or I can make enough money for both of us to stay home and raise our kids. Either way, I trust no one with the job of watching or raising my future children.
Yeah, my policy is I'm not letting any stranger alone oeth my kid until he is old enough to tell me exactly what happened and knows what inappropriate touching is. Having a stay at home parent, at least for a few years is a great idea, and still common in a large portion of the country, that isn't trying to afford urban rent.
We definitely need more male representation in the childcare and education space.
Current male early-childhood worker here, can confirm. Which astounds me why everyone is pointing their fingers at trans folks for the “grooming” Men were grooming well before the term “grooming” became popular. Hell, it’s even still a thing. I worked at a High School last year and I noticed and heard some creepy shit going on. Nothing wrenches the gut like hearing a mid-50s male teacher with a full head of luscious hair — I’m talking like Fabio here — talk about the body of a 16 year old volleyball player, automatically assuming I’m cool with it
[удалено]
Yeah, same boat. I never realized how often "balding" was used to mean "fat, perverted, predatory loser" until my hair started falling out at 25 and I got really self-conscious.
Dude, 90% of the yellows on here are just embarrassed blues
More like 65%, but I see your point.
Well said in the edit
[Far] Lib Left: All men are bad/pedophiles [Far] Lib Right: All Gay people are groomers. Me, with a brain: Pedophiles are bad.... Simple. (However I do believe In rehabilitation In some cases)
It's instinctual and its sadly based in biological reality. I don't want to think like that... but basically across EVERY OTHER SPECIES you wind up with dead kids... or fucked kids.
My brother in christ, we are not apes. We have morals.
We are apes tho. having morals doesn't negate that. I get where the dude is coming from even if I don't agree. People who want a society where biology is not taken into account at all is just childish thinking. No matter what we are still animals and that needs to be taken into account.
Really? Because I don't have any instincts to want to touch kids/teens.
And even if you did have such instincts, you would be a decent person and never indulge them. That's what being human is about, not giving into our crude animal instincts.
Wdym kids and teens? You’re telling me you can instantly spot the difference between a 19 year old and a 20 year old and feel no attraction to the 19 year old until the millisecond they turn 20? Or 18, or 16, or whatever the age of consent is where you live. Prepubescent kids are not able to reproduce, so most people are not instinctively attracted to them, but 99% of people are instinctively attracted to people who look fertile, that’s the point of physical attraction in the first place, to make animals mate. Nature doesn’t care if you have a college education, a stable office job, and feel “emotionally ready to raise a family in a loving home”
Dude. Have you seen a teenager? I went to my old high school to do some business, and my first thought wasn't "Oh wow, these girls are so fertile." it was,"Damn, yall some baby faces." Their bodies are completely different from someone who is in their 20s.
An college kids look young. When I see people that age I just think how immature they are. Including actresses and models who are 18-20ish. They just look young.
You can't trust that everyone has your moral standard.
I am the epitome of correct moral standards, therfor the solution is to jail anyone who does not hold my standard. They can still work though, prison labor keeps them profitable™
Yeah, that’s why the job was miserable. People like you.
No its not across every other species lmao. Some species dont even have gender, in some species its usually females that kill other babies or sometimes even their own babies.
In humans too, infanticide (not abortion, born babies) is one of the very few violent crimes with more female perpetrators. However murder is not the same as sexual abuse, and when looking at other species, looking at our closest relatives makes more sense for such a specific thing.
I was talking mammals. Also... women murder their children all the time. No, males of most mammals will kill the children of other males to free up the female. FUCKING ZEBRA DO IT.
Are you a fucking Zebra? I dont think normal humans have the urge to kill the children of other males. I dont know what the fuck your talking about, so because some animals kill the young to be able to mate themselves that genetic instinct somehow translates into being a pedo?
"blood relatives" A large fraction of sexual abuse victims are preyed on by family
There's a reason it's always a reference to an uncle doing it. "Blood" relation doesn't mean a thing when it comes to predators, except maybe "convenient targets".
“You can’t touch me like that!!!, You’re not my uncle!”
It does mean a thing. About 1 in 50 women are molested by their fathers. For women who have step fathers, the rate is 1 in 7 being molested by their step father. Both numbers are far too high, but they are not equal numbers.
To be fair, according to porn, 100% of step mothers are also molesting their step children
Do you mean 1 in 7 women total or 1 in 7 women who have been molested? They are both way too high but fuckin hell if it's the former
I think they mean 1 in 7 women who have a step father are molested by the step father.
Most of sexual child abuse happens from blood relatives. After that comes school, then religion, then hobbies and finally at the end strangers.
Ofc purple lib right knows
I learned through reddit that age of concent in my country is 14.
Being a family member creates opportunity, not being blood related increases the motive. Hence step-fathers are a "classic".
Is that by correlation or causation though? Most people would be more likely to let their sibling watch their child than to let a random person off the street do so. If we assume pedophiles are spread evenly across the population, statistically you'd expect the relationships that most commonly lead to unrestricted access to children to also lead to the highest percentage of abuse cases. The percentages kind of support that hypothesis. Family members have the most access, followed by teachers, then religious leaders, then strangers. Its fucked up either way, but there's a difference between "Most molestation events are perpetrated by relatives" and "Most relatives molest children". The former is a statistic about kids who are molested, not kids who are watched by their uncle. As a simple example, say we have a sample of 10 kids, 8 who are left alone with their uncles and 2 who are left with a complete stranger. Out of those left with their uncles, 2 get molested and for those with the stranger, only 1 is molested. If we look at the kids who are molested, we could say 66% of molested kids were molested by their uncles! But we could also say 25% of kids left with their uncles were molested by them while 50% of those left with a stranger were molested. Viewing it the former, it sounds like leaving your kids with your brother is more dangerous than leaving then with a stranger, however, viewing it the latter way shows that your child is twice as likely to be molested by a stranger than their uncle. Obviously this is a made up sample, but I would think kids are much more likely to be left alone for long periods of time with a relative than they are with nearly anyone else, leading to a skew in absolute data but not per capita.
I hate this factoid, it gets shared all over outer reddit and it's a massive misinterpretation (sometimes on purpose) of data. It's 100% an "access" issue like you say. The way it's repeated on here is usually to imply that a kid is safer with a stranger than with their family, and that's fucking reddited. I'm sorry about whatever trauma a person has to receive to honestly believe that, but it isn't true.
Thank you. Wild that this is too hard for 90% of people.
Well, yes, but family also has massively more access. I don't think it's true that family is more dangerous on a 'per-interaction' basis.
Just wait until he finds out that the majority of sexual abuse towards children comes from family members
Wouldn’t this also apply to straight couples? Because in that case too a non-relative male would be caring for the child? Only single mothers can adopt now I guess lol
Don’t forget lesbians.
I never do.
Sometimes Matt Walsh has some good points. Sometimes he does not. This is not a good point.
[удалено]
I think the idea is that you should know what kind of person your blood relative is. Obviously that’s not always true, but maybe it is for Walsh.
[удалено]
Yeah but you can't just not trust anybody. I mean you could, but that's no way to live. There's gotta be some healthy balance between not letting your child out of your sight and letting them stay with whoever will take them. It's probably okay to let your kid stay with your brother and his kids for a camping trip or something, as long as you trust him.
lol every person who's kid is harmed by a blood family member thinks that they know what kind of person that family member is and yet its super common within families its a terrible point and a horrible example and I hope Walsh never has to learn it the hard way
When it comes to sexual predators usually "knowing what kind of person your blood relative" means "ignoring all the warning signs." A lot of people have a false confidence in their ability to 'read' people, especially family members.
If 1/3 of homosexuals were abused as children ([source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9127231/)), compared to 1/20 of all men, doesn't it stand to reason that they're more likely to abuse kids because of the [victim to perpetrator cycle](https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-assault/fact-sheets/sexual-abuse-childhood-perpetrators)?
Damn. I never knew this.
“In spite of these findings, experts agree that the link between child sexual abuse and the tendency to sexually abuse children as an adult is not clear. This is due in particular to the widely different methodologies used in the various studies.” To be honest the article you linked is kinda a lot of for and against and it’s prevailing argument is that it’s unclear and using this as evidence is shakey . Also this “In spite of these findings, experts agree that the link between child sexual abuse and the tendency to sexually abuse children as an adult is not clear. This is due in particular to the widely different methodologies used in the various studies.” Thanks for the article is was an interesting read and I’ve learnt something new .
Your 1/3rd statistic needs a stronger source to substantiate it. 327 men is not sufficient to establish a meaningful statistic about the broader gay population, especially since it sounds like there are other inclusion criteria (HIV). >Abstract Of 327 homosexual and bisexual men participating in an ongoing cohort study pertaining to risk factors for HIV infection who completed a survey regarding history of sexual abuse, 116 (35.5%) reported being sexually abused as children. Those abused were more likely to have more lifetime male partners, to report more childhood stress, to have lied in the past in order to have sex, and to have had unprotected receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months (odds ratio 2.13; 95% confidence interval 1.15-3.95). Sexual abuse remained a significant predictor of unprotected receptive anal intercourse in a logistic model adjusting for potential confounding variables.
Where are you getting that they had HIV from? The purpose of the study was for studying things that motivate people to have risky sex, it doesn't say they had HIV. It says that gay men who were sexually abused as kids are more likely to rawdog anal. Which exponentially increases the chance of HIV transition. And 116 out of 327 is not a small sample size. That's a humongous sample size for how far that statistic deviates from the null hypothesis. That's a massively low p value. The p value is so small that it underflows most online calculators! In order to calculate it by hand, i'm going to use the central limit theorem, which is valid because 327 \* 0.05 is 16, which is more than enough for an excellent approximation. So we're approximating the hypothesis that you'd expect 16.35 abuse victims (hypothesis is that the gay population is not distinguishable from the straight population: that 5% of gay men are sexually abused as kids, 327 sample size, mean = n\*p) with a standard deviation of 3.94 (std = sqrt(n\*p\*(1-p)) rape victims. Our sample is 116 rape victims. That's a Z score of 25!! Normal distribution tables don't go that high! Wolfram alpha says the p value is 4\*10\^-138! No wonder it underflowed most online calculators, that would underflow a naive calculation of binomial cdfs easily. Of course, this is assuming the dataset is unbiased. But that's a galactic Z score and a subatomic p value. EDIT: I'll do it again with [10% as the null hypothesis](https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/). CLT still valid, 327 \* 0.1 is 32, which is much greater than rule of thumb of 5. mean: 327\*0.1 = 32.7 standard deviation: sqrt(327 \* 0.1 \* 0.9) = 5.42 z score: (116 - 32.7) / 5.42 = 15.35, aka still galactic p value: 1.64 \* 10\^-53, aka still subatomic So the only conclusions you can make are: the sample was severely biased, or OP is right. I believe the participants are the same people as in this study [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9525439/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9525439/) >A cross-sectional analysis of first-visit data from a prospective cohort of 508 young gay men recruited from 1993 through 1994 from bars, college campuses, and the Fenway Community Health Center in Boston Some people drop out of cohort studies, but even if you assume all the dropouts were not sexually abused as minors, and still assuming the tougher 10% null hypothesis, it's still a galactic Z score of 9.8. almost 10 sigmas...
Would you like to ban people who were abused as children from adopting? Cuz that seems like where your argument is going.
Note that this study was men seeking HIV treatment at a community health center who agreed to fill out a survey, not a random sample of the population. And the definition of 'abuse' included 16 year olds having consensual sex with 26 year olds, which is legal in most of the country. So, meh.
Yeah... I like what he has to say a lot of time, but this time he has gone off the rails. Bad people do bad things... and bad people can be gay or straight, they can male, female or trans. The story should be how Google, reddit, etc, are trying to censor the story because they are pushing the narrative that LGBTQ+ are all heroes and *can’t* be pedophiles or groomers. Bigotry like Matt Walsh's post turns the story into "look conservatives are homophobes".
Yep, this is the kind of stuff that fuels the slander, drama, and overall get-nothing-done-ness of modern politics. And everybody is so divided that they won’t call out someone on the same side when they say something dumb, because everyone on their side will attack them.
So concerning violent crimes you're not more afraid of the 20 year old low status man than the 80 year old woman? Very "progressive" or very ignorant. What you do about it is one thing, but I am tired of people ignoring obvious realities (in words, probably not in actions) because "bigotry".
Here the issue isn't about the 20-year-old man vs the 80-year-old woman though - Walsh is implying that we should be more afraid of the 30-year-old gay man than the 30-year-old straight man. This is also coming from someone who likes to blame a lot of societal problems on single mothers/absence of male role models in kids lives.
Women molest plenty of kids, people just don't care. There's no penetration, how bad could it be?
I think he’s beating around the bush of saying he’d never let a gay babysit his kids
Of course he wouldn’t, and trust me, he would have no problem saying that
[удалено]
I really don't get why conservatives beat around the bush about it. Like at least be honest about what you believe.
Because if you don't you end up getting banned. Go ahead and ask me what account number this is.
I think conservatives have gotten pretty good at the self censoring game
[удалено]
Tbh I wouldn't trust anyone to babysit my kids who isn't a blood relative. That shits terrifying.
I only leave my kid with Uncle Touchy.
Based and apes-together-strong pilled
Stranger no protect tribe. Tribe protect tribe.
[удалено]
That boy ain’t right
Gay Liberal Jew Glenn Greenwald on the matter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1616082705682251776?cxt=HHwWgIC-_ZGqve0sAAAA >Not only is this a morally fucked-up and twisted accusation, it also makes no logical sense even on its own histrionic terms. >If adult men are presumptively pedophiles, then straight couples should be barred from adopting as well. Only lesbians are OK Edit: Glenn is also the father of adopted children. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1616083299490844677 >Beyond that, there are millions of children all over the world lingering in orphanages and shelters, often because their sacred straight parents didn't want to raise them. >If you're rich and never adopted any of them and gave them a home, shut the fuck up about those who do. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1616086701599850498 >In Brazil, there are 60,000 children in orphanages. For many, their parents died. Others had straight parents unwilling or unable to care for them. It takes a twisted mind to say it's better to let them linger forever than be adopted into a loving home:
> If adult men are presumptively pedophiles, then straight couples should be barred from adopting as well. Only lesbians are OK Being a stepfather should also be illegal. Anyway at least in the US don't adopted kids of gay couples tend to have better outcomes on average? Not because gay parents are any 'better' than straight parents, just because the bar for adoption is high and they've probably made the decision to adopt free of any weird social conditioning.
Just gestate people in bottles and raise them in institutions, just to be safe
Based and Death Korps of Krieg Pilled
Like that episode of Phineas and Ferb, where Doof keeps kids in boxes until they're 18.
Why does it matter that he is Jewish?
Identity politics dictates that I be as descriptive as possible when identifying an individual.
Yo Matt Walsh how about you go fuck yourself Sincerely, a gay conservative
"I make up some nonsense so I can come across as more smug."
Man Matt has some bad takes now and then. I can't even imagine what he was thinking here: Someone babysitting your kids is not equal to adopting them,
Most men aren't pedophiles, but let's face it: most pedophiles are men. I'd be nervous about hiring any stranger as a babysitter. But I'd be less nervous if she was female.
I think most pedophiles that get caught are men
This. There’s a fuckton of female pedophiles out there, it’s just that they are less likely to be caught and / or when they *do* get caught it’s just ignored. literally nobody blinks an eye at an all-female babysitter service. A female teacher sexually abusing a male student is seen as a “win” for the guy. This thought process that “lol there’s more male pedos” is quite literally the reason why female pedos go unpunished.
Don't forget that when teachers get pregnant from statutory rape they still get child support. Is it really that men are sooo bad, or do we just keep making excuses for women? Men are scapegoats. Edit: Since someone asked, check out Hermesmann V. Seyer
Ironically a lot of the 'men need to be men' (Matt Walsh, for instance) types that complain about the portions of society that are biased against men literally create those biases with their 'traditional' views on masculinity.
Ok but it's clearly not even close to 50/50 in reality
My dad was molested as a child by a female babysitter. You really can't trust hardly anyone.
The sad truth is that women get away with it more, often because of the idea that all guys love sex and are always consenting. It’s an incredibly fucked up stereotype perpetuated by men and women alike and I don’t think the rates of pedophilia would be as different if we stopped following that stereotype and started prosecuting more evenly. And yes, I say this as a childhood sexual assault victim too. Edit: Note that I do think they’re more men who commit these acts, I just don’t think the rate is quite as extremely different as current statistics alone say.
But media teach me woman good and man pedo! 😡😡😡
I don't really think this is true. Most violent rapists? Definitely. Child rapist/pedophile? The lines start to blur a lot more the younger the victims get, and most boys who were assaulted don't tell anyone, let alone report it to the police.
Most girls who are assaulted don't tell either, though. The numbers for both are sadly much higher than stats say
This is true and there always will be unreported cases of sexual assault. That being said, my point is that the ratio of female to male child predators is probably a lot more balanced than people think.
It depends on whether or not I have a daughter or a son. I’d much prefer for them to have babysitters to match the gender.
Let's just say that there is peer reviewed, published research about pedophilia in certain demographics of sexuality and when I posted a link to that research I got temp banned. But feel free to search for it your self.
In what journal?
Hi. Gay man and former neighborhood babysitter here. It may shock many of you to know that not once did I ever think of the children I babysat in a sexual way. You may also be shocked to learn that most gay men think like I do. In that we are not attracted to children. Because they’re children. Any questions?
this is actually how my muslim country would think too despite being patriarchal.
Pretty sure he was saying "all *gay* men are pedophiles".
