LateNightMuffin
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
This is all classic grooming behavior both by individual groomers and in larger grooming social movements. Individual groomers will, for example, first try tickling, and if that is accepted they will move to the next step (not saying every person who tickles a child is a groomer, but that groomers often start with the easily deniable). If it's not accepted, they have deniability: "Oh, it was all in jest!" Or they will make slightly suggestive comments that if accepted can be moved to the next step, or if it's not accepted they have deniability. And we see the same thing on the social level, as people like Ginsberg or Rubin or Califia will make defenses of pedophilia and then when pressed go, "Oh gosh, I'm defending free speech, not pedophilia."
It's pernicious, and this song was the same way. They wanted deniability. And if someone points out how the song is about grooming, they can say, "Oh gosh, it's satire! You're a pearl-clutching moron who's too stupid to understand satire, and too uptight to laugh at an obvious joke." Which is exactly what they've done.
But here's the thing: No person who isn't interested in grooming would write or perform that fucking song in the first place. No non-groomer creative artist will think, "Oh gosh, how cool would that be to write a satirical song about grooming your children that only pretends to be about grooming children!"
Again, this is just classic grooming behavior, where they have deniability when they get called out on their behavior. It's win-win for them, from their perspective: if they don't get called out on it, they have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable in society (which is the entire point of queer theory), and if they do get called out on it, they get to accuse the other side of being bigoted prudes too stupid to understand satire.
