Breaking the transgender spell has cost the author a lot.
Did she impose the Unforgivable Curses? Did she condemn anyone to Azkaban? No; she that a woman should not have forfeited her job for maintaining that men and women are different. And she followed that up by arguing that in fact they are different.
The position J.K. Rowling defended was one which, a few years ago, nearly everyone would have agreed with. In fact, I believe that today also nearly everyone would agree. But a violent and vocal minority not only believe otherwise but viciously attack anyone who disagrees with them. Ms Rowling has been the target of vicious verbal attacks and has even received death threats.
It is sad to see the three principal actors in the Harry Potter stories criticising the author without whom they would not be millionaires. Harry, Hermione and Ron would be ashamed of them.
It is an evident biological and psychological fact that men and women are different; a matter of science and of common sense: they complement each other. This is so obvious that no reasoned case can be made against it: which is why those who oppose it must resort to blind emotion and even physical threats.
Rowling’s statement in defence of her position is moderate and reasonable, yet it has provoked outrage. But the critics have not answered her arguments. Why? Because they can’t.
Through her personal experience and her study of the issues involved she has become deeply concerned about the detrimental effects the trans rights movement is having, and its push to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.
She points out that there is an explosion of young women wishing to transition, and increasing numbers are taking steps that have permanently altered their bodies and taken away their fertility. In those transitioning “autistic girls are hugely over represented in the numbers”.
Rowling refers to researcher Lisa Littman, who wrote a paper expressing concern about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and who “…had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans”.
Littman was “subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work”.
Rowling shows great sympathy for young people who want to transition, partly because of her own experience when young. She suffered severely with OCD, and her father said openly that he would have preferred a son. Had she been born 30 years later she might have tried to transition. “The lure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.”
Noting that we are living through the most misogynistic period she had experienced, she points out that it’s not considered enough for women to be trans allies. “Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.”
That statement expresses the essence of the problem: women are expected to annihilate themselves. Instead of there being two complementary ways of being human, male and female, the trans activists would blur the distinctions and cancel out the distinct qualities of each sex.
This program has dire consequences for both men and women, but holds special dangers for women, as in the insistence that biological men (there’s really no other kind!) be free to use women’s bathrooms and showers.
As Rowling observes: “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he is a woman – and as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones –then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside”
It should really be no surprise that Rowling takes the stand that she does, for it is in accord with the healthy outlook on human nature implicit in the Harry Potter stories. Women there are portrayed as equal to men, but expressing their humanity in a feminine way. Large families are implicitly defended, as in the Weasley family: seven children with a loving father and mother: a rather poor family but happy.
And when Harry and Ron become romantically interested in girls, it is a healthy attraction.
An underlying theme is the power of a mother’s love, exemplified by Harry’s mother sacrificing her life to save him from the evil Lord Voldemort.
In fact, the theme of a mother’s unique love for her children is manifested when Molly Weasley hurls herself into battle against the formidable Bellatrix Lestrange, in order to defend her daughter Ginny. It is shown too when Narcissa Malfoy, in gratitude to Harry for telling her that her son is alive, lies to Voldemort, thereby risking her own life.
The Potter stories show a contrast between a healthy world and the world of Voldemort and his Death Eaters. And in this vendetta against Joanne Rowling we see something of a parallel. She defends a healthy view of Woman against a sick view that implicitly annihilates Woman.
J.K Rowling deserves support for her courageous stand. And it is good to read in her letter that the overwhelming majority of responses she received were positive, grateful, and supportive.
Professor Dumbledore warned the students at Hogwarts that a time may come “when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy” (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, chapter 37) It is all too easy right now to buckle to a fashionable trend, against all reason.
John Young is a Melbourne based writer on theological, philosophical and social Issues. He is author of several hundred articles and three books: The Natural Economy, Catholic Thinking, and The Scope of… More by John Young
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2020-07-08 07:04:092020-07-08 07:05:49J.K. Rowling and the Cursed Woman
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination offers protections for the “LGBT” groups has raised eyebrows and ire. But it’s not surprising: The decision’s author, Justice Neil Gorsuch, long ago made clear that he operates from false premises. One of these is what’s called “textualism,” which is not at all the same as originalism.
Conservatives also err, in my view, in claiming that Gorsuch has “redefined ‘sex.’” In reality, his ruling is instead based on a certain rationalization. Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, while essentially applauding Gorsuch’s lawyer-craft, explained it well.
“As applied to Title VII, the classic 1964 anti-discrimination law, the textualist idea is very simple,” he wrote June 15. “The law prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’ To discriminate against somebody because of sexual orientation necessarily entails discriminating on the basis of sex. After all, if you’re discriminating against a man because he is attracted to men, you would not be discriminating against him if he were a woman who is attracted to men.”
“The same is true for transgender status,” he continued. “if [sic] you are discriminating against somebody for identifying with a gender that differs from their biological sex at birth, you are necessarily discriminating on the basis of sex — because you would not be discriminating against the person if they had the opposite biological sex.”
(Note: By this logic, bisexuals wouldn’t be protected because the behavior a person could be fired for — being attracted to both sexes — would be the same for both sexes. Although, some future judge will no doubt spin this, too.)
Now, realize that the above isn’t even necessarily dictated by textualism, the legal theory holding that a law’s application should be based on a plain reading of its text, as opposed to its framers’ original intent or some other guide. After all, there’s a difference between discriminating “on the basis of sex” and on the basis of sexual attraction or “gender identification.”
Consider: If an employer won’t hire anyone with same-sex sexual attraction, there is no “sex discrimination” because he will reject lesbians along with homosexuals (he only might be engaging in sex discrimination if he applied the “no same-sex sexual attraction” prohibition to only one sex).
Not only is the same true of so-called “transgenderism” — an employer could reject all people identifying as the sex they’re not — but there’s another factor: The business owner could simply be rejecting anyone who misrepresents himself.
Some may now respond that a man claiming womanhood really is a woman. But this proposition’s validity is irrelevant. The fact remains that the hypothetical employer is discriminating based on perceived misrepresentation, not sex. This is just as how an employer rejecting someone with “species dysphoria,” who claims to be a ferret, isn’t discriminating based on species, but possibly misrepresentation or concerns about the prospective hire’s mental stability. (Though Gorsuch would no doubt say that such discrimination is okay because the employer wouldn’t hire an actual ferret, either.)
Of course, some will still prefer Gorsuch’s argument. Yet this conflict and confusion merely illustrate how textualism doesn’t live up to its billing. Late Justice Antonin Scalia is known for pushing the theory (one of his great mistakes), which he did because in “his mind, textualism discouraged judges from using interpretation to make the law say something different from what the law actually said,” explained Feldman.
Yet while Scalia would no doubt disapprove of Gorsuch’s textual interpretation, this is yet another example of how there just is no simple formula for preventing judicial activism; a judge lacking intellectual honesty and philosophical soundness can always tendentiously spin a ruling.
