TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

By: Marcia Segelstein

Most people probably don’t picture kids when they think about who’s viewing pornography. But according to statistics cited by the non-profit advocacy organization Enough Is Enough, the largest group of viewers of Internet pornography is children between the ages of 12 and 17. And there’s more. The average age of first exposure to Internet pornography is 11. 88% of 15- to 17-year-olds have had multiple exposures to hardcore pornography. 90% of children between the ages of 8 and 16 with Internet access have viewed pornographic websites, sometimes inadvertently in the course of looking up information for homework.

Scary stuff. Especially scary because the pornography available at the click of a mouse today makes the pornography of a generation ago look positively innocent. Dr. Jill Manning, a therapist who specializes in issues related to pornography and whose patients include many teenagers, describes Internet pornography today as deviant, vile, and graphic. Picture rape and torture – to name but two – portrayed positively. Now imagine children watching such material.

Dr. Manning is the author of What’s the Big Deal About Pornography: A Guide for the Internet Generation. Beyond the moral concerns most parents would have about their children viewing pornography, there are serious risks for kids who do, according to Dr. Manning. One is that young people are introduced to sexuality in a way that is completely disconnected from relationships to other human beings, and completely disconnected from spirituality. “When a young person is being immersed in pornography they are getting expert teaching in how to objectify human beings, how to strip human beings of their feelings, personalities and needs. That’s a very dangerous road to be walking down.”

Most of Dr. Manning’s patients come from Christian homes, and she believes many Christian parents need a wake-up call when it comes to this issue. In her experience, they are sometimes too trusting of kids, and naïve about the intensely graphic and deviant nature of material accessible via the Internet.

“I know that most Christian parents desire to create a home that’s a safe haven from the world and evil influences,” Dr. Manning told me. She thinks most parents would probably be shocked to learn that approximately 80 percent of hardcore pornography viewing by young people happens in the home. “On the one hand that’s very troubling, but on the other hand it can give us some hope, because it provides leverage. If we can get a handle on that in the home, we can make a tremendous impact for good on our young people.”

Dr. Manning believes parents should have open and frank conversations with their children about the subject of pornography, in the same way they discuss the dangers of alcohol and drugs. She told me about a client of hers, a grown man, struggling with same-sex attraction.  His first sexual experience was with homosexual pornography – at the age of 9. By the time his parents sat down with him to talk about sex, he was 13 years old and already had years of exposure. She’s had clients who first encountered pornography at the age of 5 or 6. “Teaching healthy sexuality is one of the best protections and ways to arm our children. Then when they encounter the lies pornography tells them, they have a powerful reference point. They’ll be able to de-code it and say that’s absurd.” She believes young people should be told why parents disapprove of pornography, and why they believe it’s harmful.

In addition to Dr. Manning’s book, there are many resources available to parents interested in protecting their kids from online pornography. Enough is Enough provides extensive information for parents on its website, including its recently launched program “Internet Safety 101.” This new teaching series for parents brings together under one heading the expert advice, tools, and resources Enough is Enough has been compiling over the last decade.

While there’s no question that setting guidelines and putting safety measures in place are critically important, parents should keep in mind that sometimes children are introduced to pornography outside the home, away from those safety measures. Filters and other protections may not be in place at friends’ houses, hence the importance of arming kids with information.

Based on her experience as a therapist, Manning told me that many teens turn to the Internet for sexual information. Perhaps they hear a word or a term they’re curious about, so they go online to check it out. Unfortunately, they often end up at pornographic websites where they’re not only exposed to explicit and degrading images, but any actual information they absorb is completely distorted.

There are many documented risk factors associated with adolescents viewing pornography. In fact, Dr. Manning testified before a Senate subcommittee on the topic of “Pornography’s Impact on Marriage and the Family.” Here are some of the risks she listed for adolescents who have been exposed to pornography:

• Lasting negative or traumatic emotional responses

• Earlier onset of first sexual intercourse

• The belief that superior sexual satisfaction is attainable without having affection for one’s partner

• The belief that being married or having a family are unattractive prospects

• Increased risk for developing sexual compulsions and addictive behavior

• Increased risk of exposure to incorrect information and overestimating the prevalence of less-common practices (e.g., group sex, bestiality, or sadomasochistic activity)

Sadly, pornography is a threat parents simply cannot ignore. The potential risks for children are too great and the chances of children being exposed to it far too high. If any further motivation is needed, read one last, chilling thing Dr. Manning shared with me:

“I believe pornography is the most successfully marketed attack on our divine nature as human beings that has ever existed. There has never been anything so calculated and widespread and effective at reaching so many people at such a young age.”

