Brain on Porn (Social #1) - DeYtH Banger (uplifting book club books .txt) 📗

testimonies and briefs to the Standing Health Committee of Canada, which is currently examining the impact of violent pornography on sexual assault. One of the trends highlighted for the Committee was that rough and violent anal sex was resulting in girls ending up in the hospital with prolapsed rectums, damage that could be permanent.

 

 

 

It’s stories like those that make me increasingly frustrated with the way we discuss the issue of pornography. Porn “addiction,” for example, is a very helpful way of explaining the way porn consumption rewires the brain, creates compulsive users, and results in such manifestly self-destructive behavior. But on the other hand, we have to be careful that porn users don’t use the term “addiction” as an enabling one, as an excuse for their seeming helplessness in the face of ongoing porn consumption. Some of the guys who approach me genuinely want to get help freeing themselves from porn. But others seem to use open conversation about the problem as catharsis, and actually expect people to feel sorry for them. That I have begun to find somewhat nauseating. Men are called to fight for those that they love and to make society a better place. The idea that men could instead snivel about their inability to stop masturbating is a sad picture of where a pornified culture can lead. What would our grandfathers and great-grandfathers say about such men?

Fortunately, our culture is beginning to recognize that pornography is immensely destructive, from academia to the halls of power. Repulsive stories of the damage porn culture is doing to girls and women are hard to read, but men, especially, need to read them and realize that pornography is the biggest threat to real masculinity in the history of Western Civilization. Porn consumption is, at the end of the day, fundamentally predatory behavior that involves the systematic dehumanization and degradation of women. Stop whining, stop struggling, and start fighting.

 

 

 

Ten reasons to reject Wynne’s sex education curriculum 

 

 

 

As the Ontario government gets ready to bring back the radical sex education curriculum for Ontario's children, here are ten reasons why parents should reject it in spite of the political correctness propaganda that supports it.

1. Children don't need to know all the mechanics of sex before they are emotionally, physically, intellectually and spiritually old enough to understand what they are being taught. Scrap the curriculum and spend the money on properly counselling students, in making sure there is help for students who have mental issues and feeding those that come to school hungry.

2. The morally misguided idea that elementary children can give consent to sex is evil. Children are being abused when they are introduced to explicit sex. This isn't a healthy and responsible way to teach about human sexuality. Consensual sex doesn't necessarily make sex safe, moral and appropriate. Even the absurd idea of consent to rape or any kind of sexual abuse never justifies it.

3. What has "gender inequality" got to with sex education? Who gets to define the term and the meaning? Parents should not even recognize the word "gender" and refer only to the two sexes, male and female. Catholic parents have the constitutional right to do so. The government should say what they really intend to do. Tell Ontarians that the curriculum pushes homosexuality, "gender identity" and teaches kids dangerous sexual acts such as anal and oral sex.

4. No Ontarian should swallow the lie that the new sex education is needed to deal with Internet and safety issues. If some students have gotten into trouble with revealing pictures they have posted on the Internet, how is teaching them about the disputed "gender theory" of self-defining sexuality based on feelings and the will going to solve the problem? It's not.

5. Parents should not be misled and confuse school violence, bullying and the proper use of social media with the need to teach children all the details about sex at a young age. To address cyberbullying and sexting issues can best be done with the help of companies that provide the service and parental involvement. Let's not confuse school safety with the perverted notion of children being used as objects of sex because the agenda of political correctness entitles them, and even some groups at the United Nations agree, to have "sexual rights." This right is just as false the "reproductive right" to kill a baby in the womb. This corrupts language and leads to behaviour that's immoral.

6. Yes, it's a good idea to try to stop a student from harm because they posted an inappropriate photo on a social media site and sent it to a friend. The photo somehow gets to others who were never intended to view it or it reaches a person who misuses it to blackmail the sender. There's no easy solution, but the answer isn't this: teach the children an explicit sex education curriculum. No educator in his or her right mind believes this nonsense. Children need the proper and loving guidance of parents and teachers in order to best deal with this serious issue. Often these students need special help because they are suffering from emotional, psychological and social problems which lead to the inappropriate photo posting in the first place.

7. Sadly today some university and college students are sending graphic and explicit message about sex. At Dalhousie University, for example, social messages like would you like to "hate f__," have been used. But this is the result of a society that has oversexualized children too early and at some point we are bound to see the evil fruits. We live in a very sexualized society and more explicit sex at a  younger age is hadly the answer. Instead, the solution begins with parental and teacher guidance. As a society, we need to encourage our young to show proper respect for themselves and the dignity of the person.

8. The fact that Benjamin Levin helped develop the sex-ed component of the Health and Physical Education curriculum ought to be reason enough to reject it. Levin has been charged with seven counts of child exploitation, including charges of possessing and accessing child pornography. It's fair to say that he's currently on trial and the accusations have not been proven in court. But wouldn't a good and caring government want to distance itself from any connection whatsoever to this sordid and perverted mess?

9. Parents as First Educators, Real Women of Canada and a network of parental rights advocates that includes Campaign Life Coalition, have all come out strongly to condemn the limited parental consultation process being used by the Wynne Liberals to get the curriculum approved even before it's officially released. The sex ed curriculum should have been an election issue so that voters could have had a real and transparent consultation process with their vote. But why bother to let democracy get in the way of political correctness. Ontarians have been misled.

10. School board trustees in the province have had no say regarding the proposed new curriculum. Unless major changes are made, Catholic trustees should reject the curriculum because it contradicts the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, the family and marriage. Catholic teachers have the right to refuse to teach the curriculum and Catholic parents have the right to outright reject it. Our children must be physically and morally protected.

 

 

A revolution based on a lie

 

 

 

 

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

June 13, 2016 (HLI) -- How much more bizarre can our society get? It’s a question that many have been asking for a long time, but these days it’s hard to keep up with the answers, which change hourly.

In Alaska, a boy who thinks he’s a girl is allowed to participate in the girls’ track meet, and he wins. The girls are not happy, but are not quite sure how to express their protest since they don’t want to be branded as bigots for calling a boy a boy when that boy wants to be called a girl.

There are a growing number of reports that the man formerly known as Bruce Jenner, who now goes by the name “Caitlyn,” is having second thoughts about “transitioning” to womanhood and is contemplating returning to identifying himself as what he still actually is, a man. This regret is actually common for people who adopt the appearance and lifestyle of the opposite sex. These reports have not been confirmed, but were this to occur, does anyone really think that the fascistic LGBT movement will support such a transition?

A famous homosexual couple has adopted children (apparently two men cannot naturally conceive a child) and projected a carefully cultivated image as a “happily” “married” couple with the help of media who desperately want to tell such a story. Yet as it turns out, their private lives are more sordid than the story allows, and the couple is suing to silence media who would report certain ugly and inconvenient facts, so that their adopted children would be spared the pain of knowing what their adoptive parents actually do.

The idea that the LGBTQQ… movement is about to implode has been discussed recently, and there are signs of sanity coming from progressives who have been supportive of the movement but are starting to recognize its totalitarian and anti-human nature. Better late than never, I suppose.

How much more bizarre can it get? I’m not sure the question is meaningful anymore, since all bets are off. There are many conversations going on about how we arrived here, with a great deal of interesting histories of cultural Marxism, Communism, feminism, and other anti-Christian ideologies whose goal has been to “liberate” men and woman from the oppression of religion, marriage, traditional roles of men and women, etc.

I’m not sure the girls in Alaska, Mr. Jenner, or the famous couple and their children feel all that liberated.

When your revolution is based on a lie, it will certainly fall, but it can do a lot of damage to nations, lives and souls before it does. We “got here” because we turned our backs on God. We happen to be living through a deluge of degradation almost unimaginable even a few years ago.

Except that the Church did imagine this collapse. Specifically, Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said something that could have been written yesterday, in 1984’s The Ratzinger Report (summarized by Christopher West):

What we are living through in our day is the result of an ideology that has completely severed body and soul. And that’s the very definition of death. Barring a divine intervention, we must now endure the full consequences of the “uprooting of the human person in the depth of his nature” – an uprooting that stems from the fact that “sex has remained without a locus and has lost its point of reference” since the cultural embrace of contraception (The Ratzinger Report, p. 84).

By detaching sex from procreation, the essential meaning and natural orientation of the gender distinction is lost and one’s sex is eventually “viewed as a simple role, interchangeable at one’s pleasure,” Ratzinger observed. From there, people end up demanding the right of “escaping from the ‘slavery of nature,’ demanding the right to be male or female at one’s will or pleasure”  (p. 95).

Call this an update of Humanae vitae 17, in which Blessed Pope Paul VI famously predicted — against the spirit of the age — that the wide embrace of contraception would have a host of negative consequences. Those who dismissed Pope Paul, and later Cardinal Ratzinger, simply couldn’t imagine what we are actually seeing happen today, when we call evil good, and good, evil. When we don’t know God, how can we know ourselves?

I love serving a Church that knows the true nature of man and woman because she knows the One in whose image we are made. I love serving a Church that knows what is true and good, a Church that knows Christ because she was founded by Him. I am grateful for her