This said, Gorsuch’s opinion might not have been rendered if he adhered to the only legitimate legal philosophy: originalism. As Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in his dissent, no one in 1964 even imagined that banning sex discrimination would include prohibitions against “homophobic” or “transphobic” discrimination; in fact, neither of these terms even existed, and “transgender” status hadn’t been conjured up yet.
By the way, Gorsuch essentially admitted as much, writing in his opinion that when “the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”
Moreover, he also rather haughtily insisted that “the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”
Now, the contrast between textual tomfoolery and sound judicial theory can be illustrated with a simple analogy: 10-year-old twins Timmy and Oliver and five-year-old Malcolm are siblings. One day mom hears Malcolm crying wretchedly, investigates, and learns that the two older boys had been punching him.
After scolding the twins, the mother warns, “Now, stop hitting Malcolm! If you hit him again and I come in here and find him bawling, you’re gonna’ be in big trouble!”
Yet an hour later Malcolm is crying his eyes out, again. The mother learns that Oliver understood not to hurt his kid brother and that Timmy is the culprit. Instead of being contrite, however, Timmy says, “Mommy, you said not to hit Malcolm; you didn’t say anything about not choking him and twisting his arm…and that’s all I did!”
Then too-clever-by-half Timmy adds, “The limits of your imagination, mommy, are no reason to ignore your rule’s demands. Only what you said matters — and I’m entitled to the rule’s benefits!”
In the above analogy, Oliver is the originalist, understanding and accepting his mother’s command’s spirit. Timmy is the textualist, doing things not expressly forbidden by her rule’s language even while knowing it contravenes her intent.
The problem with this “philosophy” is that insofar as you don’t consider what was intended, you increase the chances of experiencing the unintended. Gorsuch’s approach is every bit as maddening as Timmy’s (because it’s the same), as it places an unrealistic burden on legislators. If their laws are to meet Gorsuch’s textualist standard for being applied as intended, the legislators must have godlike capabilities: They must see into the future so they can craft language covering every social innovation, bizarre fashion or collective insanity that may eventually, one day, manifest itself.
So it’s bad enough we have the “law of unintended consequences.” Now we have textualists turning the law of unintended consequences into a legal philosophy and legislating it from the bench.
I don’t know Gorsuch personally, but he wouldn’t be a very pleasant person to associate with if he were a Timmy the Textualist in everyday life. Would you thus conduct yourself, parsing every friend’s words to seek a loophole and essentially punishing him for not being a seer who speaks like Mr. Spock? You’d have few friends and deserve none.
Interestingly, Gorsuch and his fellow travelers aren’t the first textualists. Two-thousand years ago they were called Pharisees, a group of pseudo-intellectuals whom Jesus excoriated for following the letter of the law, but ignoring its spirit. It’s tragic that we’re back to that, but convenient for today’s Pharisees.
It is ironic, though, that in order to avoid abiding by the intent of laws from a half century ago, some today are resorting to a mistake from two millennia ago.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2020-06-24 07:47:112020-06-24 07:47:11Gorsuch the Pharisee and Textualist Tomfoolery
The anti-immigrant AFD pushed the Christian Democratic Union into third place in elections in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s home state.
The right wing “Alternative Fuer Deutschland” party (AFD) thrashed the ruling Christian Democratic Union party (CDU), putting them in third place in the regional elections held in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s home state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on Sunday, according to exit polls.
According to projection by ARD TV, the ruling left wing SDP won 30.2%, down from 35.6% in 2011. AFD won 21.9%. CDU received 19%, the party’s worst result ever in the state, down from 23% in 2011.
The AFD is making gains by opposing Merkel’s open-door immigration policies and calling for a crackdown not only on Islamic extremism but also on public expressions of Islam. Last Thursday, a member of the Thuringian state parliament for the AFD entered parliament wearing a niqab as a protest against the face veil.
“This isn’t pretty for us,” Michael Grosse-Broemer, one of Merkel’s top parliamentary deputies in Berlin told ZDF TV. “Those who voted for the AFD were sending a message of protest.”
“This is a slap in the face for Merkel — not only in Berlin but also in her home state,” Frauke Petry, co-leader of the AFD, told the press. “The voters made a clear statement against Merkel’s disastrous immigration policies. This put her in her place.”
Fears about immigrants are rising in Germany and Merkel’s approval rating has tumbled to 45%.
Contributing to this feeling were reports that at least four women were sexually assaulted at the “Essen Original” city party on Friday night. Police have warned that the attacks may be “only the tip of the iceberg.” The Essen Original party runs from September 2-4 and hosts live music over six stages throughout the city.
Police have set up a confidential hotline for women who have been attacked to come forward. Those attacked reported being surrounded by groups of four to six men of North African appearance who danced around them and groped them.
This form of sexual assault called the “taharrush game” and has been traced to large-scale attacks that took place during the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt in 2011 and 2013.
Other groups are not waiting for the ballot box but are engaging in forms of direct action. A group affiliated with the European“Identitaire” movement occupied the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin at the end of August, one of the city’s most iconic landmarks.
The Identitaire movement calls for Europeans to defend their culture against perceived attack by those they consider invaders. The protesters who occupied the gate hung a banner from it with the “Identitaire” logo and slogan and were met with chants of “Nazis out” from spectators.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Angela-Merkel-screenshot-640-320.gif320640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-09-05 14:22:262016-09-05 14:22:26The German Anti-immigrant AFD Party Thrashes Merkel's CDU
In an unprecedented move, an Oregon judge has allowed a so-called “transgender” man to legally change his sex from female (he had previously been allowed to choose female) to “non-binary.” It’s newsworthy enough to have made it to Drudge, but even that fact doesn’t do justice to the grave threat presented by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Amy Holmes Hehn’s ruling.
I’ll cut to the chase. Even if you accept the legitimacy of “transgender” status (more on this later), here’s what must be understood:
Psychologists and transgender activists do not say “sex” and “gender” are synonymous.
Rather, they often take pains to point out — sometimes quite dogmatically — that “sex” is a biological distinction while “gender” is a psychological one. As MedicalNewsToday.com wrote in March, “In general terms, ‘sex’ refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. ‘Gender’ is more difficult to define but can refer to the role of a male or female in society (gender role), or an individual’s concept of themselves (gender identity).” You can find essentially the same definitions at Monash University’s website and numerous other places.
Even the man who petitioned Judge Hehn for the “sex change,” a fellow going by the name “Jamie” Shupe, has in so many words acknowledged the above. As The Oregonianreports, “I was assigned male at birth due to biology,” Shupe said. “I’m stuck with that for life. My gender identity is definitely feminine.”
Judge Hehn is clearly operating far above her pay grade. Like most people, she apparently views “gender” as a synonym for “sex,” oblivious to the evolution (or devolution) of the term and concept.
Up until relatively recently, “gender” was mainly used in grammar, pertaining to the categories into which words are divided, such as masculine, feminine and neuter. It was not traditionally used in reference to people.
