Don’t let the slightly crude, silly first three minutes of this video fool you, for Paul Joseph Watson has an important point to make about the Coomer.
Conservatives who resent the Left’s making men toxic are erring when they speak out for Joe Biden. He’s a garden-variety creep and predator, and deserves to be taken down.
Now that the Left finally has its sights aimed at Joe Biden, I’m seeing a lot of conservatives, along with old-line Democrats, come to his defense. I get why: Years of watching the Left chip away at every cultural value, in true 1984 fashion, means that conservatives feel compelled to man the barricades hollering “Stop. Leave something of our culture.”
One of the important aspects of our culture, back in the days when “normal” meant something, was the fact that not every interaction between men and women was rape or sexual assault or harassment or toxic masculinity. One of the signs of normality was that, even though people were less sexually promiscuous than they are today, there was also a more natural ease of social intimacy.
What the Left is doing is not normal. Instead, it’s created a situation that’s like a fun house, reverse mirror image of the Muslim approach to sexuality. Muslims, rather than cultivating a normal balance of sex and sexuality, opted to label women as entirely toxic and then locked them in rooms or swathed them in burqas to protect men.
Leftists, by contrast, than cultivating a normal balance of sex and sexuality, first experimented with insisting that women could treat sex in exactly the same way as men; that is, as something that satisfies a purely physical itch without any intimacy. When that failed, because women do crave intimacy and meaning to an act that can produce a child that needs a father, the Left completely bypassed traditional Western sexual mores of flirtation, courtship, respect, and affection. Instead, it leapfrogged in the mirror image of Islam: It now declares that men are entirely toxic and seeks to swath them in social humiliation and criminal actions.
So yes, I get why conservatives are rallying to Biden’s defense. It’s a way of saying to the Left, “Stop with the crazy. Just stop!”
Except Joe Biden is the wrong person to get the benefit of that “Stop.” [Read more…]
Successful revolutions need sex slaves and Progressive women willingly filled that role. Now that their slave masters failed, though, they want revenge.
Over at my real-me Facebook page, I’ve politely pointed out that feminism is a dead letter in America’s workplaces. The women who believed in the Women’s Liberation would not have allowed themselves to be victimized at the work place. They wouldn’t have tolerated crude jokes, dirty pictures, butt slaps, and even rape. For ordinary women, a major promise of the Women’s Liberation Movement was that they would be accorded respect at work.
These women were useful idiots.
The true “revolutionary” women, the ones who weren’t just having teach-ins in nice suburbs but who were, instead, manning actual barricades, always understood that their personal needs — their need for respect, equality, and even love — had to be subordinated entirely to the revolution. If you were a women, part of subordinating yourself to the revolution meant giving the men the sex they wanted.
The men, of course, fully understood that sex had nothing to do with love and human connection, and they freely capitalized on this knowledge. As all rapists in all armies in all times have always understood, in war imposing sex upon women is about power, not love.
David Horowitz first became aware of sex’s true role in the American Leftist revolutionary milieu when he was an ardent Communist revolutionary hanging out with the Black Panthers:
Seale had gone into hiding after Huey expelled him from the Party in August. As I learned long afterwards, Seale had been whipped — literally — and then personally sodomized by Huey with such violence that he had to have his anus surgically repaired by a Pacific Heights doctor who was a political supporter of the Panthers. A Party member told me later, “You have to understand, it had nothing to do with sex. It was about power.” But in the Panther world, as I also came to learn, nothing was about anything except power.
The same use of sex to demean people’s individuality (especially women’s individuality) and to subordinate them to the power structure showed up in the Weathermen’s Underground movement. (Warning: Contents NSFW.) [Read more…]
Today’s sexual “Reign of Terror” started in the 1960s, when the Left turned social mores on their heads — and it will get worse before it gets better.
The original “Reign of Terror” occurred during the French Revolution, when socialism itself was fully birthed. It was a period during which the French Revolutionaries executed thousands of people, many of whom were themselves Revolutionaries, including the father of the French Revolution, Robespierre. We are seeing something akin to the Reign of Terror on the Left today with the sudden purging of stalwart Progressives who have engaged in sexual harassment and abuse. How did we get here and how will it end?
Through the early 60’s, we had conservative culture that I think could be defined by two things — a general belief in the chivalric code and a restrictive, though amorphous, view of appropriate sexual conduct and morals that was half Biblical and half Victorian. Society at large called girls “sluts” if they engaged in any sex outside of marriage. Meanwhile, we boys called such girls . . . on Friday nights with no real opprobrium unless we got the girl pregnant. There was a double standard, but one dictated by biological realities.
At its best, such conservatism comes from ancient Jewish and later Christian traditions aimed at creating and maximizing the strength of families, since families have, since time immemorial, been the foundational unit of civilized society. These traditions reined in men, whose biological impulse is to spread their seed far and wide. They made it clear morally that men should marry a woman, be monogamous during marriage, and raise the children of the marriage.
Having these traditions in place protected women, for whom pregnancy is a life-changing event, and, most importantly, protected children from the scourge of single motherhood. Today, the risks are poverty for the girls and criminality for the boys. In olden days, the more extreme risk was starvation.
Such traditions also promoted a healthy society, by limiting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, many of which were potentially fatal in the long run. At their worst, such traditions were stamped with 5th century Augustinian notions that sex was evil, sinful and dirty.
All of this set up a permanent tension in society. Perhaps most illustrative of this is American Puritan society during the century after their arrival on these shores in 1620. Despite being intensely religious, they also struggled with natural human impulse. True, they punished with fines and the lash unwed women who bore children (though Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, written long after the demise of Puritan society, unfairly caricatures that time).
But of all the discussions I have read in original sources, at least outside of the pulpit, the Puritan’s concern with unwed pregnant women was pragmatic, not biblical. They were concerned with the societal costs of unwed mothers and their children raised without a father.
That said, Puritans were, perhaps surprisingly, fully human in giving in to their sexual impulses. Best estimates are that half of the women in American Puritan society between 1620 and 1720 went to the altar with a baby bump. The Left, in attacking Western civilization, ridicules that as hypocrisy. Actually it is nothing more than the aspirational goals on one hand and the reality of humanity on the other, with Puritan mores intervening to shape, as best as possible, the result of that tension.
Fast forward to the rise of socialism and the socialist goal to remake the West into a utopian society. Ms. BWR, in an American Thinker article several years ago, pointed out that socialists have, since their inception, used sex as a tool to attack the Judeo-Christian religions and to sexualize children. In a related post of a few years ago, I traced the long effort of the socialist movement in this country to intervene in the family unit, inserting government (Leftist government) in loco parentis to strip sex of its moral and ethical dimensions for children. What began with the avowedly socialist Margaret Sanger in the early 20th century became part and parcel of the radicalized Third Wave feminist movement of the 60’s. [Read more…]
I’ve assembled a small (but solid) collection of sex scandals posters, plus a few of my own comments about Left//Right differences vis-a-vis the scandals.
First, the posters:
The sex scandals we read about are all different and require different responses, ranging from letting the voters speak to criminal prosecution.
Except for hysterical stories about President Trump drinking water or feeding fish the wrong way, it seems as if the news is entirely taken over with breaking sex scandals in entertainment and politics. Despite the efforts to conflate them in order to get rid of Roy Moore and Donald Trump, there are very different types of scandals going on here and they call for different responses. I’ve tried to break down the categories.
1. Roy Moore and Donald Trump — Let the People decide. Both Roy Moore and Donald Trump were well-positioned to win elections when they were hit by 11th hour — no, 11th hour and 57th minute — accusations that they had committed sexual improprieties against women. Both men denied doing so. (And yes, it’s true that Trump was caught on tape saying that, if you’re rich, you can grab women, which is no doubt a truism for the rich and powerful. However, he was not heard saying, “I am rich so I, personally, did grab women’s crotches.” So again, Trump, like Moore, has denied the claims against him.) The accusations against both politically-polarizing men, therefore, are “he said/she said” matters.
In the case of both Moore and Trump, it quickly became clear that the women making the allegations were politically opposed to the candidate against whom they asserted wrongdoing. The only exception is one of Moore’s accusers, who contends she is a Republican. Unfortunately for her credibility, her past is drowned in drugs and alcohol and she has a history of accusing men of sexual assault and harassment. That could mean she’s a vulnerable person upon whom men prey, that she’s hanging out with the wrong crowd, or that she’s a liar.)
In the case of both Moore and Trump, when seen in context of the time and place, the alleged behavior is not that outré. Trump was living the lush life in New York during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, when the city was drenched in hyper-sexual behavior. I’m not defending that time — it was a time of loose morals, to say the least — nor am I saying that those who participated in the debauchery have a good excuse for doing so. Nevertheless, if there’s ever a situation in which one can say “everyone was doing it,” the New York scene back then was the time and the place.
Likewise, when it comes to Moore, we’re talking Alabama in the 1970s. Alabama was not New York. Instead, it was probably closer to the 1950s, a time of unprecedentedly high teen pregnancies — high because women married and got pregnant at 16, 17, and 18. If Moore did have a penchant for teens, these girls were considered “of age” and the age difference was not seen as an overwhelming barrier. Again, I’m not saying his behavior was nice or moral; I’m saying it was not illegal and it was also not far from the mid-line of normal for that time and place.
One other aspect of the Moore case that deserves attention is the fact that people have raised credible concerns about the yearbook that Gloria Allred refuses to allow any experts to inspect. Suspicious people have pointed out that the yearbook was signed in December (who signs a yearbook then?); that the handwriting in the note differs from that in the signature; that the year 1977 is written twice, which is itself unusual, and that it is written in two different hands; and that the signature, which the initials DA appended, is the not the way Moore signed things but is, instead, the way Moore’s clerk signed his name when he presided over the divorce of the woman now accusing him. That is, she wrote his name along with her initials to show that she was authorized to sign on his behalf. Lastly, considering what an incredibly contentious career Moore has had, Alabama voters may wonder why these long-standing claims against him are emerging for the first time only when it’s too late to get another Republican on the ballot. Hmmm. [Read more…]
The Left is using Hollywood sex scandals to paint all men as complicit, with the hope that guilt-ridden men remorsefully embrace Progressive ideology.
When the sex scandals first came out of Hollywood, I have to admit to wallowing in schadenfreude. After years of seeing Hollywood’s premier Leftists use their unbelievably big bully pulpit to preen themselves as self-anointed feminists, race-aware avatars, neo-peaceniks, etc. — even as they produced unbelievably ugly fare (link NSFW) — it felt good, really good, to witness them struggling to explain how they allowed abusive sexuality to run riot in their community.
Of course, it was too good to last. Leftists have hard-wired in them Rahm Emanuel’s dictum that they should never let a crisis go to waste. So it was that women all across America were encouraged to say #MeToo” and to share their stories. For the most part, these women’s stories did not involve rape or men masturbating in front of them (an exhibitionist form of sexual fantasy that seems particularly well-suited to Hollywood’s innate exhibitionism). Instead, they were about the boss who kept putting his hand on their arm or the construction workers who whistled when they walked by.
I’m not defending touchy-feely bosses or noisy construction workers. I just think there’s a difference between that icky boss and the one who says “if you want to keep this job, you’d better put out.” There’s also a difference between whistling construction workers behind a fence or balancing on beams six stories above the ground and those unnerving gangs of unemployed young men surrounding a woman on a street, making overtly sexual comments. [Read more…]
A post in which I opine about Hollywood sex scandals, pedophilia, dirty old men, and the many choices people make that enable truly bad behaviors.
Looking at the bloodletting that’s spreading from Hollywood, to the mainstream media, to Leftist hi-tech corporations (e.g., Amazon) led someone, and I can’t remember who it was, to note that the people who are being exposed as monsters who prey on women and children have spent decades aggressively pushing laws that disarm women and ensure that children can get easy, “no-fault” abortions without a parent’s knowledge or consent. I think that’s an exceptionally fine observation.
