The second is of a poster being displayed at train stations in Toronto, Canada, with the campaign title "The sex you want" and showing a picture of a homosexual threesome:
The instinctive reaction most people will have is that exposing children to these images is an attack on their childhood. And yet public authorities clearly believe the opposite - that it is either a good thing, or at least harmless, for the images to be displayed to children.
I understand the position of the public authorities, even if I think it is wrong. The liberal idea, dominant in our society, is that the individual autonomously determines his own goods and identity. But, as all desires are equally desires, they all have to be acknowledged as equally valid, as long as they don't claim primacy over others (which, for liberals, is the sin of "supremacy" or discrimination, intolerance, bigotry etc.) So the public authorities, following this liberal credo, don't really have a principled way to object to the imagery, without exposing themselves to charges of hypocrisy or inconsistency or lack of principle.
It seems we are witnessing another step down in liberal culture. Liberal culture had previously compromised by rating materials for their sexual content and allowing parents some control over what their children were exposed to. Apparently the aim of being inclusive toward transsexual and homosexual culture (making it normative) is now overriding the older compromise - it is now thought progressive to habituate children to these things.
And yet there is damage being done. The message being given to children is that sexuality is to be freely pursued in any direction and that there are no sexual impulses to be restrained or held in check. They are being exposed to forms of sexuality that are at the end point of what happens when restraints or modesty or checks give way.
This is especially problematic for those children who will later seek to form heterosexual relationships. Within homosexual culture, it does not matter so much if the emphasis is on fleeting sexual encounters for their own sake. But a heterosexual culture can't work this way. A heterosexual culture has the more difficult aim of bringing together men and women for stable, monogamous pairing, with the aim of raising children successfully and carrying on an intergenerational family tradition. This requires both men and women to integrate the sexual aspects of their relationship with other purposes relating to the good of children, family and society.
In short, sexuality has to be ordered toward higher purposes. A man cannot just follow his libido if he is to commit to a lifelong role of husband and father within a family and secure the material well-being of his wife and children and help to socialise his children toward a successful adulthood of their own. Similarly, a promiscuous woman damages her ability to pair bond with a man and to form a respectful and loving emotional relationship with a future husband.
If children are allowed to mature without being precociously sexualised, and within a culture that orients them toward marriage and family, then they are likely to reach early adulthood without having lost the innate qualities that might allow them to successfully pair bond with a person of the opposite sex.
And that's the sense in which we instinctively believe that it is possible for children to be corrupted, and that children need to be protected from certain types of sexualised content. We don't want our children to lose what is supposed to be intact within them, emotionally and psychologically, that allows them to successfully marry. It is our job to at least get them to independent adulthood, and the age of marriage, without this having been lost.
This requires not only good parenting, but also agreed upon social norms and standards within public life. And this is where liberalism is increasingly undermining the role of parents in the raising of their children.
I hate saying it, but I'm beginning to suspect that the triumph of Islam might be a mercy. Better Dhimmihood than Sodom and Gomorrah.
ReplyDeleteI hate saying it, but I'm beginning to suspect that the triumph of Islam might be a mercy. Better Dhimmihood than Sodom and Gomorrah.
DeleteIslam offers the only hope for the destruction of liberalism. And what liberalism has in mind for our society will make Sodom and Gomorrah look like a Sunday School picnic.
Islam is an evil. But liberalism is a much much greater evil.
Liberalism is far stronger in terms of seducing populations and in wielding technical knowhow, including lethal force. Currently it is manipulating Muslims in the West (among others) to erode traditional foundations.
DeleteUltimately it may be "religious people", including Muslims, against atheistic liberal technocrats and globalism, the godless against the God-fearing. What matters is whether belief in the transcendent triumphs or fails. Otherwise we are back to empty cycles of materialism and more suffering.
"Islam offers the only hope for the destruction of liberalism"
DeleteThat is a very dangerous assertion. Islam, with its approval of lust and greed, honour killings, barbaric punishments and widespread ignorance is not an answer to liberalism. Liberalism will collapse quickly as it is unsustainable. Islam can survive for centuries and grow rapidly in population and expand in territory. History shows that Christians fare very badly in Muslim societies and have never succeeded in overthrowing them. The former Buddhist and Hindu countries of Malaysia, Afghanistan and Indonesia never recovered from the Islamic invasion. Neither did Zoroastrian Iran. If any Western country becomes Islamic, it will be Islamic for ever, its population ruled by wealthy, plundering, corrupt oligarchs whilst the majority languish in poverty, ignorance and effective slavery.
My first comment notwithstanding, I agree with Anonymous on the dangers of Islam. Although a worldview of nihilistic atheism (reducing us and everything to a meaningless accident of evolution) may be potentially more destructive than Islam, it is probably much easier to modify or reject it. It can "evolve" to be various things, while Islam cannot.
DeleteFor years I have puzzled over why Darwin titled it The Descent of Man, rather than The Ascent of Man. It's always seemed a slap at what I would have thought that even the Darwinians would deem man's rise from the low ape and out of the original slime.
ReplyDeleteMaybe - just perhaps - man is now beginning an actual descent.
Darwinism has got things effectively backwards. Recent discoveries demonstrate that virtually all mutation is degradative. Man is not evolving, but devolving. It is not progress we see, but regress.
DeleteAll is being exacerbated by the technological fluke of reduced childhood mortality, a good thing in itself, but facilitating the survival of neurological and other defects that would not otherwise have done so. However, it is a self-correcting problem.
Bummerrrrr.
DeleteThe placing of that poster calls for civil disobedience. The government must not be allowed to wage a war of cultural subversion.
ReplyDeleteThe message being given to children is that sexuality is to be freely pursued in any direction and that there are no sexual impulses to be restrained or held in check.
ReplyDeleteIt's more sinister than that. We're seeing the first shots being fired in World War P. The aim is to normalise sexual relations with children. This has been the objective of the homosexual lobby all along. Now they no longer feel the need to be secretive about it. They know that no-one is going to dare to defy them.
Have you had a look at what passes for children's literature these days? It's mostly homosexual propaganda, aimed specifically and deliberately at children.
Right again. I have been warning for years that the 800lb gorilla in the room is CONSENT, and that the pervs are at the gate. I wrote five years ago: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/01/spin-at-psu/
ReplyDelete"Everyone knows that for decades boys and girls have been ever increasingly hyper-sexualized by every institution in the West. Our children are having their childhoods destroyed in pre-school by U.S. Government and academic public policy provisions. Parents have given up their authority to public institutions which are aligned in an effort to radically autonomize children at an ever younger age.
(...)
So, mom and dad, don’t be so shocked to learn that your kids are casually being encouraged to experiment with healthy and normal homosexual sex in high school, while, at the same time, they’re agonizing over the less important choice of a college.
How does a parent morally condemn something that their own child has done, or that was done to their child or to someone else’s child, when they openly give consent and celebrate every child’s freedom to choose? If your child is in public school, you have given your consent.
(...)
Again, what is a criminal sex act under modern liberalism? Is it sex between two or more individuals of unequal power, in which mutual consent is not legally given. Sex acts of any kind, between two or more consenting participants is neither criminal nor wrong. It is neutral and judgment free."
So, mom and dad, don’t be so shocked to learn that your kids are casually being encouraged to experiment with healthy and normal homosexual sex in high school
DeleteAnd as usual "social conservatives" and Christians are adopting the Sergeant Schultz strategy - "I see nothing, I hear nothing."