This started to change with the now discredited quack psychologist Dr. John Money. In 1966, he originated the debunked “gender neutrality” theory and appears to have been the first person to popularize the application of “gender” to people. Even so, such usage of the term didn’t really catch on until the last 20 or 25 years.
And what was the purpose of this language manipulation? You couldn’t convince people many decades ago that there were more than two sexes, because that there are only two was rightly cemented in their minds. The biological distinction was the only thing people conceptualized and accepted. But “gender” was the perfect term as it included more than two categories: masculine, feminine and neuter. And thus did we see an attempt at the 1995 Conference on Women in Beijing to adopt language stating that a family could comprise up to five “genders”: male heterosexual, female heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian and bisexual (the attempt failed owing to Vatican opposition). Of course, that’s now old hat — the shape-shifting libertines now define scores of “genders.”
But no matter. Once the term caught on and most everyone accepted that a person could have “gender” — and once a minority had accepted that there could be more than two — the next step was to add to the concept the notion that a person could be “transgender” and transition from one to another. It’s incrementalism; step by step, inch by inch.
And now that even more people have accepted the fluidity of “gender” and virtually everyone confuses the term with “sex,” we’re witnessing the next step: the attempt to eliminate the concept of the biological distinction itself. The idea is that there will only be “gender,” and “sex” will just be a term describing what you do with a sentient biped (in most cases) who, hopefully, won’t transition in the middle of the act.
So first was just the correct concept of “sex” (biological), then the introduction of a new concept, “gender” (perception of what a person is). Then there was the confusion of the two terms attended by the expansion of the new concept and advent of another new concept, “transgender.” Now, with the terms long viewed as synonyms, we’re seeing the attempted elimination of the concept of “sex.” And just as the man on the street mindlessly adopted the term “gender,” expect to see a concerted effort to eliminate the term “sex’s” use in the legal realm.
And the proof is in the pudding. Note that among the more than 60 “genders” now imagined by the sexual revolutionaries is “cisgender,” whose definition is, “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their [sic] biological sex; not transgender.” In other words, normality is now listed as just one of scores of flavors of the day along with abnormality. In this way of “thinking,” it’s no better to be a normal woman than a cross-dresser masquerading as a woman. So the first step was to try to normalize the abnormal, and now the effort is on to “denormalize” the normal.
Do you now see why I and a few others warned, for years and years and years and years, that we shouldn’t use the word “gender” in reference to people or embrace any aspect of the Lexicon of the Left? The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.
As for Judge Hehn, I doubt she’s sophisticated enough to understand any of the above. She likely was just operating on misconceptions and emotion. But as former “transsexual” Alan Finch said in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex. … Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.” No, you can’t change sex. You don’t have “gender” unless you’re a word. And you shouldn’t be able to change sex in legal documents, either. You are what you are.
Judge Hehn’s ridiculous, destructive ruling should be overturned if possible, and she should be removed from the bench. Judges who can’t separate fact from fiction, emotion from reason or, even, boys from girls, need to be playing with blocks, not with our laws.
GREAT FALLS, VA– On Friday February 5th, the Utah State Legislature’s resolution on the public health crisis of pornography passed unanimously through committee.
“Enough Is Enough® applauds the leadership of the Utah State Legislature’s committee resolution declaring the public health crisis caused by pornography. This unanimous landmark decision shows the courage and conviction of a legislative body to deal with unpopular and often misunderstood social justice issues such as pornography.
Unfortunately, deviant and extreme Internet pornography has become increasingly more mainstream due to few barriers of entry since 1994 when EIE launched the national movement for prevention solutions to protect children from prosecutable content online.
Since that time, numerous peer-reviewed research studies continue to reveal that Internet pornography use is a fueling factor in the sexual exploitation of children, violence against women, sex trafficking, sexual and erectile dysfunction and physiological and chemical changes in the brain. A shared responsibility between the public, Corporate America and government is necessary to curb the continuous flood of Internet pornography in our nation. Now that science backs up the reality of Internet pornography’s harm to children, adults and cultures, we are hopeful that other states will address this serious issue very soon.”
Enough Is Enough® (EIE) is a 501(c) 3 national, non-partisan non-profit with a mission to make the Internet safer for children and families by advancing solutions that promote equality, fairness and respect for human dignity with shared responsibility between the public, technology and the law.www.enough.org; www.internetsafety101.org;www.friendlywifi.org
EDITORS NOTE: The features image is courtesy of Reuters.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/boy-on-laptop-computer-dark-background-reuters-e1454972161113.jpg416640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-02-08 17:57:002016-02-08 17:59:00Utah Legislature's Unanimous Committee Resolution Declares Pornography a Public Health Crisis
The below video shows a Muslim man sexually assaulting a mannequin (hat tip to PamelaGeller.com for this breaking news story).
Local sources report the sexual assault occurred after the Muslim rapist couldn’t find a suitable non-Muslim woman to rape.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, FL District 23
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, defended the assault. Wasserman-Schultz said:
It is better to submit and take it like a mannequin, than to resist!
All women can learn a lesson from this mannequin. She was passive throughout the assault and survived the attack without incident.
We will be introducing legislation that will disarm women so that they do not shoot inadvertently a Muslim trying to rape them. With many Syrian Muslims migrants registering as Democrats, every refugee vote will count in November.
The bill will be called the Muslim Mannequin and Fire Arms Protection Act of 2016 HB 69.
According to the Council of American Islamic Relations, “His libido just got the better of him. It is un-Islamic to rape a mannequin. However, it is permitted, under Muslim laws, to rape a Christian or Jew or other non-Muslim. We understand that the mannequin in question was made by Christians. We have asked our Islamic scholars to study this new form of sexual jihad. We will issue further guidance to the American Muslim ummah (community) next week.”
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin based Mondo Mannequins President Bob Rosean in a press release noted:
We are concerned that Muslims are sexually attacking mannequins. We have partnered with the Feminist Majority Foundation to allow those Muslim men thinking of raping a mannequin, who wish to seek help for their sexual addiction, to call a new hotline 1-800-MANIRAPE.
This hotline will have Arabic speakers for those who recently arrived in the United States under President Obama’s Syrian refugee initiative.
We are considering a new line of female mannequins that have fully function sexual organs. We see this incident as a emerging new market in America and Europe. We are looking at a series of mannequins that appear to be under the age of 9-years old. We plan on calling this line “Aisha”, in honor of the underage wife of Mohammed.
We can help reduce rapes of real women by providing mannequins that function as well as or better than real Christians and provide jobs at the same time.
All of our mannequins are proudly made in America.
The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), which was founded in 1987, notes, “This is new and uncharted territory for our organization. We will do what we can to protect mannequins in Wisconsin and beyond from such assaults.”
Bill Clinton, while in Iowa campaigning for Hillary, stated:
I am sure Hillary will institute a national program for the protection of Muslims who wish to rape mannequins. We cannot allow Islamophobes, such as Donald Trump, to make an issue of this video and call for the banning of Muslims coming to America, the land of milk, honey and mannequins.
I have on occasion been attracted to mannequins. I understand my Muslim brothers pain, especially in their loins. It is something that must be addressed by our government sooner rather than later.
Hillary understands the plight of Muslims who can’t seem to find enough women to rape. She has first hand knowledge of men who can’t get enough. Who better to address this issue than a President Clinton, I mean Hillary of course?
The Gay Pride, LGBT community and Human Rights Campaign issued a joint statement:
We believe that Muslims who are attracted by the same sex should have gay mannequins to abuse. It is sexist to deny those Muslims who are questioning their sexuality to not have a choice in which mannequins to assault.
We ask that the producers of mannequins consider a gay line for the sexually diverse. We would suggest calling this line “Q”, for obvious reasons.
The Donald Trump campaign issued the following short statement, “You have got to be kidding me? Muslims raping mannequins? Is this the new M&Ms?”
As the disturbing reports pour in about the New Year’s Eve Muslim sex assaults in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and other European countries, it has become clear that the new Utopian Multicultural Europe that the Left has worked so hard to build is now here. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker’s response to the assaults under her watch has been to reprimand the victims, suggesting that they had asked for it. She has vowed to make sure that women will change their behavior, so that they don’t provoke Muslims to sexually assault them again. There will now be published “online guidelines” for women to read so they can prepare themselves. One wonders if it will be the burqa or the niqab that will be the solution of choice.
These eerie developments are, of course, completely in line with why Naomi Wolf finds the hijab “sexy” and why Oslo Professor of Anthropology Dr. Unni Wikan’s solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women is not for the rapists to be punished, but for Norwegian women to “take their share of responsibility” for the rapes because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. Norwegian women, she has counseled, “must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”
We are also now aware that German police fired water cannons at German protesters in Cologne who gathered to protest the rapes and sexual assaults committed by the Muslim refugees. Right, it is not the Muslim migrantswho committed sex assaults that are being shot at with water cannons, but those who feel that what they did violates women’s rights and western values.
In response to this new horrifying European reality, in which if you are a kuffar female who is raped it means you asked for it, Frontpagemag.com is running my article “How Vittorio Arrigoni Went to Gaza Hoping to Die” from PJMedia’s April 18, 2011 issue. The article unveils the death wish in the heart of the Left and in the impulses of its fellow travelers. In so doing, it crystallizes the pathological mindset of the progressive elites running Western Europe today and why they have created the toxic and suicidal circumstances in which their own women are now victims of mass sexual assaults by followers of a totalitarian and misogynist ideology — and why they, the elites, are shaming the victims and taking the side of the perpetrators.
When one grasps that the yearnings of Western Europe’s rulers today are the same yearnings that Vittorio Arrigoni indulged, the whole picture becomes transparently clear.
CNN’s The Hunting Ground has won critical acclaim from filmmakers, winning the Stanley Kramer award from the Producers Guild of America while garnering criticism from Ivy League elites who worry that their reputations are being sullied by the depiction of a “rape culture” on their campuses (Harvard Crimson). That, in turn, has prompted a response from students in the form of a discrimination complaint under the Federal anti-discrimination law known as Title IX.
The attention that The Hunting Ground has attracted raises the question, “has it always been so on college campuses?”
Even radical sexologists such as Prof. Ira Reiss have to admit that it has not. Reiss reports that unmarried WWII 18-22 year-old Army lads were largely “still virgins.” Even Hugh Hefner was a college virgin at age 22. Dutch “sexperts” Drs. Kronhausens’ 1960 survey revealed, “The average modern college man is apt to say that he considers intercourse “too precious” to have with anyone except the girl he expects to marry and may actually abstain from all intercourse for that reason.” (p. 219). However, by the 1970s youth were generally sexually radicalized–once normalized, most thought unwed sex was “natural.”
How did this transformation occur? A brief chronology shows the historical context:
1950: “Age Disparity (Relations Involving One Adult) …. [P]ersons under the age of 7 are legally regarded as not responsible….but many are by endowment and training fully capable of….responsibility for sexual behavior.”
1953: “The cultural tendency to overprotect women and children [is] often…more detrimental to the…victim than the offense itself….Kinsey’s findings…permeate all present thinking on this subject.” The Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders
Fast forward from a Hugh Hefner as a 22 year old virgin to today, where high-profile college and professional athletes like Tim Tebow and Russell Wilson are ridiculed for announcing they will abstain from sex until they are married. Does this contempt for virginity reflect somehow a kind of “sexual exploitation pedagogy” of esteemed professors and administrators? And how have these prestigious graduates of a sexploitive pedagogy affected society? Have elitist sex abuse fantasies evolved into ideology, seeping into leading minds of the legal, political, educational, legislative, religious, scientific, medical, justice, law enforcement, entertainment, etc. worlds? And is pornography in university offices and dorms seeding its widespread sexual ideology?
Statistics tell the story. Roughly 80% of college men and 34% of co-eds use porn on campus or off, sanctioned by “free speech” Harvard professors and administrators—that’s campus sex culture! And, ominously, Data4Justice documents many “professors and staff…arrested for trading in brutal child sex abuse, including of infants.”
From University of Virginia’s Assistant Dean, Michael Morris downloading infant anal rape to Kirk Nesset, creative writing professor at Allegheny College with over 500,000 videos/images including” rape of infants. Professors and staff are involved in child sex trafficking….Since 2015 August, at least two professors per week have been arrested, arraigned or sentenced.”
Moreover, FBI’s Joseph Campbell says “the level of pedophilia is unprecedented right now.” A “survey of high school graduates” found 13.5% had sex with a teacher. If some administrators and professors are viewing child rape on campus computers does this become an intellectualization of a “rape culture”? A 2014 op-ed by Yale Professor Jed Rubenfeld, drew heated objections from Yale Law Students. He reminds our largely historically ignorant populace of the fallout following the nostalgic 1969 “Woodstock” “sexual revolution”.
It’s part of the revolution in sexual attitudes and college sex codes that has taken place over the last 50 years. Not long ago, nonmarital sex on college campuses was flatly suppressed. Sex could be punished with suspension or expulsion….Rape was a matter for the police, not the university. Beginning in the late 1960s however, sex on campus increasingly came to be permitted….The problem then became how to define consent.[Emphasis added]
So almost three generations ago, youth were lied to (read Dr. Reisman’s books for details) and persuaded that the WWII generation were closet sexual adventurers. This belief in their parental hypocrisy (see, The Graduate, 1967) helped youth reject the American legacy of sex restrictions in exchange for “sex drugs ‘n rock-n-roll.” Since then, each subsequent generation has been increasingly sexually permissive. Sexpert ideologues now teach sex to children in school, videos, social media, film, novels, text books, even pulpits while “every five days, a police officer in America is caught engaging in sexual abuse or misconduct.” And sexual victimization of males occurs in the military today, not just in prisons. Well over 14,000 in 2012, “[a]ccording to the Pentagon, thirty-eight military men are sexually assaulted every single day.So, it’s not just more reporting. Is it possible pornography is training a rape culture?
Meanwhile, back at Harvard, nineteen Law Professors posted an irate protest of CNN’s portrayal of the sexualized campuses as a “rape culture.” Their most illustrious professorial signatory is Prof. Laurence Tribe, an admitted plagiarizer, who taught American Legal History to Obama and two Supreme Court Justices. Tribe apparently is inexcusably ignorant of, or deliberately hiding, the worst child sex crimes and frauds in American Legal History—of pedophile Prof. Alfred Kinsey of Indiana University, the “father of the sexual revolution.” American past and present sexual law was revolutionized based upon experiments on up to 2,035 children raped and tortured for alleged “orgasms” published in Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) Kinsey, a sadistic obsessive masturbating pedophile and pornography addict was the scientific authority for these disastrous changes. His Tables 30-34 record the worst, unprosecuted, infant andchild sexual experimentation ever conducted in American Legal History, (Reisman, 2013)
By 1952 Herbert Wechsler’s Harvard Law Reviewarticle relied on Kinsey’s sex tome to justify liberalizing all sex laws. By 1955 Wechsler, chief author of the first-ever American Law Institute Model Penal Code (MPC), reported that sex protections for females were onerous for men. The new, innovative MPC argued that reduction of sex crime required more sexual freedom, lighter penalties, parole, and tax paid therapy for all sex criminals. Under Wechsler the neoteric MPC proposed age ten for consent as her “seductive” conduct might push men to rape. Kinsey claimed of 4,441 female interviewees none was really injured by a sexual assault, hence the Kinsey-MPC plan was to eliminate “unrealistic” rape and statutory rape laws. No rape harm, no need for rape laws! With this “cultural” pedagogy promoted by our prestigious legal lights and backed by Kinseyan “sex science” our legacy would inevitably be a “rape culture”—rape on college campuses, middle schools, libraries, bedrooms, barrooms, church pews, court rooms, etc. Be careful what you ask for. After the MPC advised a lowered age of consent (to allow “peer” sex), as Reisman documents, America’s legislatures and courts loosened state laws that had favored women (harsh laws against rape, adultery, child sex abuse, incest) and eased criminal penalties for sex offenders in more than two-thirds of U.S. states.
Wechsler and others used Kinsey’s alleged “sex science” to justify these actions and claims such as “[t]he cultural tendency to overprotect women and children [is] often…more detrimental to the…victim than the offense itself… Kinsey’s findings … permeate all present thinking on this subject.” Recall, until Kinsey, society allowed “the marital act” only in the “institution” of marriage, severely limiting even “fun consensual” fornication.Morris Ploscowe wrote, in the 1948 “Pre-Kinsey era” three states gave mandatory death sentences for rape—nineteen states provided the death penalty, life, or very long terms. Twenty-eight states gave the rapist 20 years or more, and one 15 years or more. Post-Kinsey’s “data” stated that 95 percent of men were already sex offenders and most women were promiscuous, or wanted to be. According to Ploscowe, justification for strict rape, child abuse or obscenity law was largely old fashioned.
How many millions of college lassies were spared disease, pregnancy, heartbreak, rape, suicide even homicide by such “old fashioned” ideas?
Now, trained by these elite academics and since “tween-age” by media such as Cosmopolitan magazine (be a “fun, fearless female”– booze up and hook-up), millions of Cosmo followers reveal how well they have learned by accepting or appearing in student pornography magazines such as Harvard’s “Diamond” launched in 2004. At least 10 American universities followed suit, featuring nude photo-spreads of ordinary students. Dozens more host “sex events,” such as naked parties at Yale, “sex week” at Tufts or “Outdoor Intercourse Day” at Western Washington University. Other examples include photographs of half-naked gay couples at the University of Chicago, Squirm at Vassar and, arguably, the most explicit, Boink….College Guide to Carnal Knowledge at Boston University.
Elitist administrators, perhaps some of those who complained about The Hunting Ground, award free speech funds and/or advocate for abusive porn events. Yale graduate Nathan Harden reports on “Sex Week” at Yale, recruiting naïve students into today’s vicious sexploitation. Here “porn stars and sex industry CEOs are invited on campus for a marathon of sex-related film screenings, seminars, and product demonstrations — all sanctioned by the university as ‘sex education.’” Harden notes that the university polity (steeped in the sex-saturated, rape culture they deplore yet breed) no longer understand the reason for education.
This is an unanticipated cost of the ‘60’s sexual revolution along with an explosion of inventive, barbaric sex crimes against women, children, even infants, and increased recidivism.
Some academic elites are waking up. Feminist lawyer and former Democratic presidential Campaign Manager for Michael Dukakis (1988), Susan Estrich was perplexed by the MPC influence on rape laws. She wondered at the “fresh complaint” clause that said, “a complaint must be filed within three months,” if the crime were sexual. This clause had not been part of America’s Common Law. Moreover, now that liberal lawyers were in charge, only “if serious bodily injury is inflicted” would rape be a “first degree felony.”
Moreover, noted Estrich, the lawyerly libidos had new rules for rape. If the victim had a “racy” past she might be classed as a “prostitute.” Therefore, even when she was the victim of a “gang” or fraternity “group” rape, the guilty predator might be cleared of the crime. These and other new laws followed on Kinsey’s claims that rape was a harmless, natural and normal reaction to seductive females (by age 10). Also, the New York Times reported, March 8, 1949, Kinsey had proven that not more than 5 percent of arrestees cause any real damage and thus sex offense laws had no function other than to preserve custom.
Today—60 years later, the same Ivy League Schools are embroiled in controversy regarding the “rape culture” they helped create through training students, lawyers, judges, politicians and legislators in Kinseyan pansexuality and the MPC. Many of these 2nd generation learned professors are now signatories on letters protesting claims that there is a rape culture caused by the very sexual revolution they helped institute on campus.
For a truly touching video on the reality of the damage done to all by the elites’ promotion of the sexual revolution, do take time to view former porn “star” Shelley Lubben’s reverential video, Dead Porn Stars Memorial.
Judith Gelernter Reisman, PhD
Research Professor, Director Liberty Child Protection Center, Liberty University School of Law
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rape-e1451763036553.jpg402640Dr. Judith Reismanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Judith Reisman2016-01-02 14:31:112020-04-07 07:50:00‘The Sexual Revolution’ Gave Us ‘the Rape Culture’
“We’ve come a long way, baby!” Education matters little if children learn in the classroom to engage in multiple partner, “normal” as well as more “deviant” forms of sex. A massive number will be and are permanently damaged, drinking, drugging, depressed and suicidal.
So moving deviance right along, June 26, 2003 in Lawrence v. Texasthe U.S. Supremes proved thisbesotted disconnect with reality, history, literature, religion,by legalizing same-sex sodomy. Within three short years sodomy has emerged as a schoolhouse athletic “hazing” ritual–boys sodomizing boys—but with adult coach oversight.
We really must turn off the pornography in the locker room—indeed everywhere.
ATHLETIC SODOMY SEX ED
According to press reports, Maine Township High School District 207 Cook County, Illinoiswas involved in the2008 sodomy of a boy by his baseball teammates as theircoachobserved—the same coachoversaw a 2012 varsity soccer team sodomize other boys—allegedly called, “hazing.” One Maine local claimed, “sexual abuse has been occurring as part of rituals at the school for as long as six years.”And just where could these high school lads and their coach(s)? learnthat sodomy was average ho homacho behavior?
“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor”: “Any action by an adult that allows or encourages illegal behavior by a person under the age of 18, or that places children in situations that expose them to illegal behavior.”
And in Washington State on June 14, 2012,during a “sex education class,” the Onalaska Elementary School principalproffered graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex. The “11-year-old students were being given a lesson on HIV-AIDS” part of the “state-adopted curriculum,” facts with “no demonstrations.” “The district leader told Seattle’s Q-13 Fox News. “It’s pretty difficult to talk about STDs or sexually transmitted diseases without explaining what that is, or how it’s transmitted.” Right. Hence kiddie sodomy ed everywhere.
THE GOOD ‘OL DAYS MARRIAGE ED
In the old days (pre-Kinsey’s “sexual revolution”)most current forms of “sex education” were criminal, as “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” That is, talking about sex in front of a minor (someone, commonly under age 18) or, gracious, showing immature soulsimages of sex or sexy images! Who but a sex deviant would do that? Precisely.
Encouraging any kind of sex activity (lone or with others), well, that was inexcusable, immoral, egregious, shameful and yes, criminal. For, who didn’t understand that children’s brains, minds, and memories should be devoted to education, Shakespeare, mathematics, Latin, our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, learning the heritage of our past—if they wouldgrow and govern our future wisely. Everyone recognized sex as confusing and arousing even to adults. Historically and coss-culturally,sex diverted somberthinking.
Post WWII, commonly in hygiene classes, schoolchildren learned the marital bed was where marriage was consummated, and, in single sex classes, students studied the biology of conception and for girls, the menstrual cycle. Seniors learned that a marriage license required that the boy and girlpass the state tests for the two known venereal diseases (syphilis and gonorrhea). And, oh yes, this instruction was largely normal for public school youths of all races and religions. Abortion (illegal and abhorrent) was rare enough to disdaincomment, hence condoms, similarly beyond the pale, were not needed. Sodomy might appear in someone’s religious studies referencing Sodom and Gomorrah.
AND NOW, PLASTIC WRAP OR TIN FOIL SEX ED
Now, good reader, I’ll tell you a true story about children and sex and the predatory malice of what passes today for “sex education.”
It was circa 1991 and I had just finished my Education conference lecture when a youngster, about 14-years-of age, approached me with anxiety written all over her sweet face.
“Dr. Reisman,” she whispered, “could I speak to you for a moment?”
“Of course, dear” I replied, wondering exactly how I would handle the child’s question.
Moving me slightly to one side, so no one else could hear, the girl, let’s call her “Sandy,” said, “Dr. Reisman, I have a question about what you were discussing.” (I quickly thought back to my presentation and was quite sure I hadn’t said anything too advanced or graphic for anyone. I saw she was catching her breath.)
“Our teacher told us that we can use Saran Wrap in case we don’t have a condom,” she said and stopped.
“Well, sweetie, I didn’t say anything in my lecture today about condoms, but I certainly do not want you or any other unmarried youngster having sex, and that would eliminate the need for a condom,” I replied, as gently as I could.
“Well, yes, I know,” said Sandy. “But you see, I’m not asking for myself” she added quickly, “I’m asking for my friend.”
“Honey,” I murmured, “I think you misunderstood your teacher. She couldn’t have said to use Saran Wrap if you don’t have a condom. That is insane, you must have misunderstood.”
“No, I didn’t” Sandy insisted. “But that isn’t my friend’s question,” she said quickly. “I mean, if we don’t have Saran Wrap, can we use tin foil instead?”
Tin foil! Poor, mislead child.
I cannot recall the lecture I gave poor Sandy, one of millions of young victims of early pre sodomy ed. However, I thought, how clear is it that children should never hear psychotic, deviant sex tales wrapped in the mantle of bogus “education?” They haven’t the experience, the maturity, the frontal cognition, to understand the powerful significance of sex. They can only “learn” it as the teacher tells it just as they’d learn grammar, math or geography—bad sex information is processed instantly of course and it is imprinted in the young, undeveloped brain, forever.
I was sure Sandy misunderstood the foolish and toxic teacher. After all the noise about using condoms properly as “protection,” who would recommend Saran Wrap?
Returning homeI found out who—sex educators. Sitting on my desk was a 1991 New York Centers for Disease Control brochure: “THE TEENAGER’S BILL OF RIGHTS”“I have the right to decide
whether to have sex and who to have it with.”This illegal and immoral claim was graced bygraphic directions for the poor children who received its medically fraudulent, infection and pregnancy/abortion productive brochure. Pardon my explicit language below, but this was 1991 and middle school children are exposed to worse today:
“Use a latex condom for…oral sex (penis into the mouth) and anal sex (penis into the butt).”Sandy was correct, except there was no product name, just plastic wrap. The sex brochure pictorially demonstrated: “Use a dental dam… an unrolled condom cut down one side or plastic wrap for oral sex…[I have sanitized here re:] her fluids in your mouth.”This wasproduced and distributed by The Division of AIDS Services, under the auspices of the N.Y. City Department of Health.How many abortions, venereal diseases, attempted suicides, or suicides, etc., and general tragedies this little leaflet produced among the children who believed it is not data released by the CDC or the Department of Health.
Does this brochure and the hundreds similar, constitute a case for “Depraved Indifference”? This legal violation requires that “the defendant’s conduct must be ‘so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.”
The Maine West High School habit of sodomizing young baseball and soccer players constitutes Depraved Indifference, as well as criminal child sexual abuse and a broad spectrum of similar crimes, What punishment will be meted out to the adults involved and what repairs for these emotionally, physically and “orientationally” violated boys?
THE ANSWERS?! MORE PEDO-GROOMING SEX ED AND CRIMINALIZATION OF REPARATIVE THERAPY FOR “ORIENTATIONALLY” DAMAGED CHILDREN
This brings us to a November 30 article in WorldNetDaily by my friend and colleague, Liberty university attorney Matt Barber who writes:
In recent months, “progressive” lawmakers, activist attorneys and militant homosexual pressure groups have launched a fierce campaign to ban therapeutic help for child victims of monsters like homosexual pedophile Jerry Sandusky. California has already passed such a law (SB 1172).On Friday, Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver challenged this twisted ban infederal court, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the law from taking effect on Jan. 1.
I view SB 1172 as a pederast-protection policy. This is designed to prohibit the young victims of same-sex sodomy, traumatized and often thereby homosexualized, from receiving the same therapy available to any female victim of heterosexual rape.
The Reisman-Johnson 1995 study of the leading mainstream homosexual periodical, The Advocate found their upscale reader respondents self-report (August 23, 1994) as 21% claiming they were “sexually abused by an adult, by age 15” (p. 20). These findings are confirmed, reports Barber, by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research that “gay” men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse),” while The Archives of Sexual Behavior determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the samegender” versus 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexualwomen reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”
Barber concludes, “The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable.” Legalizing same-sex sodomy clearly, and logically, will have intensified such pederast abuse leading to a backlash by pederast groups to forbid reparative therapy.
Moreover, denial is the road most taken by academicians. Rodney Erickson, Ph.D., the new president of Penn State, delivered welcoming remarks to attendees at the very first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference Oct. 29-30. Erickson assumed the presidency Nov. 9, 2011, after the disgraced Graham Spanier was forced to resign as president following exposure of his foreknowledge of Coach Jerry Sandusky’s infamous pederastic rapes of young boys.
The October conference speakers ignored the infamous child sex abuse Penn State network.I never heard the names of former “Coach Sandusky” or “President Spanier” mentioned by a single carefully vetted Penn State child sex abuse speaker. Nor was there a mention of The Second Mile, the nonprofit charity founded by Sandusky & Co. –for local underprivileged and at-risk youth. The speeches are on the Internet, so if someone noted these names or events whenI sneezed, kindly email those citations to me.
Before leaving pedophile and pederast perversions I want to mention what I call the state mandated pedo-grooming programs euphemistically and deliberately mistitled “sex education,” There is indeed a federal, FBI supported Anti-Grooming law that, objectively, criminalizes most of the “comprehensive sex ed” described earlier. Child molesters:
Lower the sexual inhibitions of children.
Demonstrate, teach or instruct on how to masturbate, oral sex and/or engage in sexualintercourse.
Desensitize children to sex. Offenders often show child pornography to their intendedvictims.
Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children toarouse victims.
Says Barber, “Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughoutclassrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions.These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.”
The normalization of pederasty, the “need” to lower the age of consent and eliminate “stigma” against molesters is on the fast track to success. Remember, you read it here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sexed.jpg365545Dr. Judith Reismanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Judith Reisman2015-11-28 06:52:022015-12-06 07:33:16The new Sex Ed: Contributing to the Deliquency of a Minor
In light of the public health crisis of pornography, rising rates of campus and military sexual assault, and the prominent issue of human trafficking, America needs a president who will stand for sexual justice.
Which candidates will publicly speak about issues like federal obscenity laws, or websites like Backpage.com that profiteer by advertising the sale of people (who are often trafficked) for sex? Which candidates are going to prioritize solving human trafficking, or ensuring restitution for victims of digital media sexual exploitation abuse of children? NCOSE believes in sexual justice – freedom from sexual exploitation, objectification, and violence. It’s vital for the presidential candidates to make their positions known.
ACTION: Ask the candidates to respond to this survey, and to defend dignity, here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/survey-on-sexual-exploitation.jpg375640National Center on Sexual Exploitationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNational Center on Sexual Exploitation2015-11-11 09:26:302015-11-11 09:27:57Where do the 2016 Presidential Candidates Stand on Sexual Justice?
Playboy has finally found a new way to shock and titillate America.
The magazine has announced that it will no longer feature full nudity. Instead, it will be moving toward a partially clad, cheesecake pin-up style.
When I heard the news, I immediately wondered what the great economist Joseph Schumpeter would have made of it. Schumpeter, who famously sought to become the world’s greatest economist, lover, and horseman — and admitted to failure only when it came to horses — would surely have followed the news from Playboy with interest.
But Schumpeter’s interest would have been as professional as it was prurient. As Michael Miller reports in theWashington Post,
By routinizing provocative images of naked women, Playboyinevitably created a market for its own rivals. In the 1970s, the magazine went head to head with newcomerPenthouse, whose more graphic female nudity pushed Playboy to become more extreme as well…. Playboy eventually toned down its photos in an attempt to re-establish its “girl next door” reputation, but the company would face even stiffer competition with the rise of the Internet. Suddenly, graphic porn wasn’t just available online. It was free. Playboy’s circulation, which had peaked at 5.6 million in 1975, plummeted to its present tally of 800,000.
The disappearance of full nudity from Playboy magazine is, in other words, a perfect example of Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction. Schumpeter wrote that the “essential fact about capitalism” is creative destruction — the process “that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structurefrom within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.”
Just as buggy-whip makers were driven out of business by the rise of the automobile and manufacturers of wall phones were driven out by the rise of the cell phone, traditional purveyors of pornography can be driven out by new technology. In fact, pornography may be a business that is particularly sensitive to technological progress. Though it’s a disputed claim, many technology magazines have claimed that the superior availability of naughty movies on VHS lead to the demise of BetaMax. The legal scholar Peter Johnson argued in 1996 that
Throughout the history of new media, from vernacular speech to movable type, to photography, to paperback books, to videotape, to cable and pay-TV, to “900” phone lines, to the French Minitel, to the Internet, to CD-ROMs and laser discs, pornography has shown technology the way.
The two decades since Johnson’s article have only proven him more correct. With an ever increasing amount of free nudity available online in ways that allow users to precisely calibrate the images they find in order to satisfy their individual desires, the images in Playboy began to seem increasingly quaint and out of date. The desire for pictures of fresh-faced girls next door — filled by Playboy in ersatz and airbrushed fashion — is, presumably, easily filled by the actual girls next door on Snapchat and Tinder. Playboy needed to get creative and change, or be destroyed by its competitors’ creativity.
But while pornography’s critics have long argued that the proliferation of electronic porn is producing a race to be the most hardcore and the most shocking, Playboy has chosen to innovate by going in the opposite direction. This strikes me as a brilliant marketing move.
While the move may well have been done with an eye to skirting China’s laws about pornography, with today’s hipster fascination on reviving the old ways of doing just about everything — from canning food, to home sewing, to vintage dances, fashions, hairstyles, and so on — Playboy’s nod to its status as the 1950s source for cheeky photos is a smart one. Rather than smelling faintly of mothballs, the magazine may manage to rebrand itself into something as desirable as a pair of vintage horn-rims or a fixed-wheel bicycle.
People who worry about innovation and excessive technology and the loss of the good old days should take heart, in other words. The relentless drive of the market, the need to satisfy new customers with different preferences and constraints, the constant push for new technology, and the desire for competitors to stand out in the marketplace, has produced — as its latest innovation — good old-fashioned cheesecake.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/playboy-e1444857537533.png320640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-10-14 17:19:182015-10-14 18:34:02The Creative Destruction of Nudity in Playboy Magazine by Sarah Skwire
When asked by the media about homosexuality Pope Francis responded, “If a person is gay — who am I to judge?” Here is the video of his comment:
Well it appears now that Pope Francis has a problem and perhaps his comment has contributed to it? Perhaps Pope Francis should reconsider his position and begin judging behaviors that are inconsistent with social and biblical norms?
Pope Francis asked for forgiveness on Wednesday for scandals at the Vatican and in Rome, an apparent reference to two cases of priests and gay sex revealed this month during a major meeting of bishops.
“Today … in the name of the Church, I ask you for forgiveness for the scandals that have occurred recently either in Rome or in the Vatican,” Francis said in unprepared remarks during his weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square.
“I ask you for forgiveness,” he said before tens of thousands of people, who broke into applause. The pope then read his prepared address and did not elaborate.
Amnesty International has betrayed the cause of human rights through its looming policy in favor of decriminalizing prostitution.
Decriminalizing prostitution is a gift to pimps, sex traffickers, and sex buyers that confers a right to buy and sell other human beings. Such policies would not protect the persons in prostitution, but rather guarantee that their exploitation will continue.
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation has launched this new campaign, joining the ranks of many others who are speaking out against Amnesty. No Amnesty For Pimps provides the public with ways to oppose Amnesty’s policy and works to educate on how prostitution is an inherently exploitive system that requires Abolition, not social sanction.
A special thank you to Coalition Against Trafficking In Women’s, Dr. Eleanor Gaeton, for joining us in the press conference. CATW and many other leaders are speaking up in opposition to Amnesty as well. We are happy to stand alongside them!
Collective ations highlighted in today’s press conference included:
*Joining protests at Amnesty offices around the world on October 23rd (email email@example.com for details)
*Add your name to the Global Declaration asking Amnesty to uphold human rights and oppose the exploitation of the sex industry here.
*Flooding Amnesty International’s USA offices with postcards. See here.
*Tweet this logo to @amnesty during the month of October
*Emailing Amnesty’s top executive through a form here.
Another New Resource Released Today – Bright Light on the Red Light: Truth About Prostitution
We are building out a website to educate on the harms and realities of prostitution, as well as on the connections between pornography and prostitution. We can’t allow people to ignore this! Check out the new webpage now. Note that we will continue to add valuable information regularly.
Thank you for your support! We must continue to expose the seamless connection between all forms of exploitation wherever and whenever we can. You’re partnership and support is greatly appreciated.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/no-amnesty-for-pimps.jpg410640National Center on Sexual Exploitationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNational Center on Sexual Exploitation2015-10-08 15:07:212015-10-08 15:07:21#NoAmnestyForPimps Campaign Launched
“There were days when seven to eight men — all from Saudi Arabia — would assault us.” Where did this Saudi diplomat get the idea to hold these women and use them as sex slaves? This account is eerily similar to the accounts of non-Muslim girls in Britain who have been brutalized by Muslim rape gangs, and to those of women who escaped after being used as sex slaves by the Islamic State. Where do all these Muslims get the idea to do this? From the Qur’an, of course. The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general.
The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)
It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)
The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:
Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.
Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.
A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”
The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”
“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.
“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”
The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction.
“Saudi diplomat in Delhi charged with gang-rape; Nepalese women recall ordeal,” Zee News, September 9, 2015:
Gurgaon: In a shocking narrative, a 20-year-old woman from Nepal said she and her 44-year-old mother were sexually abused every day for the last four months by a Saudi diplomat in a flat in Gurgaon.
The diplomat at the Saudi Arabia embassy in New Delhi has been booked for rape while his wife and daughter have been booked for torturing domestic helps in the Millennium City, the Haryana Police said.
The mother-daughter, who were brought to India with the lure of a better future, today claimed they were not being paid wages for the last four months and now wish to go back “home” as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, The Indian Express quoted the 20-year-old as saying: “Last four months were a curse for us. It was so ugly…we thought we were going to die in that house and our families would never even find our bodies,” [sic]
The mother and daughter were “rescued” on Monday evening from an apartment on the fifth floor of Ambience Island Caitriona complex here. The victims were “rescued” after the intervention of the Nepalese embassy and with the help of an NGO Maiti Nepal India, police said.
“There were days when seven to eight men — all from Saudi Arabia — would assault us. If we resisted, the diplomat and his family would threaten to kill us and dispose of our bodies in the sewer,” said the older woman.
The duo said that on some days, they would be given no food at all. However, they were allowed to take bath, just before they had to meet the diplomat’s ‘guests’, who would rape and sodomise them, reported the daily.
“We were made to do all the household chores, from morning till late in the night, and then subjected to sexual assault at the end of the day. We were not given food. Sometimes we only survived on biscuits, bread and watery tea. We were never allowed to step out of the house,” said the women.
They also claimed that the diplomat took them to other places, including Nainital and Agra, where they were subjected to further sexual assault by other ‘guests’.
“Right after we were employed, our employer took us to Saudi Arabia for 15 days. There, he did not touch us or misbehave with us. After we returned in May, he asked us to massage him… he then raped us and forced us to have unnatural sex and oral sex. After that he offered us to his friends regularly,” they said.
“They used to keep us in locked rooms and did not let us make any sound. They showed knives and threatened to kill us otherwise,” the older victim told PTI today while showing her wounds.
“We were told they he’s a good man with a big house. But we did not know what he does. We were brought for handling domestic chores…But he did horrific things with us,” said the woman.
“We want to go back to Nepal and these people should be jailed as soon as possible,” she added.
The 44-year-old also told news agency ANI “around five-six people used to come and lock us in a room and harass us.”…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ethiopian-sex-slave.jpg400600Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2015-09-10 05:10:382015-09-10 05:10:38Muslim Sex Slaves: 'There were days when seven to eight men — all from Saudi Arabia — would assault us'
Disturbing details have come to light about the ordeal faced by American aid worker Kayla Mueller, who was captured by the Islamic State and repeatedly raped by the terror organization’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.
A Yazidi eyewitness, who also suffered sexual assault, apparently told American officials of Mueller’s torture and rape.
“We were told Kayla was tortured, that she was the property of al-Baghdadi. We were told that in June by the government,” Kayla’s parents, Carl and Marsha Mueller, confirmed to ABC News.
ISIS held the 26-year old from Arizona for some 18 months before she was killed. The Islamic State maintains she lost her life during an attack by coalition forces in February.
Much of the evidence on Mueller’s torment came from a 14-year-old Yazidi girl, who said she spent two months in a house with Mueller before escaping in October 2014. Al-Baghdadi would take Mueller to his room and then on her return, Mueller would tell the other captive women and children what the ISIS leader had done to her.
The Yazidi said Mueller refused to escape with her and others because she could endanger them as she was more-easily recognizable. She also cared for other captives during their time together.
The Islamic State has a track record of enslaving women, selling them in markets and repeatedly raping them before passing them on to other fighters.