Western Cultural Imperialists from a wide variety of Western governments and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are grooming the children of Africa.
They teach children as young as 10 years old from a training manual that includes a comprehensive list of “Sexual Patterns and Behaviours.”
The list includes the patterns and behaviours you might expect, plus some you might not:
Voyeurism: Sexual excitement from observing others undress, making love, kissing, petting or masturbating. Sometimes voyeurs are called “Peeping Toms”.
Gerontosexual: Sexual pleasure from elderly by a young person.
Paedophilia: Sexual pleasure by having sexual intercourse with children.
Paedarasty: Sexual pleasure from young boys.
Zoophilia/Beastiality: Sexual pleasure from animals
Urophilia: Sexual plasure from urine.
Coprophilia: Sexual pleasure from filth such as faeces, dirt, or soiled underwear.
Sadism: Sexual pleasure from inflicting pain to another person.
At the end of which the students are taught some very important cross-cultural perspective.
“IMPORTANT!Some of these behaviors are acceptable in some cultures while others are considered as deviant in some cultures….”
I could be tempted to wager a small sum that not one of these “patterns & behaviours” will be described by a Sex-Ed trainer as deviant in all cultures. Wouldn’t that risk the evil of stigmatization? If you think I’m being overly cynical, read this.
I do hope the children were not left to ponder that question on their own. But what is the purpose of including some of these? Do you get a ”warm fuzzy” about the reason for those inclusions? I don’t. These materials were to be used with 10 year olds! They will also learn how to properly use an anal sex toy should the need arise.
Well, here’s the video. Take a look for yourself.
Source: Advocates For Protecting Children
You wonder why countries in the non-Western world have a problem with Western values related to human sexuality?
You just saw one very big reason. Sex-saturated Western Entertainment media and the “dark caverns” of the Internet would be two others. One need not be a sexual prude to be concerned about this cultural imperialism.
+++
If you haven’t already added your email to my list, do so and I’ll let you know when the blog is updated.
My favorite rich-gal author, JK Rowling, who refuses to go quietly, just tweeted about a proposed Scottish Gender Self-ID Bill. Rowling says it:
will harm the most vulnerable women in society
She is thinking mostly about “those seeking help after violence/rape and incarcerated women. Statistics show that imprisoned women are already far more likely to have been previously abused.”
She fears the consequences of a law that redefines what it means to be female.
If passed, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill will make it much easier for Scots to choose their own legal sex, including reducing the minimum age to 16!
Up to now, Scots wishing to “change sex” first needed a medical diagnosis of gender-dysphoria. They also needed to live as a member of their chosen sex for at least two years.
But the new bill if passed will enshrine Self-ID into Scottish Law. And will allow 16 year olds to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate based on their “inner sense of gender.”
Those concerned about protecting biological women and their single-sex spaces have been likened to racial segregationists in an Equality Impact Assessment attached to the Bill.
My response to that slur is to say: race is an immutable human characteristic.
Choosing an identity detached from every biological measuring stick, chromosomes, DNA, reproductive organs, gametes, etc….is most certainly not an immutable characteristic with which you are born. But something you confusedly choose. (See my rebuttal of the “assigned at birth” fiction here and here.)
And about the race thing.
If I, as a biological white guy, chose to identify as a black woman and then expected to be socially remunerated for my intersectional status as a black woman, would/should anyone take me seriously?
We all know the answer to that question, don’t we?
But playing the ”race card” has a certain cultural cache. Thankfully, today, most in the Western world don’t want to be considered racists. Or indeed are racists. So slinging that slur is an an uncharitable rhetorical trick designed to intimidate.
It won’t work here.
Sex is immutable too. You can’t change your sex. You will always be either male or female. No matter how you feel internally about the matter. As a Christian, I would add that God gave you your body, as mediated through your biological parents. It can’t be fundamentally changed. Only rebelled against.
I discuss the exceptionally rare instances of DSD’S (Disorders of Sexual Development) here, here, and here. These rare DSD’s are also unchangeable.
In a previous post I wrote the following reasons about why male and females are justifiably separated. a justification that does not apply when speaking of race. Men are on average stronger, bigger and faster than women. And they present a far greater physical threat because of those differences.
Public safe spaces for biological women, spaces that were constructed so that men and women could work and recreate together outside the home will be threatened if today’s radical disembody movement proceeds unhindered. Those safe spaces were constructed with full recognition of the specific biological differences, privacy concerns, AND most importantly differences in vulnerability between men & women. If the radical disembody movement wins the argument public spaces like sex-specific intimate facilities such as restrooms, locker rooms, etc., could be entered by a biological male identifying as a female on Tuesday morning, and then by Tuesday afternoon that same male could revert back to a male identity and access the nearest male restroom “in an emergency.”
Under this logic, saying you are a trans-woman (otherwise known as biological male) with the right to enter female spaces is a totally unfalsifiable assertion.
As most of us can imagine, women prisoners are particularly concerned about Self-ID. They should be.
When it comes to prisoners, I join philosopher Kathleen Stock who argues we should construct “third-spaces” for trans-women (biological males) who are fearing for their safety. The argument presented by Trans-Activists is that trans-women should be able to come into female spaces because they feel at risk from men (in prison, for example). But Stock sees a failure of imagination when it comes to the female perspective.
People today find it much easier to imagine the vulnerability of a trans-woman in a dormitory, or a hostel or a prison than it is to imagine a rape survivor in a context where the law says any male could enter her heretofore female only protected space on the basis of Self-Identification, a totally subjective concept.
Regardless of the legal realities, social institutions, like state interscholastic athletic associations, have already lept ahead. Self-ID is the means by which you can enter a range of spaces already; female only athletic competitions, bathrooms, locker rooms, and prisons. Surgically intact male people enter female prisons all the time. Most trans-identified “females” with male bodies will not cause trouble in this context, but some will. Some will have used this loophole for nefarious purposes as we’ve already tragically found out. When you consider the widely recognized statistic that most women in prison have suffered sexual abuse by men, this new Self-ID social twist will only increase their anxiety of abuse happening again, but this time during incarceration.
Yet we don’t seem to mind putting people with penises in these spaces because we seem to be more concerned with the perspective of people with penises than with vulnerable biological females. Stock’s feminist perspective claims this is just another form of misogyny.
On page 72 of Stock’s very fine book “Material Girls: Why Reality Matters For Feminism.”(Kindle edition) we read about a previously convicted male paedophile who was placed in a UK women’s prison.
As a Classic Christian I encourage everyone to “Embrace, Don’t Affirm.” Individuals with a Gender Identity Disorder (Gender-Dysphoria) need Truth-filled Love. Please read this post for more details.
If you haven’t already added your email to my list, do so and I’ll let you know when the blog is updated.
A follow up post from my last one. And another article from the pro-woman, pro-child safeguarding news site, REDUXX. [Read the whole thing! The usual link disclaimer applies. 1Links from this blog to online resources don’t necessarily mean I support everything found on these sites. But as adults we should embrace viewpoint diversity. And make alliances where we can.]
John Money
I’ve known about John Money of Johns Hopkins University for some time now. Money is one of Freud and Kinsey’s leading successors.
Money, a sexologist and psychologist is considered the first to use the terms “gender identity” and “gender role.” In his clinical research Money described the “internal experience of sexuality” and the “social expectations of male and female behavior” respectively.
Money was on record as a hater of Judeo-Christian “repressive religious structures…[and their] anti-masturbatory, anti-sexual fervor.”
Here’s what he had to say about Pedophilia.
“If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who’s intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way.”
The whole brief illuminates the history of our current cultural crisis, a crisis that creates a thick wall of separation between biological sex & gender. And pulls down any suggestion of a Male/Female binary by promoting the concept of “gender-fluidity.” The leading lights promoting this crisis assert in so many words that “inner conviction” trumps biological reality.
As a Christian, I’m compelled to say, this disintegration of human personhood with its body-denying philosophy will not end well. God our Creator will not be mocked.
Read the brief. If you have the time.
If not. Scroll down to page 15 of the Amicus Brief and you will see the following footnote “55”.
In an interview published in Paidika, an international journal for those advocating for pedophilia, Dr. Money said that adult sex with children is normal and often beneficial and said, “regarding paedophilia [sic] that I would never report anybody.” An Interview with John Money, PAIDIKA: THE JOURNAL OF PAEDOPHILIA 12 (Spring 1991).
When Money says he wouldn’t “report anybody” he means report to the police any patient engaged in an unlawful but consensual adult-child sexual relationship.
More details about Money’s legacy at REDUXX. [You should read the whole thing.]
As a culture, if we think biology is irrelevant, in this case puberty, and that only internal desires matter, then how can we say Dr. Money is wrong?
Today’s stigma-free ethic toward gender-fluidity affirms a child’s desire to “transition” at decreasingly younger ages. So as to become their “authentic self” sooner. A self free from the “dictates” of biology and the unwanted changes of puberty. (Pharmaceutical puberty blockers to the rescue!) Many top flight professionals in a variety of disciplines coach us to acknowledge and promote those “authenticating” body-denying desires.
For now, we draw the ethical line at pedophilia. For now.
I know that the vast majority of those who promote our current cultural crisis would never imagine crossing the ethical line just mentioned. But, for me, their body-denying logic leads in that direction.
Is this the world we want to live in? We better come up with some answers quick. Things are moving swiftly.
