Shock Tactics Of The Washington Times.

Hate filled article sparks outrage.

A deeply offensive article liking paedophilia and homosexuality,  among other things has been published on The Washington Times website,  which is drawing criticism and consternation from all over the net.

“Wow, this is the most offensive garbage, Ms' Grassman. When you attempt to draw your line from homosexuality (a perfectly NATURAL occurrence in nature) to pedophilia and bestiality your argument is rendered INEFFECTIVE”  Says one reader.

“This article is so offensive I don't even know where to start. Adam gave an adult performance that was no more explicit than has been done by many female performers. The line you draw linking homosexuality with pedophilia is appalling”  writes another.

“Based on this article, I'd rather have Adam Lambert instil his dippy brand of kumbayah, hug-it-out, Halloween-every-day, sex-is-not-the-enemy new age beliefs in that 4-year-old than have the kid anywhere near this kind of reactionary, slut-shaming, pearl-clutching, gay-bashing, slippery-slope-hysterical nonsense” was another comment  

The article Grassman writes - Would it be judgmental to say that Adam Lambert canoodling with another man on live television – when knows full well that young children are watching – was  inappropriate? When does it become bigoted to question one person’s sexual preference, but not bigoted to throw the moral and ethical proclivities of millions of human beings out the window so that shockoholics can get a fix?’

She is referring to Adam’s performance on an award show that was so well after the watershed it was nearly in the next day,  and was no more shocking nor explicit than earlier performances by heterosexual performers.   She barely hides her homophobic ideals as she sexualises an innocent dancing theatre show in her own mind which she then accuses every single person whose seen Billy Elliott as having  perverted thoughts about 11 year old kids. 

She writes  “wildly acclaimed musical, Billy Elliot,”  which an 11-year-old boy decides to become a ballerina. Normally, I would find no issue with this, but there is a sexual undercurrent in the musical because Billy’s childhood friend is depicted as gay. If the children’s characters had been 18 or older, I would not bring up Billy Elliot at all. But there remains the fact that millions of people all over the world are thinking about 11-year-old boys in a sexual context because of this musical. Is that good? Is it normal? Is it healthy for our culture, or for the real live little boys that are cast as Billy in the play? Should children be injected into this kind of sexual context? Does this not tread dangerously close to the realm of pedophilia?

I saw Billy Elliott  on the stage in London and on film  like thousands others,  not once had I thought of it in a sexual context.   Just because one character is gay does not make it sexual or sexualised,  to liken homosexuality with paedophilia is utterly abhorrent and indefensible.    The implications of her ‘written to shock’ piece are far reaching into the society of today,  which she paints with such a sad, savage brush.   Most will condemn this as garbage and trash,  there will be a few that believe it,  we’ll probably see boycotts and Christian protests outside theatres where Billy Elliott is being performed.  It’s clear she wants to demonise gays to such an extent that the entire population will be revolted.   

In the article she rants about the future,  about what will or will not be acceptable  -  2161? Given our current rate of moral entropy, the next 100 years may find that we have completely reverted to the cultural values of ancient Greece, where it was considered acceptable to own harems of adolescent boy lovers.  Do you find the idea of a 50 year old man having sex with a 10 year old boy to be offensive? Or maybe a better question is, will your grandchildren?

Read the full article here -

The shock industry | Washington Times Communities