A public university in California features a controversial website that encourages parents to react “positively” when 4-year-olds touch each other’s genitals and says young children should be allowed to watch porn.
The University of California, Santa Barbara hosts an online platform, within the sociology department, called “SexInfo Online,” which is maintained by students “who have studied advanced topics in human sexuality” that seek to answer a myriad of questions on sexuality, The College Fix reported.
“The majority of sexual play between children takes place between the ages of 4 and 7,” the website states in a section titled “Childhood Sexuality,” accompanied by a photo of two little girls that appear to be kissing on a beach. “Children might display affection to their friends by hugging and kissing, or touching each other’s genitals, which is perfectly normal. Parents should not react in a negative way because children are just exploring.”
It adds that parents should intervene only “if the acts are non-consensual or hurtful.”
“It is important that children understand that viewing pornography is a normal habit, and that they do not need to be ashamed of it,” UCSB students wrote.
The article tells parents how to have “the talk” with their kids.
“Children and teens do not want to be told what to do, especially when it comes to personal topics such as sex,” the website states. “It is important that parents do not lecture their children, but instead try to present information and have an open discussion about sex. Adolescents will make their own decisions regarding sex and it is up to the parent to give them the information and resources needed to make informed decisions.”
The school’s department of sociology chair declined to comment and the university did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The anti-Israel boycott movement is a “new variation of anti-Semitism: anti-Zionist anti-Semitism,” a German intelligence agency concluded.
By: Max Gelber
A German intelligence agency has deemed the anti- Israel BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) anti-Semitic, saying it is a “new variation of anti-Semitism: anti-Zionist anti-Semitism.”
The Jerusalem Post reported on Thursday that the state of Baden-Württemberg’s intelligence agency, in its May report, wrote that propaganda by the neo-Nazi party Der Dritte Weg (The Third Way) urging boycotts of Israeli products “roughly recalls similar measures against German Jews by the National Socialists, for example, on April 1 1933” when the Nazis used the slogan “Germans! Defend yourselves! Don’t buy from Jews!”
The neo-Nazi organization called Israel a “terror state” and the “Zionist abscess.” The report showed a graphic used by the Third Way showing a Palestinian flag with the words “Freedom for Palestine” over a person whose mouth is covered with an Israeli flag.
Another graphic read “Boycott products from Israel: 729 = Made in Israel,” which refers to the bar code number “729,” an identifier of Israeli-made goods.
Established in 2013 with the participation of former officials of the far-right National Democratic Party and activists affiliated with the Freies Netz Süd (Free Network South), which was banned in 2014, Der Dritte Weg is comprised of radical ethnic nationalists.
The party describes its members as the “conscious neo-Nazi elite,” with the majority classified as very violent.
Party members traveled to Lebanon in March 2017 and lauded Hezbollah’s 2006 war against Israel.
The Third Way’s web page calls for support of convicted Holocaust-denier Horst Mahler.
Labeling BDS as anti-Semitic could have far-reaching consequences for German politicians and organizations that engage in pro-BDS activity, the Jerusalem Post reported.
This is believed to be the first time that a German domestic intelligence agency has labeled BDS as anti-Semitic and a security threat, while German political bodies and politicians at various levels have already recognized BDS for what it really is.
In August, Frankfurt became the first German city to pass a bill outlawing municipal funding for the BDS movement’s activities.
In May 2017, Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) passed a resolution in support of Israel, condemning BDS as anti-Semitic.
In December 2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party announced the passing of a resolution declaring BDS anti-Semitic.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts against Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent struggle against the so-called “Israeli occupation.”
Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.
On Friday, Women’s March leader Tamika Mallory – she of the Louis Farrakhan fandom – explained that she believes Israel ought not exist.
