What Tolerance For Sexual Deviance Has Reaped

What Tolerance For Sexual Deviance Has Reaped

By Erik Rush •

Last Sunday on Fox News’ “The Next Revolution,” referencing the effluvia of slander and histrionics being doled out by prominent leftists, host Steve Hilton stated that the Washington, D.C. political and media establishment have “lost their minds.”

While this may sound like hyperbole, some of the rhetoric coming from the left does have elements of clinical insanity. The insistence on the part of prominent Democrats that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election despite having been cleared of this charge certainly qualifies. Claims that restrictions on abortion being considered in some states will kill black women (an abject fallacy in itself) whilst ignoring the black babies being killed by abortion in the absence of such measures also qualifies.

The most bizarre and incoherent ideas currently being advanced by the left have to do with gender. Only 20 years ago, the idea of same-sex “marriage” was considered ridiculous by a majority of Americans. Similarly, biological males competing in sporting events as females would have been considered not only absurd, but grossly unfair to biologically female athletes.

Today, these “institutions” are practically commonplace, and they’ve become so largely because those who considered them ridiculous remained silent rather than being labeled as bigots.

The most recent incarnation of the left’s efforts to promote sexual ambivalence has to do with the nature of gender itself. Not only does a segment of the tiny but extremely vocal LGBTQ lobby advocate for biological males and females being able to “choose” a preferred gender with which to identify, this bunch also contends that there are multitudes of genders, perhaps even hundreds.

Who knew?

I remember quite well during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, when the political left was pushing sexual permissiveness with all the urgency of avoiding the next planetary extinction-level event, catty, mincing liberals accused those who resisted going along with the program of being prudes. As far as they were concerned, a prude was just as bad as a segregationist—and if you ran afoul of their budding doctrine, they certainly let you know it.

Also during this period, court cases and discussions in the public square arose with regard to how these “new sensibilities” would be represented in media and education. Oh, the controversy over Sex Ed in schools! Many will recall the liberal argument that sexual function and reproduction were “only knowledge,” and that keeping this valuable knowledge from our youth was simply wrong. Further, that an ignorance of sexuality and reproduction would lead to young people getting into trouble should they become sexually active.
There was a great deal of concern about sexuality being represented in films and TV, and particularly its effect on children, as well as concern over the proliferation of pornography and its effects on society at large.

In November of 1968, the first voluntary Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system took effect, not so much because the public was concerned about sexual content in movies, but because the MPAA brass deemed the Hays code (in place since 1930) archaic. Movie makers had been increasingly pushing the envelope in this area anyway; the new ratings code actually gave film makers more license to produce explicit material.

While millions of Americans possessing traditional values were alarmed at these emergent sensibilities, there was a certain congruity in the disposition of courts and regulatory agencies which decided that if a segment of the population wished to expose themselves to smut, it was not the role of the Christian majority or those or secular folks who held to traditional values to dictate mores to them.

Unfortunately, like our Constitution itself, this has become a double-edged sword. Fast-forward 50 years, and any child with a computer, tablet or smart phone can navigate to the most aberrant and disgusting pornographic fare ever conceived. American consumers are hard-pressed to find movie and TV offerings that do not aggressively promote leftist sexual orthodoxy, and even TV shows featuring comic book superheroes are peppered with gratuitous pro-LGBTQ messages.

As is occurring today, back in the 60s and 70s, the perceived “rights” of individuals to engage in sexually deviant behavior superseded any consideration of how propagating sexually deviant behavior might impact society at large.

Well, at this point, I think that the jury is in, and it’s apparent that we’ve pretty much screwed ourselves (pun intended).

An interesting perspective comes from Christine Caine, an Australian activist who has firsthand experience with sexual abuse and trauma. Caine founded A21, a global anti-trafficking organization that operates in 15 countries, and which aids in prosecuting sex traffickers and rescuing victims.

Now, one could claim that the increasing incidence of sex trafficking, especially that involving children, has nothing whatsoever to do with the phenomenon of an increasing sexual permissiveness in Western culture—but I think that most reading this will know better. Ms. Caine asserts that the proliferation of pornography and other sexually-ambivalent materials has fueled human trafficking, and I tend to agree. We’re human beings and, by our nature, the only ones who’ll find themselves immune to morally ambivalent materials of any kind are those who do not partake in them.

So, we have confirmation that the atmosphere of sexual permissiveness we’ve cultivated has severely compromised us culturally. Also, we can now see that the left (via the LGBTQ lobby) has no intention of exhibiting the same tolerance to people who hold traditional values as was shown them. Indeed, having been extended an olive branch, they continue to cry “oppression” amidst calls for traditional values to be relegated to criminal status.

So much for tolerance…

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
‘Transmania’ and the Subversion of Masculinity

‘Transmania’ and the Subversion of Masculinity

By Erik Rush •

A couple of weeks ago, a talk radio host in my local market began discussing a brewing controversy around a local library district’s plans to host a “Drag Queen Story Hour” this month for children aged 2-8. This obscene event is in fact part of a highly-organized nationwide campaign spearheaded by a San Francisco-based group ostensibly “geared toward promoting inclusivity and diversity,” according to a local newspaper.

The proliferation of pro-trans propaganda has given rise to coverage of child drag queens in the alternative press and how they are being exploited by the LGBTQ lobby. One story covered a 10-year-old Canadian boy who was recently featured in a very disturbing alternative culture magazine article. In said article, the young lad poses in a photograph with a naked adult drag queen.

So, when did a child appearing in media with a naked man cease to be considered child porn? This remains to be determined, I suppose.

In a revolting but not entirely surprising move, the American Psychological Association (APA) publicly released a report this month stating that “traditional masculinity” is “harmful” and can lead to “homophobia” and sexual harassment. Given the APA’s track record in contributing to the normalization of deviant behavior in recent years, I’m not quite sure why many who should know better continue to validate the organization as an arbiter of healthy psychological paradigms.

For the last couple of decades or so, “the experts” (mainly LGBTQ activists, the press and the APA) have maintained that homosexual men are not predisposed to pederasty or sexual predation; further, that pedophilia, homosexuality and transvestitism are discrete behaviors and that their participants never cross the line from one to another. These summary decrees were meant to soften the blow (no pun intended) attendant to homosexuality being normalized in the eyes of the general public.

This wisdom is going the way of earlier debunked conventions which held that women never lie about rape and that children never lie about molestation. As we’ve learned, occasionally these things do occur.

Over the last two weeks, Democratic Party megadonor Ed Buck has been embroiled in a media firestorm over the highly-suspicious deaths of two men in his Los Angeles County home. Much of the controversy has been attendant to Buck’s status as a friend to powerful Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and top California politicians among them) and the apparent reticence of the criminal justice system to pursue the cases. Many have charged that the latter is due to Buck’s standing and the fact that the deceased men were black.

The sinister nature of these deaths due to methamphetamine overdoses and the accounts of other parties who claim to have narrowly escaped similar fates in Buck’s company however, merit closer scrutiny in this context.

It’s obviously unseemly (at least to most people at present) that a high-profile donor to political heavyweights from any party would fancy illicit drug and sex parties, regardless of the race or gender of the participants. Buck’s alleged practices also have the trappings of an unhealthy fetish; the consent of the participants has come into question, which is even more alarming.

Were one to postulate that a lot of gay men would simply adore having a bevy of prepubescent drag queens flitting about their homes and attending to their every wish, with no worry over legal repercussions, and that the push toward normalizing transvestitism among men and boys is intended to manifest a future in which such things are accepted and commonplace, LGBTQ activists would laugh (or more accurately, titter), accusing such a person of being an alarmist as well as a bigot.

On the other hand, were one to have warned 30 years ago against the specter of transgender bathrooms, “gay marriage” and arcane hate speech laws, the same LGBTQ activists would also have laughed and leveled similar charges. They know from experience that all it takes is sufficient time and the requisite softening-up of the public with propaganda, and ultimately, we’ll swallow anything (again, no pun intended).

When one examines the behavior of an Ed Buck, the rhetoric of Barack Obama’s anti-bullying czar Kevin Jennings or LGBTQ activist Dan Savage, it becomes clear that the lines concerning acceptable behavior are very easily blurred once one enters the LGBTQ realm.

It is painfully obvious (in fact, excruciatingly so) that the entertainment industry is fully on board with “transmania,” male-bashing and generally promoting sexual ambivalence, since they are aggressively producing fare dedicated to normalizing deviant behavior. A great deal of this is aimed squarely at children. It is also obvious that the various efforts in this area across entertainment, academia, and the press are being executed in concert with one another.

While we’re being bludgeoned with the innocuousness of youth transvestitism and such concepts as “toxic masculinity,” “hypermasculinity” and “hegemonic masculinity,” it is important to realize that all of this is part of the left’s war against traditional gender roles, which has been going on since the 1960s. Since the last century, radical leftists have acknowledged that the family is the lynch pin of society, and that compromising the family was essential in their gaining political preeminence in America. Their various campaigns advancing sexual ambivalence over the years have had a great deal of success, and each successively more appalling measure is intended to breed increasing societal dysfunction, thus making the population far easier to control than a population of morally-grounded individuals who know what gender they are.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns