Why Are Our Hidden Masters Mutilating Our Children?

Crime
#41

Hah! Fellow prudes, unite! :smile:

2 Likes
#42

“Pat Harrington’s a nice guy,
And I don’t mean to be rude,
But he’s still a virgin,
'Cause he’s such a prude.”

–Nipsey Russell

2 Likes
#43

Make no mistake, my fellow prudes, I join you in fellowship. But, I do not approve of the double standards applied to men’s and women’s bodies throughout history. I may not choose to go topless, but I support a woman’s natural right to do so wherever men do, if she so chooses. If one sex cannot legally, then men should have to cover up their nipples and man-boobs.

1 Like
#44

O Jeanne! You know there is a difference!

There are “double standards” rightly, because there are two sexes.

Please don’t go naked in public. You don’t need reminding that the world does not consist exclusively of ladies and gentlemen. There are rapists out there, sex-traffickers, torturers, murderers.

Your position is indefensible. Admit it!

1 Like
#45

Should women be doing this too?

1 Like
#46

“…the trauma of witnessing leftist asses on parade.” Yes, that would be quite traumatic!

1 Like
#47

Jeanne,

I understood your point: allowing male couples (we know so many nice homosexuals among our friends, relations and colleagues) to marry and live “normally”(openly, publicly) as husband-and-husband will mean an end to the shame of homosexual coupling (sodomy). At last homosexual love can dare to speak its name. After all, sodomy is equivalent to vaginal intercourse as a means of gratification of desire and the gratification of desire in marital congress is a demonstration of committed “love” for the spouse, which is what marriage is all about. Married straight couples do sodomy, too. And not all married straights can have children or want them. So if extending marriage to homosexuals increases happiness and reduces bigotry, that is a good consequence of “sexual loosening”.

Your point of view is shared by a majority of Americans. Opinion polls can elicit that view from questions that assume marriage in our culture is primarily an institution that confers a set of legal privileges and obligations on two people who publicly declare their exclusive “love” - sexual commitment - to one another. Should cohabiting homosexual lovers who have cohabited be preferred “next of kin” for purposes hospital visitation, life-support switch decisions, or inheritance? If “yes”, then you are for gay marriage or, more properly, civil unions. “Yes” would follow reflexively when one can put a face to the lovers - a gay person one knows, or an actor in a drama. Real people, real feelings. Watch for the new range of inclusive Hallmark cards coming to a store near you. Check out the ones for gay divorce - which occurs at the same rate as straight divorce.

But marriage is not simply a civil union, a set of legal privileges and obligations conferred on two adults committing to “love” each other exclusively, share living space and pool property for a time. It is not reducible to a contract. It is the universal fundamental social organizing institution for all societies, whether patrilineal or matrilineal, patriarchal or matriarchal, monogamous, polygamous, polyandrous. All societal norms - without which there can be no distinct, coherent, self-perpetuating society - grow out of the knowledge that sexual intercourse between one male and one female produces one son or one daughter. No society can be sustained without the “norms” of conduct that have universally developed from the immutable fact-of-life, the fundamental empirically proven evolutionary and biological reality, that heterosexual intercourse engenders the next generation. The prime socio-biological function of men is to beget children upon women whose prime socio-biological function is to bear children. To use the modern jargon, “heteronormativity” is the informing principle of civil society, property, law, economics, political power structures, religion, moral codes (whether religious or secular). Civilization is the consequence of rules constraining or purposing heterosexual intercourse - not as as an act of gratification of sexual desire, but as an act essential to procreation. (In light of which, it seems absurd to believe that homosexuals who enter marriage are enabled to “live as free as heterosexuals” in being able to express their sexual desire. Some sort of equality has been achieved, though. Gay divorce rates are equal to straight divorce rates - despite gay marriage enabling gay men to dare to speak the name of their “love”.)

With this perspective on civilization being inextricably tied to heterosexual reproduction, I cannot consider “sexual loosening” as merely a benign liberation from the constraints of bourgeois prudery. The dogma underpinning it is a dire threat to normal life. Yes, we can legislate to de-criminalize sodomy, adultery, incest, pedophilia, polygamy, rape, bestiality, infanticide, public nudity or any other institutionalized taboo - and in one place or another, at some time or another, each of these taboos has been culturally (legally and morally) acceptable. But we cannot pretend that what is marketed as “sexual loosening” is not part of a nihilistic political revolution instigated by nasty campus radicals with the explicit purpose to destroy the norms of civilization, to expunge “heteronormativity”. Marriage, family, fatherhood, motherhood, childhood - all must be “de-normed”, which is to be achieved by mainstreaming the abnormal. Tranny story-time.

Yes, we have developed technology that can replace copulation to bring sperm to egg, and may soon have artificial or transplantable wombs. We have certified professional experts who can create flesh simulations of male and female genitals and (up to a point) turn male bodies into female-looking ones and vice versa. We have other certified experts with a mission to brainwash children into believing that they can choose their sex and match their bodies and even genitals to their choice of “gender”; that having sex is all about pleasure and anything goes if people are having fun, except for heterosexual intercourse which is a form of rape, and that pregnancy (unlike venereal disease) is a serious life threatening medical condition caused by unprotected heterosexual intercourse; that marriage is healthy for male couples or female couples, but unhealthy for a man and a woman, that the traditional nuclear family household is ugly and harbors bigotry. But how would a society function, if it is built around the stigmatization or outright repudiation of heterosexual procreative coupling? What laws will govern the relationship of sperm and egg harvesters to the living sperm and egg providers? Who or what will be the harvesters, fetus incubators, and child-raisers? Who will be the sperm and egg providers? Who gets to choose who will provide sperm and eggs, or which sperm will fertilize which eggs?

3 Likes
#48

No, there is no difference, Jillian! I don’t go naked in public, and have not intention of ever doing so. I also prefer people in clothes, even when they have beautiful bodies.

The discussion was about topless sun-bathing, not nudity in public, but going topless at the beach or swimming. Well, that is public. But both sexes should have that option.

Attitudes have changed over the years, and they may change to allow topless sun-bathing for women, since men get to do that. Other countries think this is normal. Some countries require burqas.

Our ocean resort had a challenge last Summer to allow topless sunbathing for women. It failed, but it will come again.

There are all kinds of double standards and there have been all sorts of decisions made for women by men. Look at the history of fashion! Women have accepted this from men so much that they insist other women, who would be with the in crowd, adopt the fashion standards, despite the fact that the fashions often harm their bodies.

The fact that women have to protect ourselves from the male’s rabid sexual appetite…else we be raped… by covering our nipples on a beach, but fashion insists that we flaunt our breasts for men’s viewing when dressed otherwise, is rather disgusting. And it is our fault, of course, that men are driven to rape us?

I admit only that there is a double standard and that it is wrong. Women should be able to sunbathe topless on the beach and swim topless, as well. OR men should cover up their chests and nipples when on the beach. IMO, some bathing suits reveal far too much for both men and women and I am prudish about that…sometimes disgusted

1 Like
#49

Claire, I agree with what you wrote in your post. I do not, however, view homosexual civil unions as the slippery slope towards the traditional family destruction, which I also feel is the cornerstone of all civilizations…free or not. Neither do I view homosexuality as the problem of perversity and promiscuity, among us, now or ever. I think both these problems are brought about by much larger and deliberately-caused institutional decay than “the homosexuals among us.”

Further, I believe that many vocal homosexuals, who are as “victimized” as other “victims,” have been “brain-washed” by those forces to “lean” their way as a fix to personal problems of “failure” and “non-fullfillment” such as defined by those destructive forces.

They are no more and no less vulnerable than heterosexuals to the lies told by the Left, which seeks to destroy America by creating more and more victims of “white male heterosexual bigots and racists.”

And so…we have gay parents, who support local governments that struggle to retain as their goals good environments for rearing children, who blend with other families in civic affairs and who try their best to make living work. This is no threat to heterosexual people or parents or children. Many parents suck at the job and some children grow up harmed from it. Divorce, cheating, abuse, addiction, delinquency are present in troubled families without regard to parents’s sexual preference.

I simply will never buy into the notion that homosexuality is any sort of root cause of human dysfunction in families or societies. Heterosexuals can handle that without their input.

1 Like
#50

Well said. I agree.

#51

Physicians are complicit in the utterly unscientific covid and climate change villainy. Castrating young boys and performing mastectomies on young girls are barbarous atrocities that warrant the most severe punishments allowable by law- to put it mildly.

3 Likes
#52

Thank you, Cogito, for writing that. As you are a physician, your opinion on this burning topic is extra valuable.

1 Like
#53

“John Money’s experiment was misdirected and cruel. In attempting to demonstrate that biological sex has no bearing on whether one is female or male he only succeeded in proving the opposite. That gender is not fluid. That it cannot be shaped at will through medical interventions and hormone treatment. There’s little doubt today that Money’s experiment was a callous failure. Institutions, from schools to healthcare, still happily promote the ideas of gender identity and genderfluidity. Many politicians still treat trans ideology as if it is a ‘progressive’ cause that only uncaring bigots would oppose. And children are still being used by gender ideologues as fodder for trans experimentation.”

The article is important. But -

An amoral experiment? No - an IMMORAL experiment.

1 Like
#54

Yes, Money was a criminal sociopath.
The fact that so many more just like him now seem to be everywhere, pushing the same agenda, is even more disturbing.
He proved, by his own experiment, that his theory was false, and gender is not fluid.
Yet at the same time, he proved that people in general are so susceptible to propaganda and brainwashing that every ridiculous, sick, harmful idea the left comes up with - including his - will be swallowed whole by people who either “trust the experts”, or have the same sociopathic tendencies as him, and don’t care who they harm in the process of destroying the social order, by which they attain power.

1 Like
#55

Quote:
The Florida Board of Medicine and the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine recently approved a new rule banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transgender surgeries for minors. Many European countries that are usually considered more “progressive” than the United States are withdrawing their support for these interventions, encouraging young people to get psychiatric help first. Potential side effects from cross-sex hormones include weakened bone density, osteoporosis, heart problems, and infertility.

Infertility is surely not a “side effect” but an inevitable effect?

2 Likes
#56

What an effing good concept!!

2 Likes
#57

Yes, psychiatric help - what a novel concept!
It seems to have disappeared into a black hole.

3 Likes
#58

Okay, so…if a man came in and said he thought he was a yellow lab, the doc would suggest talking about this with a psychiatrist. If a white woman came in and said she thought she was a black woman, the doc would suggest talking this out with a psychiatrist.

But, if a young woman or girl comes in and says she thinks she is a young man or boy, the doc suggests that she undergo hormone therapy and major surgery to remove her breasts.

Who decided that that makes any sense at all? How dare the medical community entertain such malpractice? How dare our leaders allow them to be bullied and then join in on the bullying themselves?

Still…this fact of recent history boggles the mind of sane people.

2 Likes
#59

Yes, the insanity and criminality of it, and the fact that the government itself is pushing it, completely mind-boggling. That’s how I know we are already living in a de-facto dictatorship.

2 Likes
#60

Quote:
Last week, a whistleblower came forward in The Free Press to expose how the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital engages in experimental interventions (aka “gender-affirming care”) on children that are “permanently harming the vulnerable patients in [their] care”.
The stories Jamie Reed outlines are horrific. Young girls were given testosterone, with gruesome side effects. Mentally ill individuals were chemically castrated with virtually no attempt to find another alternative. Parents were kept out of the loop, and people permanently altered their bodies as children, only to regret the decision shortly after.

2 Likes