Following her trip to Israel and Palestine, and days before the big Israeli event @CelebrateIsrael#togetheron5th, TamikaDMallory answered critics and supporters who asked her if she believes Israel has a right to exist during
She telecommuted in to explain to an event titled “Palestine Is Everywhere” at the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice Delegation:
My soul would not rest, standing by and doing nothing about it, to know that the US government – my taxpayer’s money, $10 million a day – is going to a government, a military, that takes the lives of people who were there first. There are a lot of people who will say, “Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist?” I believe we all have a right to exist, I want to see all of us live in a free society, where we are all able to raise our families and to be fruitful and have occupations. This is not about stopping one side. This is about ensuring that the native people are able to enjoy their land. They shouldn’t ask anybody for their land! This is their land! When you go to someone’s home and you need a place to stay, you ask “Can I come into your home and can I stay here, and can we peacefully coexist?” You don’t walk into someone else’s home, needing a place. It’s clear you needed a place to go – cool, we got that! I hear that! But you don’t show up to somebody’s home, needing a place to stay, and decide that you’re going to throw them out and hurt the people who are on that land. And to kill, steal, and do whatever it is you’re gonna do to take that land! That to me is unfair. It’s a human rights crime.
In other words, “Sure, Israel should exist, but it really shouldn’t exist.”
Linda Sarsour, another Women’s March leader, then said that Israel was an “apartheid” state and compared Israel to North Korea.
This is historically ignorant stuff. Jewish presence in the land of Israel has been unbroken for thousands of years. The only independent states in the history of the region have all been Jewish. Israel openly invited Arabs living in Israel to stay during the 1947-1948 war for independence, even as Arab regimes informed Arabs living in the area to flee their oncoming armies.
This isn’t shocking stuff coming from Mallory, a devotee of anti-Semite Farrakhan’s. But it’s once again demonstrative of the fact that for intersectional Leftists, Muslim identity outranks Jewish identity – and that anti-Semitism is just fine so long as you hold the correct intersectional credentials.
Virtually every issue has become a partisan football in America’s politicized age of anti-Trump hysteria.
The debate that has bucked this trend is the #MeToo campaign, which has successfully cut across party lines, wealth divides, race and religion. This powerful campaign has focused on taking down anyone who has exploited power and fame for sex, not just stereotypical members of the patriarchy in the form of rich, white males.
We’ve seen Bill Cosby, John Conyers, R. Kelly, Tavis Smiley, Tony Mendoza and Tariq Ramadan publicly shamed along with bastions of liberal values like Eric Schneiderman.
The #MeToo campaign has shown that sexual exploitation is not the purview of only some ethnicities or political parties.
Unfortunately, liberal feminists pick and choose which types of violence against women are worthy of this studiously nonpartisan approach. For example, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honor violence seem not to be considered egregious enough to be taken up by the broader women’s movement. Instead, these barbaric violations of human rights don’t make it onto progressives’ radar. Rather, they’re excused or ignored by feminists because the perpetrators inflicting the violence tend to have brown skin.
If it were a tradition among white men to remove the genitals of girls and sew their vaginas shut, we can assume the women’s movement would suddenly take an interest. FGM is intended to make sex less pleasurable for women and to impose patriarchal norms about purity and virginity on their bodies. If we can call out the patriarchy in the influential, high-paid, glamorous world of media and entertainment, why on earth aren’t we calling it out when it is being violently imposed between the legs of little girls?
The right of women and girls to be free of abuse has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.
Analysis done by my organization, the AHA Foundation, shows that legislators in 24 states hesitate to ban FGM despite evidence of girls at risk in their state. Just recently bills to outlaw FGM and child marriage in Massachusetts were thwarted despite support from both parties. Legislators feared appearing anti-immigrant in a policy debate overshadowed by President Trump’s ham-fisted “Muslim ban.” Despite being one of the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts failed to put the rights of women and girls before political sensitivities.
Similarly, partisan politics turned FGM into a political bargaining chip in Maine and the state still has no protections for girls. Whereas Michigan, where legislators were focused on putting women’s rights above political expediency, ushered in comprehensive anti-FGM legislation at lightning speed.
We do a disservice to women by hijacking their voices to score political points. The campaign for women’s rights has morphed into an anti-Trump crusade. This year the Women’s March is focused on enrolling voters in swing states and promoting progressive candidates. The majority of its anointed candidates are in the Democratic Party and a few are independents. The movement doesn’t bother to give a nod to women’s issues requiring bipartisan support or representation.
If it were serious about advancing women’s rights, the Women’s March movement would work to put those who can deliver for women into office, not just those that tick identity-politics boxes. As a woman of color in politics, I was used as an icon for the issues that matched my gender and skin color. The same will happen to the “identity politicians” being pushed into office today.
Ironically, the women’s movement’s preoccupation with intersectionality will see core women’s issues pushed further down the list of priorities. This cruel ideology asks women of color to remain subjected and abused until we achieve some mythical moment of equality on every score.
Intersectionality entrenches victimhood and prevents men of color from being held accountable for patriarchal attitudes and behaviors, laying the blame entirely on white men.
We must depoliticize women’s rights. We don’t have to agree with each other’s political views but protecting individual human rights must be a given. In a world where half of American women are marginalized, we all lose.
Let’s try to come up with something better. If gay sex is OK, how can incest be wrong?
The old answer was genetics. Germany’s high court relied on that argument two years ago when it upheld the conviction of Patrick Stuebing for sex with his sister. Of the four children the couple produced, three had physical or mental disabilities. In general, studies show a significantly higher rate of birth defects in offspring of incestuous couples. The reason is simple: Every family has genetic flaws, and if you reproduce within your family, you’re more likely to get two copies of the flaw—thereby producing the defective trait—instead of acquiring a new, protective allele from another family.
Many incest laws in the United States invoke this concept. In patently eugenic language, they forbid sex between “consanguineous” (blood-related) partners. But this rationale won’t withstand close scrutiny or the march of technology. If genetics is the issue, just get a vasectomy. Then you can bang your sister all you want. Or skip the vasectomy and bang your brother. Gay sex can’t make a baby, so the problem is solved. As the German court noted, Stuebing could have dodged Germany’s incest law in precisely this way.
Epstein has been charged under a different law. It prohibits sex with any close relative, “whether through marriage or not.” It also applies not just to “sexual intercourse” but also to “oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct.” If the law were rationally based on genetics, it would ignore sex acts that can’t make babies, and it would distinguish relatives by blood from relatives by marriage.
So let’s set aside genetics and consider the next question: exploitation. Nowadays, when we talk about incest, we tend to think of child sexual abuse. That’s how we use the term in the repressed-memory debate and in abortion legislation. When politicians such as President Obama make exceptions in abortion laws for “rape and incest,” they’re using the terms synonymously, except that in the incest scenario, the rapist is your dad.
At this point, liberals tend to throw up their hands. If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that’s what people said about homosexuality, too. It’s all private conduct. To which conservatives reply: We told you so. We warned you that if laws against homosexuality were struck down, laws against polygamy and incest would follow. And now you’re proving us right.
The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.
That’s the basis on which the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Lowe’s conviction: “A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit.” This destructive effect, the court reasoned, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since “parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority.” The German court offered a similar argument against sibling incest. Roughly translated, the opinion’s key passage says:
Incestuous connections lead to an overlap of family relationships and social roles and thus to a disturbance of a family bereft of [clear] assignments. … Children of an incestuous relationship have great difficulty finding their place in the family structure and building relationships of trust with their next caregivers. The vital function of the family for the human community … is crucially disturbed if its ordered structure is shaken by incestuous relations.
Liberals tend to recoil from such arguments. They fear that a movement to preserve the “family unit” would roll back equal rights for homosexuals. But that doesn’t follow. Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn’t provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.
When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of “ex-gay” ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.
Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by “crossing the line.” Now imagine doing that to your family. That’s what incest does. Don’t take my word for it. Read The Kiss. Or the sad threads on pro-incest message boards. Or what Woody Allen’s son says about his dad: “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father …”
Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn’t. If the law bans gay sex, a lesbian can’t have a sex life. But if you’re hot for your sister, and the law says you can’t sleep with her, you have billions of other options. Get out of your house, for God’s sake. You’ll find somebody to love without incinerating your family. And don’t tell me you’re just adding a second kind of love to your relationship. That’s like adding a second kind of life to your body. When a second kind of life grows in your body, we call it cancer. That’s what incest is: cancer of the family.
I wouldn’t prosecute David Epstein. It isn’t necessary. The incest taboo is strong enough to withstand the occasional reckless fool, and I don’t want cops poking around in people’s sex lives. But incest is wrong. There’s a rational basis to forbid it. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
If a feminist like Gloria Steinem or Cecile Richards were to ever find themselves in front of the bench of Judge Judy, the tough, no-nonsense gavel-pounder would send them into the arms of the nearest bailiff crying. Despite her tough edge, however, Judge Judy does not include herself among the ranks of modern feminists. Like Mary Tyler Moore, another strong woman, Judge Judy rejects the feminist label.
Speaking with Megyn Kelly earlier this week, Judge Judy Sheindlin refused to label herself a feminist for a variety of reasons, most especially because it diminishes the individual.
“When I was growing up and going to school and being a lawyer and trying to become a judge and becoming a judge and then becoming a supervising judge, I didn’t do it through any organization,” she said. “I think it takes away from your own self-worth, if you say ‘I did it based on the work of a larger group.'”
Judge Judy said it would be like having the “safety net” of a “large family,” which she admits is nice, but it reduces the agency of the individual.
“It’s nice to have a safety net,” she added, “But if you don’t have your own self-worth, and forge for yourself, that safety net, all it can do is give you the bottom. That’s what makes me say I’m really not a feminist.”
Judge Judy opted to describe herself, instead, as an “individualist.”
“I think that individuals each have within themselves the capacity to be the hero of their own story,” she said. “It doesn’t always have to be a star of a television program to be the hero of your own story. You want be a doctor, a lawyer, an Indian chief. Whatever you want to be, you can be the best at it, be the most recognized in that profession.”
Judge Judy urged people to be great wherever they find themselves: parent, son, daughter, wife, or husband.
“Be a great family person, be a great parent, be a great child, be a great citizen, be a great volunteer,” she added. “That can make you a hero. That doesn’t take a village. That takes an individual spirit.”
“I think everybody has it in within themselves to do that,” she concluded.
Clay Routledge, though a self-professed “big fan of dogs,” suggests at National Review that in recent years, “our society’s relationship with pets appears to have changed in unhealthy ways.” Young adults “who aren’t partnering up or starting families” are “turning to their pets to feel loved and purposeful.”
Indeed, “the lonelier people are,” studies show, “the more inclined they are to perceive pets as having human-like characteristics.” Some companies are even offering “pawternity leave” to let their young talent “spend time bonding and adjusting” to a new pet. And colleges are receiving more and more requests to accommodate emotional-support animals.
Says Routledge: “Pets are great additions to our social world, but they are poor substitutes for the messier human relationships that make life worth living.”
A new exhibit at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum blames America’s failure to aid European Jewry during the Nazi era on “public opinion, Herbert Hoover and a couple of bad guys in the State Department — but never on President Franklin D. Roosevelt,” reports Rafael Medoff at the Jerusalem Post.
It claims “the accepted rules of international diplomacy” prevented FDR from speaking out about Nazi persecution during the ’30s, even though six previous presidents publicly denounced foreign anti-Semitism.
It also claims there was “little or nothing” Roosevelt could so because of “anti-Semitism, nativism and isolationism.” Somehow, this “strong, decisive leader” has been turned into “the Incredibly Disappearing President.” Bottom line: The museum “has distorted the historical record in order to make excuses for inexcusable policy decisions.”
On August 23rd, 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact. The pact contained a secret clause to divide the nation of Poland up between them as conquered territory. One week later, Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Thus, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany started
World War II—as allies.
But brave Polish men and women like Wanda fought back against the bloodthirsty totalitarian invaders that had invaded their homeland. Here is Wanda’s story: