NBC Reporterette Defends the Sexual Grooming of Children But Accuses Parents Opposed to it as the Real Sexual Predators

News & Politics

Have you heard of Kat Tenbarge? She’s a peach. She is NBC’s version of The Washington Post’s tech reporter Taylor Lorenz — who doesn’t report on tech at all but on internet gossip. Lorenz and Tenbarge appear to have a similar goal: destroy Libs of Tik Tok and anyone else who points out the radical sexual grooming by weirdos targeting children — by any means necessary.

Tenbarge has been a very vocal supporter of that nasty woman Amber Heard, who was found to have defamed her ex-husband by a jury of her peers and ordered to pay fifteen million dollars to him. Tenbarge and her #MeToo creeps are still waving the banner proclaiming Heard innocent. It’s stupid. She also thinks Heard’s ridiculous appeal has merit. It doesn’t. Tenbarge has also taken to Tik Tok and has been making vids for the kids of her terrible reporting.

@kat_tenbarge

TW: abuse. An amicus brief in support of Amber Heard’s appeal in Virginia was just filed. I’ll go through the main points. #greenscreen #amberheard #johnnydepp

♬ original sound – kat tenbarge

Tenbarge’s reporting on many stories is flawed. For instance, Tenbarge has decided that Marilyn Manson is guilty of abuse of women based on their word alone. It’s too much to get into for this conversation, but I’ve studied the allegations around Manson, and they are paper thin. The entirety of it in a nutshell amounts to, “I dated Manson willingly as an adult and willingly took part in some weird stuff that I now think was abusive.” His lawsuit against the women making the allegations should prove to be very enlightening. But reporters like Tenbarge don’t look at evidence that does not push the narrative they want to sell. In Tenbarge’s case, she’s invested in the #MeToo narrative, and the #MeToo narrative itself is at stake. Any evidence to suggest that women sometimes lie must be denied by Tenbarge and those like her.

Tenbarge has been at the forefront of the narrative that says anyone pointing out the weird grooming of LGBT content creators, teachers, librarians, and other people targeting children with whacked gender ideology is responsible for violence against gay people like the Club Q shooting. It’s ridiculous.

You Might Like

Related: GLAAD’s Club Q Shooting Response Calls for Silencing Critics

Tenbarge also pretended not to see the Balenciaga photoshoot of children holding bears in fetish gear as sexualizing kids but does point to Kate Moss’s first photoshoot as “child” exploitation. Moss was either 17 or 18 at the time, and she reported afterward feeling uncomfortable. “It’s the same people frothing at the mouth over the idea that Balenciaga is hinting at child sexualization who don’t seem to mind when an actual child was sexualized, leading to real harm to her,” Tenbarge tweeted. To clarify, Tenbarge has no problem with toddlers posing with fetish bears. The ads were a lot more than hinting at pedophilia. In one of the photos, a ruling about child porn was on the desk. Balenciaga has since apologized.

Adding to this weird belief system that adult women are the ones at risk of “grooming” and not little children is the now-accepted belief among these radical lefty types that what you’re seeing aimed at kids is not grooming and even if it is, it’s good and hurts the patriarchy AND it’s really their parents who don’t want them to be sexualized who are the bad guys. 

Confused? Me too. Let’s go over how this started and how I became the target of Tenbarge’s sexuality lesson for parents. It all began when Tenbarge tweeted this absurd thread to combat the parents who don’t want their children sexualized.

Kids frequently go to concerts with female pop stars who wear sexy outfits, perform suggestive dances, and sing lyrics about sex — the kids sing along, wear their merch, and copy their mannerisms. This is never seen as a problem but equivalent drag performances are. You know why.

The problem has never been kids exposed to sex or suggestiveness. Kids have always been welcome to watch movies with their parents that have sexual innuendo, dine at Hooters, watch cheerleaders, and pass by magazine racks that include Playboy. Have you seen some movie posters?

Even kids themselves are allowed to depict sexiness. Look at the competitive dance circuit. Look at pageantry. Little Miss USA. Babies in “future heartbreaker” t-shirts posing with their fellow infant “girlfriends” and “boyfriends” of the opposite sex.

The PROBLEM is that drag and gender non-conformity and queerness oppose patriarchy. When gender norms are cast aside, when women are free to make their own choices, when people love each other outside the confines of heterosexuality — THAT is the problem. It’s not about the kids.

Part of the big lie is making it seem like queer people aren’t fit to be around children. In reality, children raised by same-sex parents are happier and more successful. It’s patriarchy that upholds child abuse and teaches girls they are only baby-makers and obedient wives.

This rationalization for taking kids to see half-naked men twerk in thongs is absurd. Remember, parents, this is what you are paying the big bucks for at the universities. This argument boils down to, “well, straight people do inappropriate things with kids, so gay people can too!” What Tenbarge doesn’t understand is that the majority of parents who are opposed to sexualizing children are opposed to heterosexual grooming too. (Also, it should be noted that Tenbarge does not appear to be a parent.) I tried to explain to her why her theory is bunk.

Not my kids, Kat. I’m 100% opposed to the sexualization of children by anyone, gay or straight. I’ve never allowed my daughters to idolize any Disney pop princess turned whore. Not even once. It’s like you have no idea what good parents are like.

I’ve also never entered my children into a beauty pageant, taken them to Hooters, or allowed them on TikTok. I have scoured stores for decent-length shorts, do not allow sexy Halloween costumes, etc. This is more normal among the people I know than what you are describing.

I have taken them to orchestras, they saw The Piano Guys live (which was awesome), Journey, Buddy Guy, Chicago [the band], and other family-friendly shows. They aren’t allowed to watch R movies (until age appropriate) No sexual content at all. My oldest is 16. Somehow I managed this.

I refuse to buy whorish homecoming dresses that would put Hollywood hookers to shame. It can be done. What you are describing are people who don’t pay attention or who are brainwashed by the oversexualized culture. But it’s ALL bad for kids. And u can’t shut me up.

But shut me up she sure tried to do. Shortly after that, she decided to take screenshots of my replies and unmask me for the patriarchal mouthpiece that I am! (Though I’m still waiting for my check from Patriarchs R Us to come through.) Tenbarge started accusing me of sexualizing my children….by not allowing sexual content in front of them.

Related: Owasso School District Bends the Knee to Parents and Writes New Policy Banning Graphic Content from Library

My thread was about the common hypocrisy from people who think drag is sexualizing kids but heterosexual/patriarchal displays of sex aren’t. But then you have this, which is just a different form of patriarchal hypersexualization of women — the Madonna-whore dichotomy.

“Disney pop princess turned whore” is the epitome of this dichotomy. It assumes that “good” women appear chaste and pure, while “bad” women are promiscuous and seductive. Of course, the presentation of sexiness has nothing to do with how much sex or how many partners a person has.

One of the reasons why former Disney stars have expressed their sexuality through their presentation and artistry is because it’s good marketing. Society demands women objectify themselves to be successful, while calling them whores simultaneously.

I hate to break up intellectual genius right as it’s getting started, but one must pause and appreciate the argument that it’s good for young minor girls to “express” their sexuality onstage because it’s “good marketing.” Good Lord! That takes the cake. In Tenbarge’s estimation, we should encourage our daughters to sell their sexuality because it’s a hot ticket item! As long as people pay for it, they should keep exposing themselves! As long as the dollars are raining down on these girls they should just keep it up!

Again, this is why leftists make terrible parents. It doesn’t factor into the conversation that many of those girls were preyed upon by producers who were three times their age, then used, abused, and discarded. Alanis Morissette described the music industry in the documentary Jagged as one big pond full of predators waiting to pounce on girls who were poorly supervised like she was at a very young age. Morissette was sexually groomed at the age of fifteen by an adult male in the industry. But according to Tenbarge (who is very consumed with #MeToo and yet cares nothing for the actual grooming of kids by the industry), the expression of sexuality onstage by minor girls is lucrative, so it’s fine, or something.

And if she’s saying it’s “society’s fault” for paying for displays of exploitation, then why isn’t she joining with those of us who want to change society to make it a safer place for children? Those of us trying to remove the hyper-sexualization from the public sphere are impugned by Tenbarge as being patriarchal tools. So which is it, Kat? You can’t have it both ways. Is society wrong to demand the exploitation of women? If it is, you should be with us on this one.

The demonization of sexiness is also on full display here. Good Christian morals demand that a woman perform sexuality privately at the behest of her husband whenever he pleases, but never publicly. Always shamefully. It’s very twisted and unhealthy.

What? Why would any woman want to perform sexually in public? The vast majority of people (forget just women) prefer to keep sex acts behind closed doors for the good of all society. We have laws about public lewdness because we’ve all agreed that those things are meant for private, and if they are made public they disrupt the common good. The entertainment industry loves to push those boundaries and has done so to such an extent that we now find ourselves arguing about whether or not toddlers should be in nightclubs in the presence of topless males shaking breast implants in their faces.

It’s also a direct conduit to abuse, because women are taught from a young age that sex cannot be talked about. It’s private and shameful. You know what else is then private and shameful? Sexual abuse. Women in hyper religious environments are more susceptible to abuse.

For one thing, my house is not hyper-religious. Compared to the home in which I grew up, we are positively heathenistic. We don’t even go to mass regularly (I blame COVID-19). We (the adults) drink, we swear, we dance, we have televisions in every room, and we even wear bikinis at the beach. The home in which I grew up was extremely strict. We didn’t have television except for special occasions, our reading materials were selected, no rock music of any kind was allowed in our home, we wore skirts only, had long uncut hair, and spent all of our time at church or at church functions. We swam in jean skirts! How we made it out alive without drowning is a real question. But even with the weirdness, my childhood was still idyllic in comparison to some I’ve met along the way. We had a happy home.

As a teenager, I resented some of that stuff, but I have never turned against my parents because it was their home and they made the rules. We were not abused. On the contrary, we are loved by our parents, and we knew that every day. Our mother talked to us about sex and sexual abuse from the time we were little. We were not ignorant. In fact, I remember going to my mother about a man in my church I suspected was attempting to groom a child I babysat for, and she went to the pastor and he threw him out of our church. Contrary to Kat’s assertion that “hyper-religious” groups put children in danger, it was my experience that our hyper-religious community protected children from abuse.

My children know far more about sexuality than I ever wanted them to know at their ages simply because of the access to the culture through the internet and what television has become. We talk about sex more than any parent would want to. We’re very open about it because you have to be when your children are immersed in a hyper-sexed culture.

Tenbarge opines about families she doesn’t know at all. We are not ashamed to talk to our kids about any issue facing them. We have covered all the pros and cons of early sexual activity, and we have not told our children that sex is shameful. We have imparted to them our values and beliefs that sex is wonderful in the context for which it is intended. Sex isn’t recreational. It is sacred. It is life-giving. It deserves reverence and careful consideration. It is not, as the Tenbarges of the world will tell them, a plaything, a distraction, or something to turn to when you are bored or in need of cash.

One of the most fascinating things about threads like this is that she is literally sexualizing children! They can’t wear too short of shorts because that’s whorish. They can’t wear whorish dresses. Let alone it’s impossible for a child to be a whore because they’re a child.

These people just prove over and over again that they don’t understand sex or sexuality in a healthy way. Sex education is so important because people believe these false dichotomies and the implications lead to real harm

I’m the one sexualizing children? Me? 

Seriously, try to wrap your head around this: a mother who says “sex is not for children” is somehow sexualizing those children more so than the parent taking their kids to a nude drag show. Pointing out that homecoming dresses would put a Hollywood Boulevard hooker to shame and not allowing my daughters to wear them is sexualizing my children? Kids can’t be sexualized? What is this garbage? Brooke Shields was 14 when the industry put her on the cover of a magazine naked with a come-hither stare at the camera. They called it art and got away with it. What it was was the normalization of child porn.

If, as Tenbarge claims, children cannot be sexualized, then how does she explain child porn? If nothing an adult can put on a child or do to a child sexualizes them, then why is child porn illegal? Her argument makes absolutely no sense. Adults sexualize children all the time for nefarious reasons, and it is that which we object to, and we will never stop saying it.

Sex is not for children, and children are not for sex. This should not be a controversial position to take, and yet here we are. Children absolutely can be and are being sexualized by this sick culture. It is up to the parents out here to make it stop. We are doing our best. Don’t let the groomers tell you how to raise your kids. You know what is best for them, and it’s not being immersed in a sexual stew in which even debased Roman emperor Caligula would find offense.

Childhood is worth preserving, and no amount of insults directed at conservative parenting should convince any of us to stop trying.

Articles You May Like

This Republican will reportedly launch a presidential bid in February
Ex-judge in Las Vegas previously under ethics investigation dead of apparent suicide: ‘They have terrorized and lied about me’
Zumba class violently disrupted when bullets pierce studio window, injuring woman
TWITTER FILES: Pro-Censorship Twitter Regime Lacked Guts to Out Group Behind ‘Russian Bots’ ‘Lie’
Netanyahu Schools Tapper For Calling Reforms ‘Pretty Outrageous’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *