The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘The Children of Alinsky’

Posted on | July 4, 2016 | 13 Comments

 

Anita Moncrief was one of the major sources who helped expose the radical group ACORN. A friend of the late Andrew Breitbart, now Anita is planning to expose the radical influence of Saul Alinsky:

Decades after the death of “Rules for Radical” author and community organizer, Saul Alinsky, his vision has become reality. Alinsky believed that organized chaos could undermine and fundamentally transform the government. The radical Left has thousands of foot soldiers connecting with their neighbors in what Alinsky dubbed “trouble spots” to further their narrative. His legacy allowed progressives and the Democratic Party to create a permanent, year-around field program. From Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton to ACORN to Black Lives Matter, Alinsky is more alive in his death now than in his four decades of community organizing. The Children of Alinsky will expose the activist leaders, the protesters they lead and the groups that comprise this permanent, agitating grassroots structure which is broad enough, deep enough and efficient enough to win elections.

Visit her Kickstarter page and help make this project happen!

 

Category: ACORN, Movies

Wicked Witches: Marion Zimmer Bradley and the Feminist Pagan Sex Cult

Posted on | July 4, 2016 | 77 Comments

Marion Zimmer Bradley was famous for her Avalon novel series.

“Wicca refers to the practice of European paganism popular throughout Europe and North America. . . . Dianic Wicca refers to a more radical women-only practice, named for the Goddess Diana. The novels of Marion Zimmer Bradley have been influential for Dianic Wiccans . . .”
— Meredith Miller, “Dianic Wicca,” in Historical Dictionary of Lesbian Literature (2006)

“The first time she molested me, I was three. The last time, I was twelve, and able to walk away. . . . She was cruel and violent, as well as completely out of her mind sexually. I am not her only victim, nor were her only victims girls.”
— Moira Greyland, Marion Zimmer Bradley’s daughter

When the revelations about Marion Zimmer Bradley rocked the world of science fiction two years ago, I pointed out that the evidence of Bradley’s bizarre perversion had been hidden in plain sight. Not only was she married to a bisexual pedophile, Walter Breen, who was rather notorious for his interest in young boys, but Bradley wrote lesbian pulp fiction under pseudonyms, including I Am a Lesbian (as Lee Chapman, 1962) and The Strange Women (as Miriam Gardner, 1967). Furthermore, Bradley quite pointedly rejected Judeo-Christian morality:

Bradley . . . professed a lifelong interest in the occult and in the early 1980s described herself as “neopagan,” explaining her faith as one that “rejects the Christian belief in man’s dominion over the earth.”
She said she also believed in clairvoyance, extrasensory perception and reincarnation . . .

As I explained two years ago:

Most people have no idea how influential Bradley was in 20th-century neo-paganism. Categorizing her pagan feminist genre as “lifestyle fantasy” novels, historian Brian Stableford has recounted how Bradley “became something of a guru to numerous writers of a similar stripe, several of whom — including Diana L. Paxson and Gael Baudino — described themselves as priestesses of ‘Dianic Wicca.’” Bradley and Paxson were co-founders of the California-based Center for Non-Traditional Religion, subsequently renamed the Fellowship of the Spiral Path, which is focused on the “Triple Goddess” (Maiden, Mother, Crone) of neo-pagan belief.
Dianic Wicca is quite nearly a synonym for “lesbian paganism” or “feminist witchcraft.” It was founded by a crazy Hungarian-born woman known as Zsuzsanna Budapest who became a feminist, divorced her husband, abandoned her two sons and turned lesbian.

Marian Zimmer Bradley was a monster whose occult beliefs and deviant sexuality were widely viewed as “progressive” among leftist bohemian avant-garde intellectuals. The Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs of the 1960s did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. The philosophy of the Sexual Revolution had been developed in preceding decades by Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner, among others.

Feminism’s distinctive contribution to this perverse ideology was somewhat belated and widely misunderstood. However, if you read Karla Jay’s Tales of the Lavender Menace (pp. 195-207) you will find that this lesbian feminist (who subsequently became director of Women’s and Gender Studies at Pace University) spent some time in the 1970s hanging out with Jeff Poland. He was co-founder of the Sexual Freedom League and the Psychedelic Venus Church (PVC) and Karla Jay’s book describes orgies that went on at the PVC. Not coincidentally, Jeff Poland was a pedophile who spent five years as a fugitive in Australia after he was charged with sexually molesting an 8-year-old girl. According to radical feminist Nikki Craft, Poland committed his crime while baby-sitting for a couple at a “swinger” party hosted by a nudist group. It is interesting to note, in Craft’s article, that Jeff Poland was friendly with Lee Baxandall, founder of The Naturist Society. Baxandall’s wife, Ros Baxandall, was an early leader of radical feminism, a member of both the Redstockings and W.I.T.C.H. (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell).

Nudists, feminists, “swingers,” pedophiles, lesbians, witches — every kind of madness was unleashed from Pandora’s Box in the 1960s, and justified as a rejection of Christianity and sexual “repression.”

Katy Faust was raised by a lesbian couple after her mother divorced her father. She became a Christian activist (her husband is a pastor) and her blog Ask the Bigot features well-informed criticism of the LGBT agenda. Last July, she published a lengthy account by Marion Zimmer Bradley’s daughter Moira Greyland, which included this concise summary of her parents’ pagan sexual cult beliefs:

My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited. Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.” If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish. As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur. As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

Many of these beliefs, especially hatred of “old fashioned notions” about marriage and family, are now considered mainstream in feminism. When will people wake up to the danger of this satanic wickedness?

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
— Exodus 22:18 (KJV)

Jehovah was quite clear about this and, while I certainly do not advocate a return to Salem circa 1692, it seems to me foolish to ignore the possibility that supernatural evil really exists. You might believe in witches, too, if you spend enough time staring into The Feminist Abyss.

+ + + + + +

The Sex Trouble project has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.





 

 


Category: Gays, Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Independence Day Weekend Edition

Posted on | July 3, 2016 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

It’s time once again to commemorate the original #Brexit, and what better way to remember the great deeds of our Founders than by reading “The Americans Who Risked Everything,”, the powerful tale of just how much some of the Declaration of Independence’s signers gave up to make us free. On a happier note, by this time of year, the beaches and pools are full of young ladies in attractive swimwear: for example, Kate Upton. As usual, many of the following links are to pics normally considered NSFW; failure to exercise discretion in the time and place of clicking does not make us responsible for your problems.

Salute!

Goodstuff leads off this week with Vica Kerekes, who he describes as “the Czech Christina Hendricks”, followed by Animal Magnetism with Rule 5 Gun Policy Friday, the Saturday Gingermageddon, and a bonus Independence Day patriotic totty dump! The Last Tradition offers Miranda Kerr and Bridget Malcolm, and the First Street Journal has American Soldiers for Independence Day.

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes the B52s, Misty Snow, Sailing for Westeros, Amy Schumer, and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.

A View from the Beach brings us The Humans, “Letter”, Never Has Business Seemed So Compelling, Dogs: So Nice We Tamed Them Twice, Gone Fishin’, Top Gun Star Get CCW Permit, A Wild Swedish Girl, and Why Skye Hates Iran.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Roseline Luo Zilin, his vintage babe is Barbara Leigh, Sex in Advertising is covered by Victoria’s Secret, and there’s also Women of PETA LI. At Dustbury, it’s Bai Ling and Carol Alt.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 Sunday is midnight on Saturday, July 9.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Feminism Means Women Must Kill Babies (and Silence Anyone Who Disagrees)

Posted on | July 3, 2016 | 49 Comments

“Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. . . . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that — do not listen.”
— The Exorcist (1973)

St. Olaf College (annual tuition $42,940) is a formerly Christian school that now offers LGBTQ scholarships, teaches courses in gay sexuality, and sponsors a student organization called Gay, Lesbian or Whatever! (GLOW) “that welcomes and affirms the identity and expression of all genders and sexualities.” St. Olaf’s anti-Christian curriculum includes a department of Women’s and Gender Studies, where “students explore scholarship about women and gender across cultures and throughout history to examine intersections of gender, race, class, sexual orientation, nationality, ability, religion, and age.” Because no Christian parent would let their child go anywhere near St. Olaf’s College, it is now an elite progressive indoctrination center for the children of rich liberals.

Feminist bloggers have spent the past few days high-fiving each other over the “perfect” and “epic” letter to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune written by Heidi Seltz (St. Olaf, Class of 2011):

ABORTION
It’d be nice if men would shut up
and editors would help them
To the two men whose anti-abortion letters were published June 28: Unless you have a woman’s body, I don’t want to hear your opinion on what women’s bodies should or should not do. In fact, it would be a delight if the Star Tribune Editorial Board ceased publishing men’s letters about women’s bodies entirely. Perhaps newspaper readership among young people would grow if every time we opened a paper, we didn’t have to read old men’s fusty opinions about uteri.
Heidi Seltz, Afton

This is what feminism is about. It is not about “equality.” Feminism is about hating men, hating God, killing babies and silencing anyone who disagrees with feminism’s anti-Christian totalitarian agenda.

Never talk to a feminist. Avoid conversations with the demon.




 


Category: Abortion, Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Independence Day Weekend Edition

Posted on | July 2, 2016 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Monday: Utes Of America
Animal Magnetism
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
90 Miles from Tyranny
Batshit Crazy News

Feminists Win as Australian Man Pleads Guilty in Facebook Harassment Case
The Political Hat
Batshit Crazy News

Women’s Violence Against Women
IOTW Report
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: Day Late And A Dollar Short, Salt Lake City Edition
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

‘By Any Means Necessary’
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 06.27.16
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Because Feminists Know Everything
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 06.28.16
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

ISIS Suspected in Terrorist Attack; 36 Dead, 147 Wounded at Istanbul Airport
Batshit Crazy News

SJW Feminist @SamanthaPajor Has Finally Solved the Terrorism Problem
The Lonely Conservative
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 06.29.16
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Anti-Marriage and Anti-Motherhood: Feminism’s War Against the Family
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 06.30.16
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly?
Living In Anglo-America

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (11)
  2.  A View from the Beach (6)
  3.  Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for all the linkagery! Happy Independence Day!

Shop Amazon Fashion – Up to 70% off Summer Savings
Shop Amazon Devices – All New Kindle 6-inch

Category: FMJRA Award

Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs

Posted on | July 2, 2016 | 137 Comments

“Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles; these youth became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.”
— America: Land I Love

Socialism, drug abuse and sexual perversion — during the 1960s, the connections between these phenomena were the subject of much discussion in America as university campuses erupted in protests, drug-addled hippies crowded into San Francisco and the so-called Sexual Revolution emerged in all its polymorphous variations. Naive dreams of “peace” and “love” in the groovy Age of Aquarius quickly came crashing down in the squalor, madness and murder of Altamont, the Manson cult, and the explosion that killed three Weather Underground terrorists. By 1970, any intelligent person who ever believed in all that hippie utopian nonsense had abundant evidence to inspire a reconsideration of their misguided idealism. Yet most of these young radicals never turned back from their destructive mission and the remaining survivors of the Sixties, now in their 70s or 80s, occasionally turn up in TV documentaries reminiscing fondly about how glorious it all was.

During a February radio interview, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert was asked about the surge of support for self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrat presidential primary. Gohmert blamed the influence of “hippies from the Sixties” who gained tenure as university professors and, by “teaching the teachers” had succeeded in “rewriting history and keeping [young people] from realizing socialism has never worked, it will never work in this world.” Gohmert’s quote was featured on left-wing blogs as one of those Crazy Things Republicans Say, yet it was a simple statement of fact. Anyone can examine, e.g., the career of Bill Ayers, the terrorist who became a professor of education. Gohmert cited the example of Ayers in a subsequent interview with Stuart Varney on Fox Business Channel in which he said, “If you go to teach as a professor in the universities and you teach the teachers, then the teachers go down and miseducate the young people.”

The phenomenon described by Gohmert is well-documented. Roger Kimball’s 1990 book Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education is a good starting point for anyone who wants to understand this problem. One of the great difficulties in explaining this to young people is that they know practically nothing about the Cold War and the reality of the Soviet menace. For more than 40 years, the central fact of American politics was that the United States was leading what John F. Kennedy called “a long twilight struggle” against the threat of Communist tyranny. However, because anti-American leftists have captured control of the teaching of history in our universities, what little students learn about the Cold War is taught from what can only be described as a pro-Communist perspective. In their 2003 book In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr show the extent to which academic historians deliberately obscure and distort the truth about Soviet-backed espionage in the 1940s and ’50s. Academia’s commitment to indoctrinating students with an anti-American worldview can perhaps be best understood by examining how “McCarthyism” is presented as an irrational paranoia — a “witch hunt” that wrongly targeted innocent liberals with false accusations — when in fact, the American Communist Party (CPUSA) was a Kremlin-controlled instrument of subversion that harbored Soviet spies. M. Stanton Evans’ 2007 book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies is a must-read for anyone interested in “McCarthyism.” What a careful reader discerns is that McCarthy was not, as he has been falsely portrayed by liberals, a man who ran around accusing people of being Communist spies. The FBI was doing an excellent job of breaking up Soviet espionage networks, and needed no help from Senator McCarthy in that regard. Instead, in his investigation of policies that permitted Soviet spies to infiltrate the federal government in the 1930s and ’40s, McCarthy was seeking to identify the officials responsible for lax security policies that had made this penetration possible. What almost no one knew at the time was that the Venona decryptions of Soviet diplomatic messages had enabled U.S. intelligence to learn specifics of the Soviet espionage operation. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover passed along very valuable information to McCarthy, but because the source of this information was a closely guarded secret, it was impossible for McCarthy to show the proof of how he knew what he knew. This is why so many people wrongly believe McCarthy was “discredited” and that he was engaged in a reckless “witch hunt.” It is true that McCarthy was an imperfect man who made mistakes, but as Evans’ book amply documents, McCarthy was a patriot, and a better man than his enemies. Furthermore, as Evans demonstrates by citing the facts of case after case, Joe McCarthy was right.

Ignorance of Cold War history is a major reason so many young Americans are unable to understand why the collapse of the Soviet Union — “the Evil Empire,” as Ronald Reagan famously called it — proved the futility of socialism. If the Bolsheviks had been unable to bring about the egalitarian utopia promised by Marx and Engels, and if tens of millions of innocent people had died in the disastrous effort to implement “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” was this not sufficient proof that socialism was a deadly error? Yet the facts of Marxist-Leninist failure are deliberately obscured, and a dishonest version of Cold War history is promulgated, by the left-wing professors who dominate academia.

In a similar manner, the history of the Sixties has for many years been taught as a triumph of Progress, in which enlightened Youth overthrew the oppressive forces of right-wing bigotry and intolerance. Any young person who wishes to disabuse themselves of this counterfactual hippie mythology can start by reading Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. They were both leading activists of the New Left during the 1960s, as editors of the radical journal Ramparts, but by the 1970s they had become disillusioned and, in the 1980s, emerged as supporters of Ronald Reagan. Until you have read Destructive Generation, you really can’t claim to understand what went wrong in the 1960s, and almost no one employed as a professor at any American university will acknowledge this lesson. Nearly every “educated” young person nowadays accepts without question the triumph-of-Progress narrative of the Sixties. This probably explains why recovering cocaine addict Tiernan Hebron, who graduated from San Francisco State University in 2014 with a degree in psychology, was arrested while protesting topless for Bernie Sanders. Read more

Category: History, Sex Trouble

Feminism’s Anti-Male Double Standard

Posted on | July 2, 2016 | 32 Comments

A consistent theme of feminist discourse for more than 40 years is a completely negative portrayal of male sexuality. Feminists are united in the opinion that whatever men do in regard to sex is always 100% wrong. Male attraction to women is condemned in feminist rhetoric as “objectification.” If a man admires a woman’s beauty, he has thereby degraded her as a “sex object,” according to feminist theory. If a man verbalizes his interest in a woman, feminists denounce this as “harassment,” and if he expresses his interest in a woman by any physical action — a kiss or a hug — feminists consider this sexual assault. Of course, feminists consider heterosexual intercourse to be inherently oppressive, a violent act of male domination — “PIV is always rape, OK?”

“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981

“Men affirm male superiority through use of the penis as a weapon against the female. . . .
“Because men want women’s sexual services for themselves only . . . men make women’s heterosexuality compulsory.”
— Dee Graham, et al., Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

Paranoid hostility toward male sexuality (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) has defined the feminist agenda for decades, and anyone who criticizes feminism’s anti-male hate propaganda will be accused of “misogyny” — you obviously hate women if you don’t agree with feminist assertions about the universal evil of men. A 26-year-old lesbian feminist wrote the following on her Tumblr blog:

I think there is an interesting phenomenon growing up as a lesbian (which I jokingly refer to as the Be\Bang Dichotomy) where you’re not sure if you greatly admire a woman and want to be like them or if you have a huge crush on someone.
I think it’s interesting because the idea of admiring and respecting a woman and wanting to be her romantic and sexual partner are seen, within a heteronormative society, as conflicting ideals.
If respect is seen as tainted by sexual desire, there is something wrong with the way we frame sexual desire.
I think it’s another difference in lesbian attraction that makes it harder to understand our attractions and also contributes to internalized lesbophobia. If our attraction is seen as antithetical to our respect, admiration, and idolization of female accomplishment, it is hard to hold the two concepts together or recognize them happening in concert.

What? Who says a man cannot respect a woman he finds desirable as a “romantic and sexual partner”? In whose mind is “respect . . . tainted by sexual desire”? Oh, that’s right — it’s feminists who say this!

For decades, feminists have been reiterating the same two points:

  1. All males are intellectually inferior — Men are incapable of reason, and thus cannot grasp the distinction between women’s specifically sexual attributes and women’s other qualities. Only feminists are endowed with the superior intellect necessary to understand anything at all about women, and whatever a man might believe about women is always wrong because, of course, he is a man, and men are always wrong about everything.
  2. Male sexuality is intrinsically immoral — It is wrong for men to want sex, and wrong for men to enjoy sex. Feminism is a movement to eliminate every possible source of male happiness in life, especially including sex.

This is why feminists consider it “harassment” for men to flirt with women. Flirting with women might lead to sex, and sex makes men happy, therefore feminists insist flirting is a civil-rights violation. Men cannot even look at women without being guilty of sexist “objectification,” according to feminism, because looking at women makes men happy.

 

Why do you think Vogue magazine put Amy Schumer on the cover of its July issue? Isn’t it because men don’t like Amy Schumer? The same reason Glamour magazine put Lena Dunham on its April 2014 cover?

 

Why did fashion magazines decide that beauty is a bad thing? It’s because feminists took over as fashion magazine editors. So now it’s “fashion” to be ugly like Lena Dunham and “fashion” to be fat like Amy Schumer.

Remember: “Men are the enemy.”

Feminists do not collaborate with the enemy. Why would men want to collaborate with feminists? This is a profound mystery. It’s like when Lena Dunham said she is heterosexual. How? Why? With whom? Has any man actually gone public and admitted having sex with Lena Dunham?

But we are not allowed to ask such questions, nor are we permitted to notice that fashion magazines are now promoting a political agenda.

There is a double standard in operation, whereby feminists arrogate to themselves the right to demonize men, and men are not allowed to say anything in defense of themselves. Feminism is a synonym for shut up.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly?

Posted on | June 30, 2016 | 51 Comments

 

Dear Ms. Duca:

Please pardon the rather unfortunate circumstances of this introduction, but while I was updating my blog readers on the latest lunacy from herpes-infected feminist Emily Depasse, I noticed you had interviewed Ella Dawson, Poster Child for the Feminist Herpes Epidemic.

If You’re Sexually Active, Getting
Herpes Is Practically Inevitable

Well, no, actually, it’s not “inevitable,” and to see such a misleading headline published at Teen Vogue is disturbing in the extreme.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the rate of “seroprevalance” (positive blood test) for genital herpes (HSV-2) was 6.6% for males ages 20-29, and 14.4% for females ages 20-29. As troubling as these statistics may be, they certainly do not suggest that herpes is “inevitable” for everyone who is “sexually active.”

Whereas it is the goal of herpes-infected feminists like Ella Dawson to “destigmatize” their disease, most people — surely including the young readers of Teen Vogue, to say nothing of these girls’ parents — would prefer to learn how to avoid the disease. As Ms. Dawson learned to her regret, condoms are ineffective at preventing herpes, a fact that exposes “safe sex” as dangerous myth, a misguided idea can be traced historically to the outbreak of the AIDS pandemic among gay men in the 1980s. Permit me here to recommend “The Origins of a Political Epidemic,” in the book Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. This article was first published in 1983, when the AIDS epidemic was first making headlines, and when gay activists blocked the public-health measures which might have saved many thousands of lives.

“Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. . . . This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven — absurd. We must face what we did.”
— Camille Paglia

“Free love” — the delusional myth of sex without consequences, sex without commitment or responsibility — killed a lot of people in the 1980s and ’90s, Ms. Duca, including friends of mine. America ought to have learned a lesson from that bitter experience, but instead we have allowed the Condom-Industrial Complex to promote what might be called the Gospel of Latex Salvation: “Party on, kids. Just use a condom.”

Well, how did that plan work out for Ella Dawson?

“I was the editor of my campus sex magazine. I had some one-night stands. I explored my sexuality and what I wanted, and I met a guy at a party and he was amazing. He was super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant and I fell really hard for him. We started seeing each other and then, three weeks later, I woke up with an outbreak of genital herpes.”
— Ella Dawson, September 2015

In other words, Ella Dawson was rolling the dice, ignorant of the risk despite the fact that she was majoring in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at elite Wesleyan University (annual tuition $47,972). For that kind of money, you might think her professors would have bothered to inform this young genius that (a) condoms don’t prevent herpes, and (b) promiscuity increases your risk of being infected. Ella Dawson said she was “shocked” by her herpes diagnosis, which “didn’t make sense, as I’d never had unprotected sex in my life. . . . How could I have caught something when I had always been so careful?” Ella Dawson was a fool, who is now foolishly encouraging other young women to emulate her folly, and why is Teen Vogue assisting in this foolish project, Ms. Duca?

While it is true that anyone could become infected the first time they have sex, if their first partner already has the disease, anyone proficient in basic arithmetic can see that a combination of caution and a knowledge of risk factors can greatly decrease the likelihood of getting herpes. In 2010, the CDC reported that the herpes rate “was nearly twice as high among women (21%) as men (11%), and more than three times higher among African-Americans (39%) than whites (12%). The infection rate among African-American women was 48%.” For obvious reasons, risk is correlated with the number of sexual partners you have. The CDC found that about 27% of those who reported 10 or more partners during their lifetime are infected with herpes, whereas the rate was only 4% among people who reported having had just one sex partner ever. In other words, the difference between having one partner and having 10 or more partners is a 675% increase in your risk of contracting herpes.

If we analyze Ella Dawson’s story in the context of epidemiological data, we realize that when she began having one-night stands, each new partner represented an increase in her risk. We may suppose that Ella Dawson was not seeking partners with no previous sexual experience, and we may further suppose that the “amazing . . . super-charismatic and sexy” man who infected Ella Dawson with herpes had previously been with a lot of sexual partners. What was the total prior number of partners for each of them on that night in 2013 she “met a guy at a party”? According to the CDC, the genital herpes rate for males with fewer than five previous partners is 7.3%, which rises to 10.1% for males with 5 to 9 previous partners, and 19.1% for males with 10 or more previous partners.

In other words, to reach even a 1-in-5 chance of having herpes, a guy typically has to be with a lot of different women. You see, Ms. Duca, that the facts completely debunk the claim in your Teen Vogue headline that herpes is “practically inevitable” for anyone who is “sexually active.” And your cooperation with Ella Dawson’s effort to “destigmatize” herpes — spreading the message that this incurable disease should be considered innocuous because it’s “practically inevitable” — puts you in service of a propaganda technique known as The Big Lie.

There is no such thing as “safe sex.” That phrase was born during the 1980s as a result of the gay community’s belated recognition that the AIDS epidemic had been spread by, uh, specific types of sexual behavior that resulted in the transmission of a virus through the exchange of bodily fluids, to explain this problem in the most polite way possible.

“The present epidemic of AIDS among promiscuous urban gay males is occurring because of the unprecedented promiscuity of the last ten to fifteen years. . . . It has been mass participation in this lifestyle that has led to the creation of an increasingly disease-polluted pool of sexual partners.”
— Michael Callen and Richard Berkowitz, 1982

“I didn’t become a homosexual so I could use condoms.”
— Konstantin Berlandt, 1983

In 1982, the CDC reported that that the “median number of lifetime male sexual partners” for gay men diagnosed with AIDS was 1,160.

Repeat: One thousand one hundred sixty.

To comprehend what that means, if a man was diagnosed with AIDS at age 30, after having 1,160 partners since becoming sexually active at age 18, he would have had 97 different partners in an average year, i.e., nearly two new partners every week, or eight new partners per month. This was the “at-risk” population among whom the epidemic was incubated in the late 1970s and early 1980s (a story told in Randy Shilts’s book And the Band Played On). Extreme promiscuity under conditions of almost complete anonymity (i.e., bathhouses, “glory holes,” nightclub pickups, etc.) had become so widely accepted in gay culture in the 1970s that when public-health officials first urged gay men to use condoms during the, uh, specific types of sexual behavior by which the virus was spread, these official recommendations were suppressed.

Bill Kraus, a gay activist in San Francisco, was shocked by the refusal to publicize the earliest AIDS research findings: “How can these people do this? How can they try to suppress this data?” Kraus said in an interview quoted by Collier and Horowitz. “They intimidate people into silence by saying that they’re homophobic, anti-sex, and all kind of other things people don’t want to be called.” Gay radicals falsely blamed the Reagan administration for this epidemic and, in the ensuing propaganda wars, a bizarre new myth emerged: “Everyone is at risk of AIDS! We must teach ‘safe sex’ in every school and distribute free condoms to everybody’s kids!” Guess what happened to parents who raised common-sense objections to this agenda? They were called “homophobic, anti-sex, and all kind of other things people don’t want to be called.”

Well, Ms. Duca, you only graduated from college three years ago, so you have no direct memory of how the AIDS crisis of the 1980s helped fuel the Culture Wars of the 1990s, and I suspect your left-wing professors at Fordham and NYU never explained it to you the way I’ve explained it here. My purpose in relating this history to you is to explain how it was that Ella Dawson, an intelligent young woman majoring in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at an elite university, could have been as ignorant as she was of the herpes risk. Because the “safe sex” ideology was created in response to AIDS — a disease that was predominantly transmitted via the exchange of bodily fluids between gay men during specific types of sexual behavior — the Gospel of Latex Salvation has tended to omit certain truths that are of particular interest to young heterosexual women. Examine this data, Ms. Duca:

Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV2)
seroprevalence, U.S. females
Total (ages 14-49) …….. 20.9
Age 20-29 ………………… 14.4
Age 30-39 ………………… 25.2
White ………………………. 15.9
Black ………………………. 48.0
1 lifetime partner ……….. 5.4
2-4 lifetime partners …. 18.8
5-9 lifetime partners …. 21.8
10+ lifetime partners …. 37.1

The total number of lifetime partners is the controlling risk factor in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. By simple arithmetic, you see that the overall HSV2 infection rate (20.9%) is a little bit higher than midway between the rate for women with 2 to 4 partners (18.8%) and the rate for women with 5 to 9 partners (21.8%). In other words, the average U.S. female (ages 14-49) has probably had five or six sexual partners. A similar calculation reveals that a typical U.S. woman in her 20s has had no more than four partners. Your Teen Vogue headline claim that it is “practically inevitable” for anyone who is “sexually active” to become infected with herpes is not only false (e.g., even 63% of women with 10 or more partners remain herpes-free), but it also makes the dangerously misleading implication that there is nothing a young woman can do to reduce her risk of herpes. You describe the young fool Ella Dawson as someone who is “spreading sexual health,” yet her message — “Herpes is so common! More or less everybody has herpes! Let’s fight stigma!” — is certainly not healthy. Ella Dawson conflates HSV1 (cold sores) with HSV2 (genital herpes) as if the difference was irrelevant. She does not discuss the actual prevalence of HSV2 or the correlation of risk and the number of partners. In terms of prevention, all she says is “get tested regularly.”

Look at the data, Ms. Duca. If we know that females ages 20-29 have a 14.4% herpes rate, and that the infection rate for white females (15.9%) is substantially below the overall rate (20.9%), does mere bad luck suffice to explain how Ella Dawson got infected at age 20?

If one in six people had genital herpes, how was I the only person I knew to do the ultimate walk of shame from the student health center clutching a stack of STD pamphlets? . . . On a logical level I knew that getting herpes had nothing to do with my actions and didn’t say anything about my character; it was simply luck of the draw.

Alas, “luck of the draw” tends to become cumulative the more often you draw. Never in my life had I seen a poker hand in which a full house got beat by four of a kind until the night in Wheeling, W.Va., when I decided to shove all-in with a full house and . . . Well, “luck of the draw.”

Play enough poker and you’re likely to see even the most improbable things happen at least once, and the odds of me winning with a full house were much better than Ella Dawson’s odds of avoiding herpes that night in 2013 when she met Mr. Amazing Charismatic Sexy Guy at a party.

Ella Dawson can’t stop writing about the guy, who she says tricked her into thinking she had given him herpes, rather than the other way around, and really, how can we possibly know what the truth is? How many different women had he been with before he met her? How many guys had she been with before she met him? If Ella Dawson had never met this guy, but had instead continued her pattern of one-night stands and “exploring her sexuality,” wasn’t it likely that she would have gotten herpes anyway? The risks are cumulative, which is why Ella Dawson’s dismissive “luck of the draw” remark about her herpes infection is as wrong as the “practically inevitable” headline on your article, Ms. Duca.

There is no such thing as “safe sex.” We can be thankful to Ella Dawson for destroying the Gospel of Latex Salvation, but a herpes infection is never an accident, and Ella Dawson was not the victim of “a microbe that sort of fell from heaven,” as Paglia said of the AIDS crisis. Sexually transmitted diseases are correlated to behavior, and thus do not occur randomly. Like other behavioral phenomena — automobile accidents, for example — the fact that we cannot entirely eliminate risk does not mean we should not try to reduce risk. However, when we are discussing risks related to sexual behavior, we are apt to find ourselves accused of Thoughtcrime by people who insist they have a “right” to have sex with whoever they choose, however they choose to do it, without regard to avoidable risk — including the risk of spreading disease.

“Slut-shaming” is the new homophobia. The same way some gay activists in the 1980s used accusations of “homophobia” to suppress information that might have saved thousands of lives, now we see feminists deploy accusatory language — “misogyny,” “rape culture,” etc. — to suppress information that might help young women avoid risky sexual behavior. When you suggest to Teen Vogue readers that all “sexually active” women get herpes, this conveys the idea that it is futile to try to reduce their risk of becoming infected. Yet the vast majority of young women do not have HSV2, and most never will. Why? Because most women do not have a large number of sexual partners. Most women do not have one-night stands. Your headline implies that “sexually active” is synonymous with the high-risk behavior of recklessly pursuing hookups. Why? Because you’re afraid you might hurt somebody’s feelings? Because you can’t tell Teen Vogue readers to avoid dangerous habits?

“Oh, well,” you say, “herpes isn’t all that bad, and I’m careful, so there’s no chance of me getting AIDS.” Fine. Whatever. Here’s something to think about: Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea.

This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness!
Earthquakes! Volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

How many omens of doom do we need? How much more Old Testament wrath-of-God stuff will it take before people finally wake up?

Sincerely,
Robert Stacy McCain




 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin