There is never a shortage of news items on the sexual side of the culture wars. Every day new battles are reported, and the war over sexuality continues unabated. The West is embarked on a course of sexual suicide, and it looks to only get worse. Consider three recent skirmishes in the sex wars.
First, the recent runner-up in the Miss USA contest has claimed she lost the number one spot because of her stance on marriage and family. It seems her lack of Political Correctness may have cost her the position. Here is how one news report covers the story:
“Miss North Carolina USA Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA 2009 on Sunday, beating out 50 other beauty queens in the live pageant televised from Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino in Las Vegas. But her runner up, Miss California Carrie Prejean, of San Diego, shocked the audience when she answered a question from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton about legalising same-sex marriage. The tall blonde stumbled some before giving an answer that appeared to please the pageant audience. ‘We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage,’ Prejean said. ‘And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised’.”
It seems Miss California was well on the way to winning the contest, but her refusal to bow to the dictates of the PC crowd and the homosexual activists has cost her big time. Indeed, one of the judges, Perez Hilton, admitted as much. He said her answer “alienated millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their families and their supporters. She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that.”
And Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, also came out with a moonbeam PC statement: “As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman.”
While I have no great interests in beauty pageants, I do have a great interest in the war against marriage, and the attempts by radical homosexuals to enforce their agenda in every conceivable arena. The way things are going, it will soon become a crime in the West to simply assert your preference for heterosexual marriage.
The second case involves yet more sexualisation and exploitation of the young. It seems that a long-standing children’s favourite has decided to do a soft-porn photo shoot, totally unconcerned as to the impact this might have on her large fan base of very young children.
A news account puts it this way: “Former Hi-5 star Kellie Crawford has angered family groups by posing near-naked in a men’s magazine. The one-time favourite for millions of kids posed in a lacy bra and briefs for the cover of this month’s Ralph.”
She evidently has just recently left Hi-5 after a ten-year stint with the group. Critics point out that she is a ‘former’ child entertainer, so what is the big deal? But five-year-olds are not too good at making the connection between former and current role models. To see her spread out on the cover of a raunchy men’s magazine is certainly not sending great messages to young children.
Crawford said “I did it for myself to remind myself that I am a woman”. To remind herself she is a woman? You mean billions of women who have not gone for soft-porn modelling are not able to recognise and affirm who they are as females? Is appearing as a hunk of meat to satisfy male lust the only way you can prove yourself to be a woman?
As Women’s Forum Australia spokeswoman Melinda Tankard Reist said, “It’s an abuse of her position with tens of thousands of little girls looking up to her. The fact she’s posed on a cover is particularly problematic because magazines like Ralph are on shop shelves at kiddy eye level.”
Julia Gale, spokeswoman of Kids Free 2B Kids also questioned Crawford’s actions: “Older teenage girls will wonder why performers feel the need to pornify their image. They are damaged and harmed by messages that they need to sexualise or there is no success.”
The last example of sexual suicide concerns a US school teacher who raped some of her students. The press provides this story: “A former teacher has been convicted of abducting one of her students, age 10, and raping him and his 15-year-old brother. Both sides stipulated the facts in Pierce County Superior Court, and Judge D. Gary Steiner convicted 33-year-old Jennifer Leigh Rice of first-degree kidnapping with sexual motivation, first-degree child molesting and two counts of third-degree child rape. Facing more than 25 years in prison, Rice remains in jail pending sentencing June 5.”
While this may be an extreme story, it seems on a regular basis now we are hearing reports of school teachers having either forced or volitional sexual encounters with their students. People my age do not recall hearing concerns by their parents about school teachers being sexual predators.
Yet in a highly sexualised age, such activities are becoming far too frequent. Indeed, these three examples (and many more could be cited) are illustrative of the fact that modern Western culture has become one big sexual cesspool.
We are inundated with all things pornographic, while the institutions of marriage and family continue to take a beating. In 1956 Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin wrote these words: “This sex revolution is as important as the most dramatic political or economic upheaval. It is changing the lives of men and women more radically than any other revolution of our time. . . . Any considerable change in marriage behavior, any increase in sexual promiscuity and sexual relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences. A sex revolution drastically affects the lives of millions, deeply disturbs the community, and decisively influences the future of society” (The American Sex Revolution).
Or as Will and Ariel Durant wrote in The Lessons of History (1968): “The sex drive in the young is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.”
We are seeing the bitter fruit of a world gone mad concerning all things sexual. The examples provided here are merely the tip of the iceberg. As the experts have warned, just how long can a society last that is not able to constrain the sexual impulse and protect the institutions of marriage and family? Time will tell.
I don’t think the statement of marriage that it “should be between a man and a woman” is even so much a matter of moral affirmation as it is a question of logic.
Correct me if I am wrong but the statement “marriage between a man and a woman” is a tautology. The actual definition of marriage IS union between a man and woman. To affirm marriage between two members of the same sex is a contradictory statement. It is like saying 2 + 2 = 5.
I believe Ed Feser made this point in his excellent new book The Last Temptation (2008).
Damien Spillane
The judge Perez Hilton is a homosexual blogger, so he should have excused himself from judging. That he was permitted this viewpoint discrimination is just one more example of the corrupt Gay-stapo’s ever-lengthening tentacles.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Also, this Homonazi Perez would have hated the fact that Carrie Prejean is a junior at San Diego Christian College in El Cajon (studying special education for kids), calling her a “dumb bitch” on his blog.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Here’s a ready made answer for anyone put on the spot by being asked if you support same-sex ‘marriage’.
“Well, perhaps I’ll answer that if you can explain to me why I should condone sexual behaviour that is much more likely to transmit HIV, not to mention 100% infertile. No?”
Don’t worry, I was never going to win any beauty pageants either…
Mark Rabich
“I did it for myself to remind myself that I am a woman”.
It’s really odd. If you point out to a secularist that a secular world view is essentially meaningless, they start screeching at you.
In the first instance they will say that just because they don’t believe in God doesn’t mean that their lives aren’t “rich” and “vibrant” and “colourful” (or other inane drivel).
And in the second instance they display their shallow, inane, essentially meaningless view of the world by in this case, posing for porno photos, to *remind* herself that she is a woman.
Couldn’t she just, like, look in a mirror?
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
See also Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama by Michelle Malkin, further exposing the rank hypocrisy of the sodomofascist Gedankenpolizei.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
l was blessed with as a child with watching American entertaining family shows in the 80s such as The Cosby Show and Family Ties (well l enjoyed them). In the nineties there were less shows depicting families and selfish sexual references were more prevalent or being introduced e.g. The Tool Man and Everybody Loves Raymond. Now we have “family?'” shows such as Two and a Half Men where selfish sex is major theme. It’s sad. However we need to be more careful in what we watch/look at and read.
Stefan Pittari
Bill,
I am in two minds about the example of Kellie Crawford appearing in the raunchy men’s magazine.
I agree that such magazines are low-grade pornography, along with sports and so-called “health” magazines, and the publishers/editors deliberately push the boundaries of decency.
But I am not sure how to tackle the image/visibility problem. We certainly don’t want young children seeing them in newsagents and similar outlets.
When Jack Sonnemann was operating Australian Federation for the Family many years ago, his approach was to have them removed from view with blinder racks or sealed and opaque covers.
That approach seems to have gone in recent years. Is it because there is a new crop, not treated in the same category as the Playboy/Penthouse types of magazines?
Our difficulty is in trying to tell a 35-year-old woman how to live her life. I deplore her decision to “do the shoot”, but I don’t know how much more I can say.
Broadly, how long do we hold a person to a previous position in the public eye, before ‘letting them’ do something else? So far all I can come up with is “it depends on the position they held.”
On the facts of this one – I think she left the group only last year – I would agree it’s too soon, and there would still be a large following. So the advice she might have received either was not good or if it was good, it was ignored.
I can’t agree 100% with Melinda Tankard Reist, because I believe there is a grey area – when does the star’s following drop away, and therefore such a decision no longer constitute ‘abuse’?
Melinda seems to be arguing that the abuse factor is in some way proportional to the extent of the following. But I think we have to argue the case on different logic.
John Angelico
Thanks John
But the Ralph cover features a small pic of her in her Hi-5 garb. And the cover has the words, “It’s Hi-5 hottie Kellie”. So they are quite happy to exploit the connection to the max.
Plus there are zillions of CDs and DVDs and videos of this group which she only just recently left. Ten years of being featured in the group, then a few months later a sleazy photo shoot for all kids to see. Sounds awfully selfish to me. Typical of our age: look out for number one, and don’t give a rip about the harm to children and the broader community.
Plus what does a soft porn shoot have to do with being a woman anyway?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks Bill.
Not having seen the magazine apart from other media reproductions, I hadn’t realised how much they had made the connection, and how deliberate it was.
As I said, I thought the specific decision was wrong/unwise, but there must be other ways to argue against the whole business of “soft” porn and these magazines.
John Angelico
Far out that is shocking to hear, my brothers and sisters *cough not me* used to watch that Hi5 show and it is extremely worrying that Kellie could do a shoot like that given the popularity of Hi5 among kids. Not even child entertainers are exempt from the sexual revolution…
Keith Jarrett
I agree with John Angelico to the degree that we should be objecting to these “men’s” magazines primarily because they are pornography (‘soft’ porn maybe but pornography nonetheless). It just makes it doubly bad when a former children’s entertainer chooses to disrobe for the magazine.
The risk is that in making such a loud noise about Kellie Crawford, the false impression could be given that we think these types of magazines should be tolerated under other circumstances.
Ewan McDonald.
Porn needs to be banned. Yes, yes I know “black market,” internet etc. But just not having to be confronted with the appalling stuff when I go to the servo or newsagency would be great.
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
I agree, Louise, Kellie should just look in a mirror to confirm she is a woman. This veiled excuse that she did it to feel like a woman should have a subtitle of “now I have left Hi-5 I need to further my career and well, I’m a woman so I will use my assets to get me there.” Kellie is not the first and she isn’t going to be the last to do this and then come up with some vacuous, inane excuse. My children were little when Hi-5 first started 10 or so years ago – what does this say to the teenagers now? If you are a boy – it says now look at me in a sexual way whereas before you idolised me as a role model, and to a girl – you too can do this to become “famous” and this is how to get attention. Thanks Kellie for demoralising woman and girls. And then we wonder why society has gone to the dogs? One only has to look at our culture and see how depraved it has become. And as for the teacher who raped 2 boys, I’m glad I homeschool, that’s all I can say.
Francesca Collard
This is a funny irreverent skit by a comedian who at least is a consistent liberal, defending Prejean’s right to say what she thinks even though he disagrees, and slams the liberal hypocrisy.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Bill
I don’t think the statement of marriage that it “should be between a man and a woman” is even so much a matter of moral affirmation as it is a question of logic.
Correct me if I am wrong but the statement “marriage between a man and a woman” is a tautology. The actual definition of marriage IS union between a man and woman. To affirm marriage between two members of the same sex is a contradictory statement. It is like saying 2 + 2 = 5.
I believe Ed Feser made this point in his excellent new book The Last Temptation (2008).
Damien Spillane
The judge Perez Hilton is a homosexual blogger, so he should have excused himself from judging. That he was permitted this viewpoint discrimination is just one more example of the corrupt Gay-stapo’s ever-lengthening tentacles.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Also, this Homonazi Perez would have hated the fact that Carrie Prejean is a junior at San Diego Christian College in El Cajon (studying special education for kids), calling her a “dumb bitch” on his blog.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Here’s a ready made answer for anyone put on the spot by being asked if you support same-sex ‘marriage’.
“Well, perhaps I’ll answer that if you can explain to me why I should condone sexual behaviour that is much more likely to transmit HIV, not to mention 100% infertile. No?”
Don’t worry, I was never going to win any beauty pageants either…
Mark Rabich
“I did it for myself to remind myself that I am a woman”.
It’s really odd. If you point out to a secularist that a secular world view is essentially meaningless, they start screeching at you.
In the first instance they will say that just because they don’t believe in God doesn’t mean that their lives aren’t “rich” and “vibrant” and “colourful” (or other inane drivel).
And in the second instance they display their shallow, inane, essentially meaningless view of the world by in this case, posing for porno photos, to *remind* herself that she is a woman.
Couldn’t she just, like, look in a mirror?
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
See also Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama by Michelle Malkin, further exposing the rank hypocrisy of the sodomofascist Gedankenpolizei.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
l was blessed with as a child with watching American entertaining family shows in the 80s such as The Cosby Show and Family Ties (well l enjoyed them). In the nineties there were less shows depicting families and selfish sexual references were more prevalent or being introduced e.g. The Tool Man and Everybody Loves Raymond. Now we have “family?'” shows such as Two and a Half Men where selfish sex is major theme. It’s sad. However we need to be more careful in what we watch/look at and read.
Stefan Pittari
Bill,
I am in two minds about the example of Kellie Crawford appearing in the raunchy men’s magazine.
I agree that such magazines are low-grade pornography, along with sports and so-called “health” magazines, and the publishers/editors deliberately push the boundaries of decency.
But I am not sure how to tackle the image/visibility problem. We certainly don’t want young children seeing them in newsagents and similar outlets.
When Jack Sonnemann was operating Australian Federation for the Family many years ago, his approach was to have them removed from view with blinder racks or sealed and opaque covers.
That approach seems to have gone in recent years. Is it because there is a new crop, not treated in the same category as the Playboy/Penthouse types of magazines?
Our difficulty is in trying to tell a 35-year-old woman how to live her life. I deplore her decision to “do the shoot”, but I don’t know how much more I can say.
Broadly, how long do we hold a person to a previous position in the public eye, before ‘letting them’ do something else? So far all I can come up with is “it depends on the position they held.”
On the facts of this one – I think she left the group only last year – I would agree it’s too soon, and there would still be a large following. So the advice she might have received either was not good or if it was good, it was ignored.
I can’t agree 100% with Melinda Tankard Reist, because I believe there is a grey area – when does the star’s following drop away, and therefore such a decision no longer constitute ‘abuse’?
Melinda seems to be arguing that the abuse factor is in some way proportional to the extent of the following. But I think we have to argue the case on different logic.
John Angelico
Thanks John
But the Ralph cover features a small pic of her in her Hi-5 garb. And the cover has the words, “It’s Hi-5 hottie Kellie”. So they are quite happy to exploit the connection to the max.
Plus there are zillions of CDs and DVDs and videos of this group which she only just recently left. Ten years of being featured in the group, then a few months later a sleazy photo shoot for all kids to see. Sounds awfully selfish to me. Typical of our age: look out for number one, and don’t give a rip about the harm to children and the broader community.
Plus what does a soft porn shoot have to do with being a woman anyway?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks Bill.
Not having seen the magazine apart from other media reproductions, I hadn’t realised how much they had made the connection, and how deliberate it was.
As I said, I thought the specific decision was wrong/unwise, but there must be other ways to argue against the whole business of “soft” porn and these magazines.
John Angelico
Far out that is shocking to hear, my brothers and sisters *cough not me* used to watch that Hi5 show and it is extremely worrying that Kellie could do a shoot like that given the popularity of Hi5 among kids. Not even child entertainers are exempt from the sexual revolution…
Keith Jarrett
Thanks John
I do seek to make the case against porn in these articles: https://billmuehlenberg.com/category/ethics/pornography/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I agree with John Angelico to the degree that we should be objecting to these “men’s” magazines primarily because they are pornography (‘soft’ porn maybe but pornography nonetheless). It just makes it doubly bad when a former children’s entertainer chooses to disrobe for the magazine.
The risk is that in making such a loud noise about Kellie Crawford, the false impression could be given that we think these types of magazines should be tolerated under other circumstances.
Ewan McDonald.
Porn needs to be banned. Yes, yes I know “black market,” internet etc. But just not having to be confronted with the appalling stuff when I go to the servo or newsagency would be great.
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
I agree, Louise, Kellie should just look in a mirror to confirm she is a woman. This veiled excuse that she did it to feel like a woman should have a subtitle of “now I have left Hi-5 I need to further my career and well, I’m a woman so I will use my assets to get me there.” Kellie is not the first and she isn’t going to be the last to do this and then come up with some vacuous, inane excuse. My children were little when Hi-5 first started 10 or so years ago – what does this say to the teenagers now? If you are a boy – it says now look at me in a sexual way whereas before you idolised me as a role model, and to a girl – you too can do this to become “famous” and this is how to get attention. Thanks Kellie for demoralising woman and girls. And then we wonder why society has gone to the dogs? One only has to look at our culture and see how depraved it has become. And as for the teacher who raped 2 boys, I’m glad I homeschool, that’s all I can say.
Francesca Collard
This is a funny irreverent skit by a comedian who at least is a consistent liberal, defending Prejean’s right to say what she thinks even though he disagrees, and slams the liberal hypocrisy.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane