Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Can an unconscious man commit a crime? Yes.

original article: Judge rejects subpoena on rape accuser who admitted she violated blacked-out student
January 13, by The College Fix

Would impose ‘trauma’ on woman with credibility problems

She admitted in text messages to performing oral sex on her blacked-out sex partner, but she won’t have to submit to a deposition in that student’s lawsuit against Amherst College for expelling him as a rapist.

In a little-noticed order in the long-running due process and Title IX lawsuit, issued shortly after the November election, a federal judge refused to grant a subpoena on student “Sandra Jones” sought by plaintiff “John Doe.”

Because Jones has since moved to Washington state, the ruling on the subpoena was made in the U.S. District Court in Seattle.

There, Judge James Robart decided that deposing Jones in person would inflict “trauma” on the accuser.

read full article
read the lawsuit

abuse, bias, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, education, government, judiciary, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, education, government, judiciary, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, victimization

Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong

original article: Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong
August 22, 2016 by Ryan T. Anderson

A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.

Implications for Policy

The report focuses exclusively on what scientific research shows and does not show. But this science can have implications for public policy.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’

Take, for example, our nation’s recent debates over transgender policies in schools. One of the consistent themes of the report is that science does not support the claim that “gender identity” is a fixed property independent of biological sex, but rather that a combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely shape how individuals experience and express themselves when it comes to sex and gender.

The report also discusses the reality of neuroplasticity: that all of our brains can and do change throughout our lives (especially, but not only, in childhood) in response to our behavior and experiences. These changes in the brain can, in turn, influence future behavior.

This provides more reason for concern over the Obama administration’s recent transgender school policies. Beyond the privacy and safety concerns, there is thus also the potential that such policies will result in prolonged identification as transgender for students who otherwise would have naturally grown out of it.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” Policymakers should be concerned with how misguided school policies might encourage students to identify as girls when they are boys, and vice versa, and might result in prolonged difficulties. As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

Beyond school policies, the report raises concerns about proposed medical intervention in children. Mayer and McHugh write: “We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”

They continue: “We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.” But as they note, “There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents.”

Findings on Transgender Issues

The same goes for social or surgical gender transitions in general. Mayer and McHugh note that the “scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex reassignment procedures provide the hoped for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental health risks among the transgender population.” Even after sex reassignment surgery, patients with gender dysphoria still experience poor outcomes:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

Mayer and McHugh urge researchers and physicians to work to better “understand whatever factors may contribute to the high rates of suicide and other psychological and behavioral health problems among the transgender population, and to think more clearly about the treatment options that are available.” They continue:

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. … Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Policymakers should take these findings very seriously. For example, the Obama administration recently finalized a new Department of Health and Human Services mandate that requires all health insurance plans under Obamacare to cover sex reassignment treatments and all relevant physicians to perform them. The regulations will force many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to participate in sex reassignment surgeries and treatments, even if doing so violates their moral and religious beliefs or their best medical judgment.

Rather than respect the diversity of opinions on sensitive and controversial health care issues, the regulations endorse and enforce one highly contested and scientifically unsupported view. As Mayer and McHugh urge, more research is needed, and physicians need to be free to practice the best medicine.

Stigma, Prejudice Don’t Explain Tragic Outcomes

The report also highlights that people who identify as LGBT face higher risks of adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and most alarmingly, suicide.” The report summarizes some of those findings:

Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.

Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.

What accounts for these tragic outcomes? Mayer and McHugh investigate the leading theory—the “social stress model”—which proposes that “stressors like stigma and prejudice account for much of the additional suffering observed in these subpopulations.”

But they argue that the evidence suggests that this theory “does not seem to offer a complete explanation for the disparities in the outcomes.” It appears that social stigma and stress alone cannot account for the poor physical and mental health outcomes that LGBT-identified people face.

As a result, they conclude that “More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations.” And they call on all of us work to “alleviate suffering and promote human health and flourishing.”

Findings Contradict Claims in Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling

Finally, the report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, the scientific research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than the media suggests. The report notes that “Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”

These findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. Kennedy wrote, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment” and “in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

But the science does not show this.

While the marriage debate was about the nature of what marriage is, incorrect scientific claims about sexual orientation were consistently used in the campaign to redefine marriage.

In the end, Mayer and McHugh observe that much about sexuality and gender remains unknown. They call for honest, rigorous, and dispassionate research to help better inform public discourse and, more importantly, sound medical practice.

As this research continues, it’s important that public policy not declare scientific debates over, or rush to legally enforce and impose contested scientific theories. As Mayer and McHugh note, “Everyone—scientists and physicians, parents and teachers, lawmakers and activists—deserves access to accurate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.”

We all must work to foster a culture where such information can be rigorously pursued and everyone—whatever their convictions, and whatever their personal situation—is treated with the civility, respect, and generosity that each of us deserves.

biology, civil rights, culture, government, homosexuality, ideology, judiciary, justice, politics, science, sex, study

Filed under: biology, civil rights, culture, government, homosexuality, ideology, judiciary, justice, politics, science, sex, study

Remember those experts who said condoms would reduce pregnancy and STDs?

original article: The Condom Conundrum
MORE PROPHYLACTICS, MORE TEEN PREGNANCIES
July 21, 2016 by John Stonestreet

Remember those so-called “experts” who assured us that condoms would cut rates of fertility and STDs? Well, they now face a conundrum.

Those who’ve pushed condoms like candy in public schools have given us any number of rationales. They told us that young people “are going to do it anyway,” so more condoms would equal fewer pregnancies. They also said that more condoms would lead to fewer STDs, or sexually transmitted diseases. And as they proceeded to pass out condoms by the handful to our school-age children, they told us that religion and morality should be left out of it, in the name of public health and, of course, science.

New research, however, suggests these prophets of prophylactics were wrong—desperately wrong—and that it’s time for a fresh look at the issue.

A recently released study by University of Notre Dame researchers Kasey S. Buckles and Daniel M. Hungerman has found that access to condoms in schools actually increases teen pregnancies by about 10 percent—that’s right, increases it! Buckles and Hungerman selected 22 school districts in 12 states that started such programs back in the 1990s, including New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The study analyzed teen-fertility data from nearly 400 high-population counties over a span of 19 years.

Among the contributing factors Buckles and Hungerman cite is the possibility that condom-distribution programs can crowd out efforts to encourage young people to delay sexual activity. Condom-distribution programs may actually encourage more teenagers to have sex.

Is this really that surprising? If adults tell teens that the decision to engage in sex is theirs and give them condoms, what message do they receive?

It makes sense, especially given another finding of the study. Buckles and Hungerman found that sexual activity, along with STDs, increased in counties with condom-distribution programs. This puts a lie to all those lofty assurances from the Sexual Left that condoms would prevent all that. No, more likely, they encouraged it!

Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan at Dearborn, notes that this ugly outcome likely is a result of increased sexual risk-taking as a result of condoms in the schools. All at taxpayers’ expense.

Now Buckles and Hungerman are quick to point out that they believe the effects of teen fertility would be less alarming if the condom-distribution programs were also accompanied by mandatory sex-ed counseling. But New says such education efforts would not totally offset the jump in teen fertility caused by condom distribution. There would still be more births to teenaged mothers, and presumably more teen STDs, than if there were no condoms in the schools in the first place.

“Overall,” says New, “the study adds to an impressive body of research which shows that efforts to encourage contraceptive use either through mandates, subsidies, or distribution are ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. In many countries, increases in contraception use are correlated with increase in the abortion rate.”

Now it would be optimistic at best to assume that the folks who brought these condom-distribution programs to us, and their cheerleaders in the media, would own up to the conundrum they have created and work to make things right. But no, we’ll have to do that ourselves.

So the first step to changing what our schools do is to read the study and make sure that members of your local school boards have a copy. Just come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary for a link to it, along with more information to get you up to speed.

And second, we shouldn’t be surprised that non-Christians teach our sons and daughters a non-Christian worldview concerning the human body, the unitive act, or marriage. Teaching our own kids about sex and design and relationships and marriage, while pointing out and countering the lies about sex proclaimed in the culture, is first and foremost our job as parents and as Christian communities.

children, culture, education, ideology, science, sex, study, unintended consequences

Filed under: children, culture, education, ideology, science, sex, study, unintended consequences

Muslim Teens Say They’re Victim of Hate Crime, Then STUNNING Video Comes Out

original article: WATCH: Muslim Teens Say They’re Victim of Hate Crime, Then STUNNING Video Comes Out
July 5, 2016 by Conservative Tribune

When two Muslim teens from a Brooklyn mosque said that they had been beaten because of their religious beliefs, New Yorkers and Americans of all stripes were outraged.

However, it turns out that police revealed a different motive for the attack. They’re not investigating it as a hate crime because they say that the teens were hitting on a woman inside a car and her boyfriend, enraged by the harassment, attacked the 16-year-olds.

According to WABC-TV, the incident happened in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Sunset Park. As the teens described it, they had just left prayer services at the Muslim Community Center when they started looking at a car.

The attacker then stepped out from behind the car and said, “you f***** terrorists” and “You Muslims are the cause of all the problems in the world” while kicking and beating the teens.

Police, however, discovered something different.

According to the New York Daily News, the two teenagers had been hitting on a woman in a parked car for over an hour. While that was bad enough, their actions went above sexual harassment. They had attempted to open her car door and poked their head inside the window.

When her boyfriend came out, one thing led to another and … well, you can guess the rest. One of the teens suffered a concussion, bruises and cuts. Another suffered a black eye. Police are aware of who the perpetrator is, but are still searching for the man.

“The hate crimes unit investigated it and determined that this incident is not a hate crime,” NYPD spokesman Sgt. Brendan Ryan said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, somewhat predictably, disagreed.

“Our position is, let’s keep all possibilities open, at least until the assailant is arrested and questioned,” Afaf Nasher, executive director of CAIR’s New York chapter, told the Daily News.

We obviously don’t condone what this man did. In spite of the inappropriate and intimidating behavior the Muslim teenagers engaged in, his actions were appalling and he should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.

That said, the media was more than willing, in the early part of the investigation, to reflexively refer to this as a hate crime. For that matter, the two victims in this case felt compelled to treat it as such, even though it quickly became apparent that their actions had contributed to the attack.

This isn’t the first case we’ve seen like this, either. When accusations of hate crimes are made, the media should keep a healthy dose of skepticism on hand.

And as readers, we need to remember that accusations are printed on page one; retractions on page 17.

see video

culture, diversity, hate crime, immigration, islam, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, unintended consequences

Filed under: culture, diversity, hate crime, immigration, islam, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, unintended consequences

Hiding from a story is not the same as discrediting it

original article: Andrea Mitchell Dismisses Clinton Rape Accusation as ‘Discredited’
May 19, 2016 by Kyle Drennen

On Thursday’s NBC Today, correspondent Andrea Mitchell was so deep in the tank for Hillary Clinton that the veteran reporter claimed a major scoop from her own network about Bill Clinton being accused of rape was a “discredited” story.

Mitchell was aghast that Donald Trump mentioned rape allegations against the former president during aWednesday night interview: “…last night, Trump fired a shot squarely at Clinton’s husband….using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long-denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton…”

A soundbite played of Trump saying the word “rape,” but Mitchell couldn’t bring herself to utter the term. Co-hosts Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie were similarly cryptic when teasing the segment. Earlier in the 7:30 a.m. ET hour, Lauer declared: “Up next, a word used by Donald Trump while talking about former President Bill Clinton that has him under fire this morning.” Minutes later, Guthrie noted: “Hillary Clinton’s camp going hard after Donald Trump…for a word that Trump used in an interview…”

NBC displayed the same squeamishness back on February 25, 1999, the day after then-investigative correspondentLisa Myers interviewed Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Clinton of raping her in 1978, during his first campaign for governor of Arkansas. At the time, Myers had to address concerns that the network initially forced her to sit on the story before “finally” allowing it on air.

Despite such a bombshell report coming on the heels of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Broaddrick’s claims received short shrift on the network news. A 2015 Media Research Center study detailed how the story was ignored by the Big Three, including NBC:

Well, consider that when then-President Bill Clinton was accused of rape, those same newscasts aired just four stories mentioning those charges during a 12-month period from March 1998 through March 1999.

The four: On March 28, 1998, the NBC Nightly News ran a full story on how Clinton, then the Attorney General of Arkansas, allegedly raped Juanita Broaddrick in a hotel room in 1978. Nightly News provided no further coverage; when NBC’s Lisa Myers taped an exclusive on-camera interview with Broaddrick for Dateline, anchor Tom Brokaw would only mention it in a brief promo at the end of his February 24, 1999 newscast.

The CBS Evening News ran a single report on Broaddrick’s charges during their Saturday, February 20, 1999 newscast. ABC mentioned the case in passing during a March 7, 1999 World News Sunday report about an interview given by whistleblower Linda Tripp; twelve days later, World News Tonight viewers saw a brief clip of then-White House correspondent Sam Donaldson questioning Clinton about the case at a March 19, 1999 news conference: “Can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was?”

According to Nexis, there’s been no additional discussion of Broaddrick’s charge since then on the evening newscasts — not during Bill Clinton’s book tour, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, or even as a point of reference in discussions of other scandals.

Even when Broaddrick herself took to social media early in 2016 to lament the Clintons once again being on the national stage during the presidential campaign, journalists like Mitchell made sure to censor the news. During a Wednesday interview with World Net Daily, Broaddrick recounted a brief phone call she had with Mitchell:

Juanita created a social media firestorm earlier this year by tweeting that she had been “dreading seeing my abuser on TV campaign trail for enabler wife … but his physical appearance reflects ghosts of past are catching up.” One of the many media figures who called her after this tweet was Andrea Mitchell of NBC. Because she’d had a positive experience with Lisa Myers with NBC back in 1999, Andrea Mitchell was one of the few calls Juanita returned in the aftermath of her trending tweets. Andrea Mitchell asked her just one question, listened to her answer, and told Juanita condescendingly, “We’re not going to air anything with you because you have nothing new to add.” Juanita felt bewildered by Andrea Mitchell’s dismissive attitude.

On Thursday, after Trump resurrected the story, Mitchell immediately parroted Clinton campaign spin waving reporters off the scandal:

Late last night, the Clinton campaign responded in a statement that read, “Trump is doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain. If that’s the kind of campaign he wants to run, that’s his choice.” Also accusing him of trying to change the subject from his refusal to release his taxes.

Wrapping up the report, Mitchell proclaimed: “NBC News has reached out to the Trump campaign this morning to ask why he brought up that long-denied Bill Clinton allegation. So far, no response.”

ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS This Morning fretted over Trump “rehashing” the “old” accussstions.

Watch women of “The View” defending sexual abuse of women

More reporters ignoring Hillary’s defense of her husband’s abuse of women, but piling on Trump

bias, censorship, corruption, Democrats, elitism, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex

Filed under: bias, censorship, corruption, Democrats, elitism, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex

The Clintons are a war on women

Possibly the most famous sexual predator not in prison is named Bill. No, not Cosby, his name is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a war on women. Any widely accepted definition of abuse of women should include the former philandering president. So how do we square Hillary’s recent comments on hearing, believing, and supporting abused women with Hillary’s own efforts to utterly destroy any woman who accuses her husband of sexual predation? Watch The Run Down address the particulars of the question.

buse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Filed under: abuse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Prostitution, porn, and abortion: three sides of the same coin

original article: Prostitution, porn, and abortion: three sides of the same coin
September 25, 2015 by JONATHON VAN MAREN

Sept. 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Never in human history has there been a time in which the buying and selling of human flesh, in one form or another, has been more prevalent. Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world. Pornography depicting the brutalization of women and girls is among the most popular material on the Internet. And abortion, the financed destruction of tiny human beings developing in the womb, claims the lives of almost 42 million pre-born children each year.

The first time I fully realized how dehumanizing the “sex trade” is was when I was a teenager, walking through the streets of Amsterdam with a student group from my school to visit the Church of Our Lord in the Attic, a hidden house church from the 1600s. What our teachers had not realized when they planned the tour, however, is that we had to cut directly through the infamous Red Light District in order to get there. As they rushed us down the cobblestone streets with more than a little panic, we gaped at an utterly foreign sight: Rows and rows of windows with scantily clad women, their fatigue painted over with thick layers of makeup and mechanical come-hither smiles, standing there. Like meat packages at a butcher shop, I remember thinking. Even the “souvenir” shops sold only human body parts—postcards featuring only breasts or bottoms, nothing else. A human meat market—one brothel owner even compared the tourists viewing the girls to men deciding which pizza to order.

More than 60% of the girls and women who work there report getting sexually assaulted.

The same thing struck me when traveling in Hungary earlier this year. My cousin and I arrived in Budapest from Belgrade at four in the morning and climbed into a taxi to find a hostel. The driver soon took us to a less than reputable area of the city in search of an establishment that still had rooms available. I wondered, stupidly, why there were so many young girls still walking about, even though it was dark and the sun was not even stirring. And then our taxi pulled up to a stop sign, and I made eye contact with one of them. Her blue eyes were flat and emotionless.

She was very young, and very pretty. She wore a light black jacket with a fur fringe, and painted-on pants that must have hurt to walk in. She must have been freezing—it was so ice-cold that every short breath came out in a puff of steam. An older woman, lounging against an abandoned storefront, barked something at her that I didn’t understand, and jerked her head towards me. She started to walk over to the car, gesturing at me and then to herself. And that’s when I realized that she’d been told to find out if I was a potential customer. I felt quite sick as we drove away, although I was naïve to be so surprised. Budapest, after all, is a sex tourist destination, an Eastern European Bangkok. I’d read about it. I’d just never come face to face with the reality—a girl who should have been in school, selling herself to strangers at the orders of others.

Those who defend legalized prostitution—although the differences between legal and illegal prostitution are few—defend it in much the same way that other horrible practices are defended. “Prostitution advocates often use the word ‘choice,’” as Benjamin Nolot of Exodus Cry, an anti-human trafficking organization, noted in his documentary Nefarious: Merchant of Souls.

Choice is a sacred word in a culture that worships individualism, and there is no cap on the number of lives that can be sacrificed to it. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, herself a former stripper, occasionally takes time off from promoting abortion to advocate for the legalization of prostitution. “I see a lot of similarity between the issues,” she says. “Choice, my body is my own, autonomy, and all those good things.”

It should surprise no one that somebody who trumpets the destruction and misery of abortion should also laud an industry that specializes in the degradation of all those who engage with it. After all, this is the same Joyce Arthur who defended Planned Parenthood’s dealing in baby parts as a good thing, and even said that Canadian mothers, too, could offer to donate the dismembered body parts of their pre-born children to be used for research. With abortion, as with human trafficking, the pattern is the same: Humans are the sum of their parts, and humans are only valuable in so far as the monetary value of their bodies. Human bodies only serve the purpose of being useful to others.

Dr. Mary Anne Layden, who researches the links between pornography and human trafficking, put it this way: “This is a business and I think that a lot of pimps would stop doing this if there wasn’t any money involved, but it’s a business and as soon as you tell somebody it’s a product, as soon as you say this [is] something you buy, then this is something you can steal. Those two things are hooked. If you can buy it, you can steal it, and even better if you steal it because then you don’t pay for it. So the sexual exploitation industry, whether it’s strip clubs or prostitution or pornography, is where you buy it. Sexual violence is where you steal it – rape and child molestation and sexual harassment is where you steal it. So these things are all seamlessly connected. There isn’t a way to draw a bright line of demarcation between rape and prostitution and pornography and child molestation. There are not bright lines of demarcation.”

And when the intentionally sterile sex occasionally results in the production of a child, most pimps and rapists immediately avail themselves of the happy-to-help abortion industry. The mother’s body, in their mind, is only useful to serve the sexual needs of paying customers, not to nurture with love and tenderness the tiny, fragile body of her son or daughter. The sexual exploitation industries sell the bodies of women and girls to men, and the abortion industry waits patiently to destroy the unwanted sons and daughters of victims and rapists. Sometimes, they can sell the body parts of those sons and daughters to research firms. All body parts are put to good use. The market gods are happy.

A culture without morals meets capitalism without ethics, and what we have created is a commodity culture. Pornography dehumanizes women for a mass audience, and human trafficking and prostitution allows men to play out their fantasies in real life. When I interviewed anti-sex trafficking activist and Member of Parliament Joy Smith, she told me that pimps use today’s pornography to groom their victims into accepting assault—and that in studies done of johns, huge numbers of them report using prostitution so that they can live out fantasies they would never try on “real women.” And the abortionists, of course, can take care of any resulting children, since they are not, in the eyes of our culture, “real children.”

Commodity culture, with one trend played out over and over again: Objectification leads to dehumanization. Dehumanization leads to victimization.

It’s because our materialist society no longer believes in the soul. They’ve forgotten that we are not a body, we are a soul that has a body. Indeed, it is the soul that comes up time and time again when those who have been involved in the exploitation industries struggle to explain the depth and brutality of the damage that has been done. “Every time I sold myself, I felt like I was selling my soul,” said one former prostitute.” No one understands “the pain and destruction to a woman’s heart and soul” that is inflicted by the sex trade, explained Annie Lobert, a former sex worker. When I brought young women onto the porn sets, “I watched their souls die,” one former porn producer told me.

Again and again, former victims and former perpetrators struggle to find words to describe the destruction our commodity culture has wrought, and time and time again they find themselves drawn to words that beckon towards the transcendent. They know, because they have felt the pain and the horror, that human beings are not simply two randomly-ordered bodies of flesh coming together for brief pleasure. We are so much more than that. We were not built for abuse and degradation, but for love and dignity.

Many times throughout the history of humanity, we have forgotten these simple truths. And that is why, more than two hundred years after the great Christian abolitionist William Wilberforce triumphed in his battle against the slave trade, we are again fighting the same evils. We tossed out God and truth, and the pimps and flesh-peddlers came creeping back in. We announced that humans were simply animals, and human traffickers and pornographers obligingly treated them as such. We taught everyone that materialism explained everything, and that souls did not exist—and the abortionists nodded and busied their tools to begin the work of dismembering and discarding the soulless clumps of cells we once recognized as our perfectly created sons and daughters.

Things have never been perfect. Prostitution and infanticide are as old as time. But we used to recognize these things as awful practices that preyed on the most vulnerable, and sought to stamp them out. Now, we live in a culture that has abandoned the moral framework necessary to recognize transcendent concepts like the dignity of the human person, the sanctity of human life, and infinite preciousness of the human soul.

It is when we begin to recognize these things that, through the human rubble and sex-driven carnage, we can begin to turn to a place where we realize that the value of a human being cannot be monetized, and that to try such a thing is an evil that spawns unstoppable wickedness.

abortion, abuse, corruption, culture, ideology, philosophy, sex

Filed under: abortion, abuse, corruption, culture, ideology, philosophy, sex

Say Goodbye to Bride and Groom in Florida

original article: Say Goodbye to Bride and Groom in Florida
September 28, 2015 by Michael Brown

N. T. Wright is one of the most world’s foremost New Testament scholars, a sober-minded man not given to extreme rhetoric. Yet when it came to the question of redefining marriage, Wright did not hold back, explaining how dangerous it is to change the fundamental meaning of words:

“When anybody—pressure groups, governments, civilizations—suddenly change the meaning of key words, you really should watch out. If you go to a German dictionary and just open at random, you may well see several German words which have a little square bracket saying ‘N.S.,’ meaning National Socialist or Nazi. The Nazis gave those words a certain meaning. In post-1917 Russia, there were whole categories of people who were called “former persons,” because by the Communist diktat they had ceased to be relevant for the state, and once you call them former persons it was extremely easy to ship them off somewhere and have them killed.”

He continued, “It’s like a government voting that black should be white. Sorry, you can vote that if you like, you can pass it by a total majority, but it isn’t actually going to change the reality.”

That’s why I have often said that once you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless.

It would be like saying a couple can now consist of five people, or a pair can refer to one item, or a tricycle can have two wheels.

Redefining those terms doesn’t change reality, and when it comes to marriage, if you don’t have the two essential components, namely a husband and a wife, you don’t have marriage.

Consequently, if you change the fundamental meaning of marriage, you change the meaning of husband and wife as well.

As I pointed out last year in an article entitled, “I Now Pronounce You Spouse and Spouse,” as England began to move towards redefining marriage, the Daily Telegraph reported that, “The word ‘husband’ will in future be applied to women and the word ‘wife’ will refer to men, the Government has decided.”

According to John Bingham, “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses.”

In the government’s proposed guidelines, “‘husband’ here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman. In a similar way, ‘wife’ will include a woman married to another woman or a man married to a man.”

So, a man could be a wife if married to another man (or not), while a woman could be a husband if married to another woman (or not), all of which begs the question: Why use words at all if they have utterly lost their meaning? It’s like saying that up is down (or up) and down is up (or down), while north is south (or north) and south is north (or south).

In the same article, I cited the Huffington Post, which reported that “California’s same-sex couples may now be pronounced spouse and spouse after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill [last] Monday eliminating outdated ‘husband and wife’ references from state laws.”

Not surprisingly, according to California bill AB 1951, birth certificates will have three options: “mother,” “father,” or simply “parent,” meaning that, in the case of two lesbians, one could be designated “father,” while in the case of two gay men, one could be designated “mother.” (The bill would also allow for three parents to be listed on the birth certificate, since there’s obviously a missing third party in the event of two men or two women “having” a baby.)

This means that we’ve come to a place of semantic insanity, a place where you can have male wives, female husbands, male mothers, and female fathers.

Do people really think you can just turn the world upside down without having any adverse effects?

In keeping with this social madness, the state of Florida recently changed its marriage certificates, removing the terms “bride” and “groom” and replacing them with “spouse.”

This goes hand in hand with other international trends. As I pointed out in 2011, “In Ontario, Canada, as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage, all references to terms like husband, wife, and widow were removed from the law books in 2005. In Spain, birth certificates were changed from ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ to ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B.’”

But of course!

That’s why principle #4 in my new book is: Refuse to Redefine Marriage, since, to repeat, once you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless.

The Supreme Court can gives its ruling; laws can be passed; public opinion can shift and turn, but that doesn’t mean we have to affirm it, participate in it or, God forbid, celebrate it.

But all is not lost. True marriage – natural marriage, marriage the way God intended it from the beginning (see Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6) – will endure, while radically redefined marriage will undo itself.

I was reminded of this as I watched some baby dedications at a church service on Sunday, with the proud moms and dads holding their precious little ones in their arms: There’s no substitute for marriage and family the way God set it up, regardless of what Florida or California or England or Spain or Canada might say.

anti-religion, bias, bigotry, biology, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, freedom, government, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, law, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, sex

Filed under: anti-religion, bias, bigotry, biology, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, freedom, government, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, law, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, sex

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 10 Without Their Parents Knowing

original article: Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 10 Without Their Parents Knowing
September 13, 2015 by STEVEN ERTELT

After a LifeNews expose’ about how a high school in Seattle, Washington is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control in young girls and doing so without parental knowledge or permission, the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a request for additional public record to a better idea about the situation.

The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as anabortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.

The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit,Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance.

Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. Other Washington state schools are also taking part in the program.

Now, Judicial Watch has obtained documentation of the extent of the program giving girls birth control and IUDs without their parents knowing. The group released a statementwith additional information:

JW filed a public records request with the Washington Health Care Authority after reading a disturbing article in a pro-life news site over the summer about a Seattle high school that offers different forms of birth control without parental knowledge or consent. This includes implanting an intrauterine device (IUD) in a girl’s uterus free of cost. It’s part of an initiative offered by Medicaid, the joint federal and state insurance program for the poor. The article points out the irony that a teen in Seattle can’t get a sugary soft drink in high school but can have a device implanted into her uterus.

The data obtained by JW reflect increasing numbers of kids in all age groups receiving these birth control implants from 2013 to 2014. Figures can’t be compared for 2015 because the full year’s data is not yet available, but the records show that in 2014 and at least part of 2015, girls as young as 10 received the implants. The largest group of minors that got the birth control implants was 17 years old, according to the data, but girls much younger also received them.

Four 11-year-olds got birth control from the state during the 2 ½- year period and so did more than 100 girls between the ages of 12 and 13. The numbers go up as the girls get older with 364 girls age 14 getting the implants and 744 15-year-olds. The records show that 2,336 girls ages 16 to 17 were given implants during this period.

While the government maintains records about the number of young girls given birth control without their parents’ knowledge or consent, it appears government officials failed to follow up with the girls about the health problem or complications they faced afterwards. As Judicial Watch indicated:

JW also asked the Washington State agency for records involving the number of adverse health events reported for girls who had received the implants during those years, but no data was produced. Evidently, the state isn’t tracking the negative health consequences from administering the implants in young girls. As part of the investigation JW also requested a breakdown of girls that got parental consent and those who didn’t, but the state evidently doesn’t keep track and no records were produced.

This seems to be part of a trend among some states to offer children highly questionable medical care without getting permission from a parent

Parents of young girls in Washington State should be aware of what is taking place and parents of girls in other states should begin asking questions as well.

abortion, children, corruption, culture, education, extremism, family, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, sex

Filed under: abortion, children, corruption, culture, education, extremism, family, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, sex

We can ignore biology all we want, but when women act like men, women lose

original article: Don’t Blame Tinder For Unsatisfying ‘Selfie Sex’
August 26, 2015 by Anna Sargent

Vanity Fair buried the lede in its article this month about the Tinder Generation: “Tinder and the Dawn of the ‘Dating Apocalypse.’” What’s surprising isn’t that the kids are using Tinder for instant gratification—it’s that the kids aren’t getting it:

“A lot of guys are lacking in that department,” says Courtney with a sigh. “What’s a real orgasm like? I wouldn’t know.” They all laugh knowingly.

They talk about how it’s not uncommon for their hookups to lose their erections. It’s a curious medical phenomenon, the increased erectile dysfunction in young males, which has been attributed to everything from chemicals in processed foods to the lack of intimacy in hookup sex.

“At four in the morning this guy was so upset, and I was like, Dude, I’ll just go to fucking sleep—it’s O.K.,” says Sarah, 21, the one with the long curly dark hair. “I get really tired of faking.”

So why are they doing it? Tinder with orgasms makes sense. Tinder without orgasms doesn’t. For a generation that aspires to women having it all, it’s surprising to learn that we’re not even daring to expect orgasms out of sex.

The Shift In Dating And Mating

What we’re experiencing is a revolution, according to Justin Garcia, a research scientist at Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, as quoted in the Vanity Fair piece:

“’There have been two major transitions [in heterosexual mating] in the last four million years[.] The first was around 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, in the agricultural revolution, when we became less migratory and more settled,’ leading to the establishment of marriage as a cultural contract. ‘And the second major transition is with the rise of the Internet.’”

The category difference this time is in whether there’s any baseline for having sex. I’m not talking love or babies or marriage here, or even dinner and a movie. I’m talking orgasms, the thing that makes sex, well—sex.

It’s hard to tell whether this is a gender issue or a generation issue. Both young men and women are experiencing decreased sexual satisfaction, between increased erectile dysfunction and unsatisfying quickie romps.

Yet it’s feminists who have been driving the baseline down for this generation, and it’s women who suffer when sex is easier to come by. So it’s women who hold the key to a change.

Why Women Shouldn’t Date Like Men

There’s an old joke about the difference between the sexes: Put a man in a room with ten women, and he’ll play. Put a woman in a room with ten men, and she’ll choose. We can ignore biology all we want, but when women act like men, women lose.

Subtracting from the sexual baseline has long been a central theme of feminism: Play like the boys, don’t choose like a girl. It’s created an artificial equality-driven race to the bottom, and the result is joyless sex for everyone. Who can even remember the days when one right-swipe was all you ever got.

Feminists call this race to the bottom “owning our sexuality.” #GenerationTinder can’t be what it looks like for millennials to own our sexuality. There’s no way young women chose dick pics and young men chose erectile dysfunction.

It’s not that millennials don’t want anything out of sex; we’ve just failed the marshmallow test to hold out for something better. We’re so fixated on validation that we’ve forgotten there IS anything better—that we don’t have to fake it.

Tinder’s toll on women has been well explored by Tinder users—there’s the famously bro-y founder; his partner-cum-ex and HER “feminist” dating app, Bumble (only women can initiate text conversations); and the Tinder sex discrimination lawsuit. If you missed the apocalyptic articles about Normcore fashion, just google “Tinder Nightmares” or “Tinder in Brooklyn” for quickie access to the sense that you’re staring into the abyss.

Vanity Fair hit a deeper nerve this time—with Tinder itself. The app responded via Twitter, citing users in Pakistan, China, and North Korea, where certain types of social media or relationships are illegal and Tinder offers unique access to compatible partners, and pointing to its layered social media authentication as evidence that it’s more than text-linked HotOrNot.com.

Don’t Blame Tinder

It’s tough to fault Tinder for becoming defensive, when the app so frequently takes the hit for causing the dating “apocalypse.” Tinder isn’t to blame here—sex has simply become part of the sharing economy, as available and low-commitment as catching a Lyft (“’It’s like ordering Seamless,’ says Dan, the investment banker [ . . . ] ‘But you’re ordering a person.’”). Millennials aren’t in it for the long haul—we’re just in it for the selfie, a single validating snapshot to communicate that we belong.

Selfie sex is about validation, and nothing more. On Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs, it falls in some social media back door, peripheral to anything durable or meaningful in life. Equating love with sex may seem pearl-clutch-y and old-fashioned—but divorcing even orgasms from sex seems like a stretch. Yet here we are, sliding ever further down a slippery slope.

Like any apocalypse, the Tinder dating apocalypse isn’t the end; it’s a revelation and an opportunity. Our dating revelation is that we’ve gone very, very far, to a pretty depressing place. The opportunity then is to stop commodifying something precious, that we can’t easily get back.

If kids these days want to have it all, we have to start by not settling for less. We are all in the same boat, on the same spectrum, and there is more to life than faking it. Revolution or no, the dating apocalypse is an opportunity to put down your phone—and swipe right on something better than this.

culture, ideology, relativism, sex, unintended consequences

Filed under: culture, ideology, relativism, sex, unintended consequences

Pages

Categories

February 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728