The news that Dan Schneider, a producer at Nickelodeon, is quite possibly a pedophile and quite definitely a pervert, doesn’t surprise me. (Follow this link for the full flavor of Schneider’s perverse conduct.) As I said when the Weinstein scandal first broke, the really dirty secret at the heart of Hollywood is pedophilia.
I learned about this abscess in Hollywood’s core more than 20 years ago when a guy I dated who had worked in Hollywood casually noted that the producer of a film we were seeing was a “known pedophile.” My friend knew this only as hearsay, but he considered it one of Hollywood’s open — and entirely unexceptional — secrets.
After puzzling about that memory for a few days, I suddenly remembered the producer’s name — but I’m not going to say it here. My knowledge is hearsay on hearsay, so anything I write would be slanderous. However, I’m going to keep a close eye out to see if this guy’s name pops up when the Hollywood pedophilia scandal finally breaks (as it inevitably will). What is certain is that this guy, whom I’ll call “R,” is a producer with a reputation for being horrible — really abusive to subordinates. The question will be whether this abuse extended all the way to the kind of pedophilia that Corey Feldman is trying to expose.
The last thing I want to say is that many of the women who put up with the Weinsteins and Schneiders and Halperins had choices. Please note that I say “many of the women.” Those women who were physically assaulted, with the man relying upon his greater strength to commit an act of violence had no choice. I’m also not talking about Sophie’s Choice kind of choices, or “starvation is the only other option” choices, or “do this or die” choices.
Instead, I’m talking about “I really want this role,” “I really want this story,” and “I really want to work in this town again” choices. I’m not trying to say those are easy choices. They’re horrible, unfair choices. Frankly, if you have to choose between losing your dream job versus living with the disgust of having watched your boss masturbate into a plant or the revulsion of having to massage his naked skin, both paths have pros and cons. And they’re still choices. At all times when these women were not being physically overwhelmed, they could have walked away and they could have talked. They chose not to.
The argument I expect in opposition to the above paragraph is that women have never had a choice. Men have always treated them like sexual objects and they’ve always had to put up with with, at worst, being physically assaulted and threatened or, at best, with being demeaned, mentally, physically, and emotionally — and that these suffered this way just to achieve life’s basic necessities: financial security, career success, safety from even more dangerous predators than the one walking around naked in their presence. [Read more…]
There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that even the best raised men have a natural predatory streak — and that women’s intentional conduct affects it.
I did not do the whole “me, too” thing. Aside from distrusting the reach of anything that originates on the Left (it will be used as a cudgel eventually), and finding it meaningless given its incoherent blending of everything from hardcore rape to undefined “harassment.” I also hated the whole “victim” aura that hangs about it. As I discussed in an earlier post, although a perv twerked me on a bus some decades ago, that was on him, not on me. Indeed, I had mostly forgot about that millisecond in time until this whole “me, too” thing came up.
Nowadays, were someone to twerk me in a public place, I would accidentally on purpose emasculate the person (and I mean that literally, not the way Joe Biden, a known perv, says “literally”), and try to get him arrested. Back in the day, though, I just shifted my position to get him away from me and that was the end of it. In retrospect, while I’m sorry I didn’t maim him, I have a vague memory that I might have been on my way to a hearing at the courthouse, which far outweighed any other considerations.
But back to the subject of men. That sleazy little blip in my life (and please understand that this was not a frightening experience that put me in fear for my life, nor was it an invasive experience) did not turn me off of men. I really like men.
I like the way men look, I like the way men feel (rough and scratchy, but nice and warm), I like their strength (which makes me feel protected as long as it’s not directed at me), and most of all I like the way I feel when I’m with men. When I say this, I’m not talking about sex. I’m perfectly happy at a party to talk to a fascinating man who finds me fascinating too. He’s exotic, because he’s not one of the girls (and I have a lot of female friends) and that very exotic quality, if he likes me, makes me feel pretty damn special.