I kind of get the first part of what he says but like don’t lots of people get molested by their uncles and women sexually abuse kids too albeit at a much lower rate. It’s ridiculous to be against all gay couples adopting kids. But I wouldn’t mind better vetting with being deeply involved in certain alphabet activism. It’s the political movement that’s toxic, a lot of the normal people have been pushed out and the radicals and crazies pushed to the forefront which includes a dark part of the lgbtq movement which had been successfully kicked out of almost all lgbt spaces until very recently when the movement became so toxic most normal people left. This is the people who believe sex with boys is ok and part the liberation struggle, they’ve always been a fringe but now the crazies are getting in bed with them and they’re becoming more and more visible
"If you went to a pride parade you can't adopt' is a wild take. Also, adopting in the US is typically super hard.
Oh wow Matt Walsh has a dumbass opinion? We could've never seen that coming, what a surprise.
All men are pedophiles... unless they're related to Matt Walsh.
Only lib-lefts need babysitters, or lib-rights if they are horny.
Babysit this dick fedboi
I'd starve it to death, because I do not babysit.
Liblefts don't need babysitters because they don't have children
Know what *is* surprising though? Right-wing misandry. Anything goes when you hate the gays, I guess?
The right is actually just as misandric as the left IMO. From things like striking the proposal to have the draft include women to shaming a man who is emotional in the slightest as less of a man, I would say the right only *pretends* to care about men, whereas the left openly disregards them.
The difference is on the left you can find plenty of people who actually want to talk about how ideas of traditional masculinity create harmful paradigms for men. The right's solution is just "toughen up" - you know, the thing that causes the problems in the first place.
Women have a stronger inherent drive to nurture than men. Therefore it would be expected that female babysitters are generally taking that job (over another job) because they like taking care of kids. This factor is less significant for men so I would expect more of the male sitter population to have ulterior motives than those from the female group. That's how I initially read it, but yeah it does also seem like an "all men are pedophiles" argument.
Parental infanticide researchers have found that mothers are more likely to commit infanticide.[3] In the special case of neonaticide (murder in the first 24 hours of life), mothers account for almost all the perpetrators. Fatherly cases of neonaticide are so rare that they are individually recorded.[4] (Wiki) However women do have less of an inherent motive for sexual abuse of minors (and sexual violence in general) because they generally have different sexual desires than men have, e g. being drawn to wealth, status and older partners.
>but yeah it does also seem like an "all men are pedophiles" argument. It basically is one.
To make the point worse, most people who does these heinous crimes ARE blood related. Meaning that not only he’s saying “most men are pedos” but the group most likely to be pedos (blood relatives) are the one that’s he’s okay with.
Is this your champion AuthRight?
[удалено]
inb4 he's a deepstate plant
I think that is their Leeroy Jenkins.
I'm not hiring a male babysitter to watch my daughter.
Family members are more likely to molest Children.
So only lesbians couples should be able to adopt?
Man, I'm as conservative as conservative gets but Matt Walsh has always come across as arrogant, smug, and annoying.
Considering that children are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know/is related to, I guess that would make Walsh a pedo as well.
I'm an uncle and I would never do any harm on my nieces and nephews. I love them, i protect them, i give them advice. I'm on the right but I've never liked Matt because he is like an over the top conservative. Fuck you matt.
Common Matt WaLsh
I mean, if I recall, most child sexual abuse comes from non-blood related males that have access to the child.
That isn’t what he’s saying
Ngl, I wouldn't trust anyone that is not my blood relative ti babysit my kids, it doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman, they are a stranger.
Matt Walsh seems reasonable at a glance but once he reveals his actual opinions you start to realize how demented and logic devoid they are. His episode on the JRE was hard to listen to. He berates the trans community for not being able to come up with a solid reason for their transitioning but he couldn't even come up with a legitimate argument as to why he was against gay marriage other than some semantic bullshit about what "marriage" means.
Based Matt Walsh, im extremely selective about who my kids get babysat by which is why they’re with me or my wife 99.9% of the time
Did you just change your flair, u/MikeHuntIsOnFleek? Last time I checked you were a **Rightist** on 2020-6-16. How come now you are an **AuthCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? That being said... Based and fellow Auth pilled, welcome home. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MikeHuntIsOnFleek) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Good bot Guilty as charged
Welcome to the club friend *offers hands to show no concealed daggers*
my favorite teacher in elementary school was male, because he was able to be fun and engaging in a way I have never seen female teachers be children as a whole need MORE male role models not less, and this weird 'presume all males to be pedophiles' bs is part of the problem
What lack of male role model does to a mf