Talk:Object sexuality

This isn't family-friendly. --James Wilson 16:28, 24 May 2014 (EDT)

Bestiality is also not very family-friendly.--JoeyJ 03:50, 25 May 2014 (EDT)

I am inclined to agree with you. Nonetheless, there is a long-standing tradition that the edits of senior editors not be reverted. I do believe that Conservapedia, as a resource for homeschooled children, does not need content on such vile subjects as human sexuality.--James Wilson 18:36, 25 May 2014 (EDT)

• Then, we should ask the whole CP community about that. Lets discuss it here.--JoeyJ 08:28, 27 May 2014 (EDT)

No. Let's discuss it here. It is common sense that young impressionable minds should not have their heads filled with filth like human sexuality, despite what the lamestream media, Wikipedia, or the public school system and their Common Core balderdash may think. --James Wilson 14:43, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

• I understand your point, but I thought if Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Bestiality and Pedophilia have articles, Object sexuality should also have one.--JoeyJ 16:38, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

When looking at this, there is no educational value for children and adolescents in learning about any of these topics. Them learning about sexuality is like them learning about advanced particle physics: it is absolutely impractical below the collegiate level and Conservapedia does not seek a collegiate audience but a secondary school audience. --James Wilson 17:38, 15 June 2014 (EDT)