My admiration for men does not begin and end with appreciating their physical merits or needing them to appreciate mine (along with my brain, of course; they must always appreciate my brain). I like men’s willingness to step up and protect women; I like their willingness to fight for what’s right; I like their uncomplicated friendships; I like their physicality; I like their different approach to issues, although sometimes they can irritate me precisely because they don’t think “like a girl.”
So please understand, when I launch into the second part of this post, that what I’m saying does not come from a misandrous place.
You see, dear men, much as I like you (and I really do like you), I don’t trust you. You’re kind of like my dog. I adore him and he adores me, but I never lose sight of the fact that he’s basically a predator. If he’s driven by fear or overwhelming instincts, he may not be my friend. When I kiss his little fuzzy face, I always keep my hands pressed on either side of his little head to ensure that he doesn’t suddenly go feral and decide to take a nibble at my nose. [Read more…]
Hurricanes are normal, but Trump Derangement Syndrome obscures that fact. Of course, those subject to TDS are deranged in other ways as well. Just look….
Before I get to the meat of this post — or, because it’s a round-up, the various meats of this post — I want to remind everyone that America has always been subject to ferocious hurricanes. They just seem worse today because we have more population in a hurricane’s path, especially when it’s an Irma-like hurricane, and because we have a 24 hour media that makes everything seem local.
In other ways, though, we’re better off when faced with hurricanes because we can prepare. In 1900, Galveston, Texas, residents did not see their Cat 4 hurricane coming. It killed 6,000 – 12,000 people, making it the deadliest natural disaster in American history. For a list of other major hurricanes in the last 400 years, the bulk of which predate “climate change” and struck out-of-the-blue, go here. You’ll see that America was especially hard hit in the 1700s, long before CO2 was an issue.
Obviously, I don’t mean to downplay our two latest hurricanes, Harvey and Irma, both of which are or will be responsible for staggering property damage and, always, the loss of too many lives. I just want to amp down the usual climate change hysteria that’s accompanying this latest display of Nature’s normal.
And with that, let me turn my attention to all the other interesting things I’ve gathered, many of which reflect poorly on those most deeply lost to TDS.
Hillary admits her incompetence. Hillary has been on the warpath with her new book, blaming everything and everybody for her loss. She’s also admitted that she was incapable of speech on election eve because she was so devastated and that it was male advisers who caused her to react less strongly to both Trump and Bernie than she thinks in retrospect that she ought to have done. (Oh, and Trump “creeped” her out.)
So Hillary has just admitted that she’s incompetent in a crisis and incapable of standing up to men. Most of Hillary’s opponents at home and abroad would have been men, men like Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, or Bashir al-Assad. Her latest book is just another reminder that we dodged a serious bullet when Trump won.
Europe’s Muslim future. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, sees which way the wind is blowing and he understands that, not only is Eurabia fast approaching, but that Western Europe leaders are hastening its inevitability:
Europe’s leaders seem to have neither the will nor the means to oppose the incoming waves of millions of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. They know that terrorists are hiding among the migrants, but still do not vet them. Instead, they resort to subterfuges and lies. They create “deradicalization” programs that do not work: the “radicals,” it seems, do not want to be “deradicalized.”
Europe’s leaders try to define “radicalization” as a symptom of “mental illness”; they consider asking psychiatrists to solve the mess. Then, they talk about creating a “European Islam“, totally different from the Islam elsewhere on Earth. They take on haughty postures to create the illusion of moral superiority, as Ada Colau and Carles Puigdemont did in Barcelona: they say they have high principles; that Barcelona will remain “open” to immigrants. Angela Merkel refuses to face the consequences of her policy to import countless migrants. She chastises countries in Central Europe that refuse to adopt her policies.
European leaders can see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam. They try to anesthetize non-Muslim populations with dreams about an idyllic future that will never exist. They say that Europe will have to learn to live with terrorism, that there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Pat Condell is another prophet who is being ignored:
Meanwhile, Britain prepares its citizens for dhimmitude. Several of my gay Leftist Facebook friends proudly posted a WaPo op-ed announcing that all the grim prophecies preceding legalizing gay marriage failed to come true. It is true that heterosexual marriage is cratering at pretty much the same rate as before, so one can’t say that same-sex marriage killed it. The article also essentially claims that America is better than ever because Christian bakers are being put out of business.
It’s that last point, of course, that’s the giveaway about the real target of gay marriage. Gay marriage, as I’ve said over and over, was never about competing with straight marriage and it was unlikely to affect straight marriage. What it was about was undercutting traditional values, especially if those values came from the church. Kill the traditional church (and the synagogue) and you kill the West. It’s heart goes out of it.
(Before I go further, let me say again, that I have no trouble whatsoever with same-sex civil unions. If states want to legalize same sex partnerships, that’s fine with me. I support people who enter into stable relationships. It’s the way the whole issue was framed as gay “marriage” that disturbs me deeply. Doing that made these unions the basis for a concerted attack against traditional Western values as a whole.)
If you really want to see where gay marriage leads, check out this Australian Spectator article detailing the way in which gay marriage has been used to attack core Western values, not to mention to destroy the integrity of our biological selves. I’ll focus on the gender and children sections, but you should read the whole thing: [Read more…]
Talking to young college women about campus sexual assault means encountering either ignorance or hysteria — which bodes ill for both men and women.
I delivered one of my Little Bookworms (henceforth “LB”) to the Obscenely Expensive Liberal Arts College (“OELAC”) the LB attends. Frankly, I could see why LB is so happy there. The campus is beautiful, the historic dorm is charming, and LB has made some delightful, and quite well-mannered, friends. In other words, LB is enjoying the quintessential, all-American college experience. That is, if you ignore the obscene cost that LB’s major will never pay off and the hard-Left politics practiced in the classrooms. But otherwise . . . yeah, I get while LB likes it.
One of the reminders that OELAC is a hard-Left institution is the ubiquity of posters all over reminding the students about campus sexual assault. Wherever one looks, it’s rape . . . rape . . . RAPE!!!! I asked one of LB’s friends, a bright young person who’s data oriented, what the actual statistics are for campus sexual assault. He didn’t know. However, another young person chimed in to explain that the statistics only make sense if you understand that larger colleges than this little OELAC are “under-reporting” their campus sexual assaults.
A quick inquiry revealed that this second young person didn’t actually know OELAC’s campus sexual assault statistics. Although she was rather muddled, it appeared that she just “knew” that they were higher than those at the big public university located nearby.
Her reasoning was as follows: Because little OELAC is such a supportive environment, women are more likely to report assault, rather than more likely to be sexually assaulted. With that as her baseline supposition, the (supposedly) lower number of assaults at the big university could be justified only by assuming under-reporting. I was confused, and only get more confused when it turned out, as I said, that she had no idea what the campus sexual assault statistics were for either campus she was discussing.
Two things struck me as peculiar about the issue of campus sexual assault at little OELAC. First, the OELAC campus population is more than 60% female. Accepting the students’ world view, which is that they are immersed in a rape culture, that means the small cohort of male students (fewer than 40% of the total population) are ravening animals. Indeed, given the number of gay male students, it’s likely that just over 30% of the male population is heterosexual.
I don’t know about you, but it strikes me as unlikely that this tiny population of young men, especially young men in a “supportive” (the young person’s word) environment that obsessively reminds its male students not to rape, is a serious threat to the myriad young women on campus. And frankly, rhetoric aside, the young women gave no indication they were afraid, walking around both the dorms and campus freely at night in a way I never would have when I was at Cal more than 30 years ago.
However, militating against that first point — that is, that it’s hard to believe that a small male population constantly warned against raping is responsible for an epidemic of campus sexual assault — is the second thing that struck me when I joined the young people for dinner in the college’s cafeteria: Despite the Midwestern locale, a surprising number of male students were quite obviously of Middle Eastern or African origin. [Read more…]
Recent news stories reaffirm that, if you’re a woman who cares about the environment, your preferred form of birth control should be abstinence.
The first apropos story is the report revealing that male sperm counts are plummeting, raising the possibility that the human race will die out (if it doesn’t first bake, freeze, or get immolated by a super volcano, of course). One thoughtful commentator wonders if the problem could be all the estrogen in Western waterways.
It’s not just men. Fish are also showing signs of estrogen, resulting in intersex fish. One wonders if that explains the uptick in men who believe they’re women. The problem is that it doesn’t explain the uptick in women who think they’re men.
With those two news stories in mind, it’s obvious that I have to resurrect my abstinence = environmentalism poster:
I warned 7 years ago that Progressive sex ed is intended to destroy your child’s sense of physical inviolability and privacy. It’s gotten worse since then.
Sex and children have been in the news a lot lately, and I don’t just mean the endless stories of surprisingly pretty female teachers, many in their 20s and 30s, having sex with their middle school and high school students, both boys and girls (or just being too sexy). Bad as that is, there’s something worse. Instead of isolated incidents of horny, predatory women, Leftist culture is mounting a significant attack on your child’s sexuality.
A dispiriting article reporting on parents who took to YouTube to show the graphic ways in which they teach their elementary school aged children to masturbate helpfully sums up a series of other examples of Progressive sex ed, all of which is part of a concerted effort to sexualize children as early as possible:
Two notable attacks on the sexual innocence of children took place this week: Teen Vogue‘s disgusting promotion of “the right way to do” anal sex, and a popular YouTube video in which parents tell children about masturbation, complete with sex toys.
“So, sometimes people will say ‘playing with themself,’ or ‘jerking off,’ or ‘choking the one-eyed trouser snake,” a father tells his son, who looks to be about 8 years old. “Masturbating is when you touch your privates in different ways to make yourself feel good,” a mother tells two young ladies, who might be 8 years old and 10 years old.
The YouTube video flits backs and forth, showing five different parent-child groupings, with parents telling children about masturbation, including how-tos, discussions of how many times they masturbate, and sex toys. Many times, the parents mime the actions of sexual intercourse and masturbation to illustrate how dildos and other sex toys are used.
Many conservatives see videos like this one, and articles like the one in Teen Vogue, as blatant attempts to sexually corrupt children. “The left wants to turn your child into a sexual deviant,” commentator Matt Walsh warned at TheBlaze.
Unfortunately, it seems that much of that fear is well-placed. Parents have protested “graphic” sex ed classes for their kids. Bill Nye’s Netflix show featured a segment encouraging all sorts of sexual deviance. Oregon has an official sex guide for teens, written by teens. Last December, National Geographic put a nine-year-old transgender girl on the cover of a magazine marketed to children.
Last month, children as young as 5 years old were exposed to the sexual gyrations of a drag queen at a grade school talent show. Oh, and a Bloomington, Indiana, library is hosting an event this month where drag queens will read to children between the ages of 2 and 6.
Although the above examples of Progressive sex ad are disgusting and inappropriate, none of them surprise me. Indeed, as I wrote seven years ago at American Thinker, this type of Progressive sex ed is precisely what we can expect from a political party dedicated to a Borg-like effort to strip people of their individual identities and assimilate them into a tightly-controlled, monolithic state. Incidentally, you can see in the essay, which I reprint in its entirety below, that I made references to the then-nascent “transgender” movement that, like some carefully buried IED, is now dominating our cultural conversation. [Read more…]
It’s no laughing matter when Leftists insist that men are cruel for giving women orgasms; this is just another way to advance state control over individuals.
I haven’t yet processed the longer term implications of the House Republicans’ Obamacare debacle, so I’d much rather talk about Cosmopolitan Magazine’s insistence that it’s sexist for men to enjoy giving their female partners orgasms. I’m not the first one to address this ridiculousness. Ace and Robert Tracinski already wrote excellent posts on the subject. However, I believe I’m the only person who’s written a long American Thinker article entitled Sex and State Power, which intersects with this latest example of Leftist craziness.
If you don’t have the stomach to reach Cosmo’s article, something I fully understand, let me summarize for you the pertinent points in the article. According to a study in the Journal of Sex Research, men who successfully bring their female partners to orgasm are proud of themselves. It is, say that study’s authors, a “masculinity achievement.”
Before I go any further, do keep in mind that one of feminism’s chief complaints starting in the 1960s was that too many men had a “wham, bam, thank you, ma’am” approach to sex. Women, said the feminists, were complicated and therefore needed delicacy and attention in order to get sexual pleasure. Meanwhile, men were single celled amoebas would could pop out their own orgasms and then just walk away.
For the last forty or fifty years, the message to American men has been that, to be a good partner in bed, it’s not enough to say, “This is great, wasn’t it?” Instead, men need to be attentive, skilled, caring, compassionate, empathetic and, above all, patient so that their partner can get as much pleasure from sex as men routinely do. No wonder that men, most of whom really can orgasm through very simple stimulation, feel proud when they delay their own pleasure, and make the extra effort and take the extra time to see to their partner’s pleasure. I applaud those men.
Modern feminists, though, do not applaud those men. The problem, you see, is that, to the extent that men get pleasure from pleasuring women, those evil men are robbing women of control over their own orgasms. And no, that is not bad writing on my part. That is utterly appalling thinking on the part of Sara Chadwick and Sari van Anders, the *ahem* researchers behind the study:
Progressives pretend that their transgender politics are based on science but they’re not; it’s fantasy all the way, which is a disservice to children.
The other day, NPR had a fascinating article. Because it is fascinating, allow me to quote some of the more interesting points:
Why Caitlyn Jenner can never be a woman
The man formerly known as Bruce is still a guy with a dick, testes, and a male skeleton, trying to be one of the girls.
Being female is a bright and shiny diamond, and here in America in the age of Hillary and Women’s Marches, everyone wants to wear it like a pussy hat on their head. The attitude, the language, the humor, the makeup, the style, all of it is covetable, and everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Madonna to Ashley Judd is trying to get high — and rich — off it.
But, like diamonds, a woman is created under extreme pressure and high temperature, deep down in the recesses of her core. It is sitting on the toilet when you’re thirteen, alternately fascinated and disgusted by the blood flowing from you for the first time. It’s watching your body going through the changes of pregnancy, everything from morning sickness, to suddenly sprouting Pamela Anderson boobs, to your blooming belly that’s periodically warped out of shape by the infant’s movements, to the pain and triumph of labor, to having your breasts go from being sex objects to being a baby’s private juice bar.
Being a woman is pre-menstrual syndrome, and menstruation, and post-menstrual syndrome. It’s hanging with your girlfriends when you’re all ugly ducklings, desperately jealous of the early bloomers, unaware that early bloom often fades quickly. It’s listening to your girlfriends’ lament, knowing that they’ll listen to you too and, even better, knowing that this is a sharing experience and that none of you will try to tell the others what to do. It’s keeping an eye on your friend who’s drinking too much, even though she promised not to, and making sure to get her safely home rather than running the risk that she’ll hook up with someone who makes her feel bad or, worse, find herself roofied and raped.
Being a women is up in the bones, the fragile bones, with their broad hips and their shoulder construction that means girls’ softball has that weird underhand pitch, instead of the overhand throw guys use. It’s in the muscles which, even if women try to beef them up with testosterone, will never be as strong as a man’s. It’s in the uterus and the ovaries that help create and then grow an entirely new human being, and in the breasts that produce the perfect food to sustain that human life.
And it is the ultimate in male privilege, really, for a man to see that diamond, all shiny and hard and unbreakable, and pluck it for his own, like it’s a gift from Tiffany’s, with seemingly zero regard for the pressure, the heat, the pain it went through — that we went through — to earn that shine.
That’s an amazing essay, isn’t it? Moreover, it’s one that I bet you never thought you’d read at NPR. And if you want the truth, you never will read it at NPR.