Visit Marcia Segelstein’s blog — she values your comments and ideas!

A group with pedophilia ties may be too extreme for the United Nations but not for the Obama State Department.  In a fiery debate this week, the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council voted 8-6 to deny official non-governmental (NGO) status to a radical gay advocacy group from Brazil which supports sex with children. The committee that reviews NGO applicants includes several major member nations, including the U.S., which voted in favor of Brazil’s Association of Gays, Lesbians and Transgenders.

While Christians and conservatives may find it outrageous that the Obama administration is unconcerned with pedophilia, we are not surprised. After all, this is the same White House that has nominated a liberal extremist like David Ogden to the nation’s second-highest justice post. Ogden, whose Senate vote was delayed after thousands of calls and emails, represented purveyors of hard-core pornography in court, including those who did not want to take the trouble to verify that their “actors” weren’t underage.

In the past week, three of President Obama’s current most objectionable nominees had confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate:

David Ogden – Nominated to the high-ranking post of Deputy Attorney General of the United States. As a private attorney, Ogden worked for the ACLU and filed a brief in the landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that denied the existence of adverse mental health effects of abortion on women. Ogden has also been one of the nation’s most prominent porn defense attorneys, representing not only Playboy and Penthouse, but also PHE, Inc., the largest distributor of hardcore pornography in the United States.

Thomas Perrelli – He is Obama’s nominee for Associate Attorney General at the Justice Department. Perrelli won media attention as the attorney for Michael Schiavo, the Florida man who defeated Terri Schiavo’s family in their desperate attempt to keep her from being brutally starved and dehydrated to death at Michael’s insistence. Terri Schiavo collapsed under mysterious circumstances and was denied rehabilitation after funds won in a court settlement were allegedly diverted by Michael Schiavo for other uses.

Elena Kagan – She is well-credentialed as the dean of Harvard Law School and Obama’s choice for Solicitor General, a post so powerful its occupant is often called the “10^th Supreme Court justice. The outlandish thing is Kagan has never argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, but she and other law school officials sued to overturn the Solomon amendment, that had been adopted by Congress to ensure that law schools could not use homosexual rights rules to deny U.S. Armed Forces recruiters access to law school campuses.

The U.S. Senate will vote soon on these key appointments that will determine U.S. legal policy for years to come. These appointments will champion abortion on demand, legalized obscenity, special rights for homosexuals, and euthanasia. Votes may occur in the next 72 hours – please contact your two U.S. senators today and tell them that these nominees should not go forward.

A little control over the media would be a good thing, according to California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Brown came out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine while appearing on the Michael Savage radio show this past Friday night.

The Fairness Doctrine would require and enforce radio stations carrying conservative talk show hosts to give equal time to dissenting liberal commentators. In essence, the left-wing Democrats and President Barack Obama are relying on the Fairness Doctrine to be a great hindrance to conservative talk radio, and work towards driving conservative talk radio off the air.

Conservatives are in the minority in the media, and many in Brown’s Democratic Party would like to see the conservative talk show hosts taken off the air via the Fairness Doctrine. Brown stated the current situation of having talk radio dominated by conservatives allows for “one-sided presentations.” Hmm, I wonder who would benefit from that, with no voice to bring the left to task? … taking away our freedom of speech to silence any dissenting voices from the socialist doctrine. I’m sure the left wouldn’t be one-sided!

Former President Bill Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Sen. Debby Stabenow have all called for the re-establishment of the doctrine. All three want conservative voices constrained in the media. This would allow them a one-sided party propaganda machine … even though they have close to that currently.

Brown said, “I think we need a robust range of opinions on the air.” He added that “a little state control wouldn’t hurt anybody” and said that anyone who would warn against the doctrine was “paranoid.”

Really? I wouldn’t say those against the Fairness Doctrine are “paranoid,” I would say they are “realists” about exactly how this anti-free speech doctrine will affect the freedom of our country with a one-sided voice from the left. What Brown meant was a fixed playing field so the outcome of the game would be in favor of the left.

The big picture of this Fairness Doctrine is aimed at silencing conservative voices … taking away freedom of speech.

Check out the Science and Public Policy Institute website.

Most Recent Articles

• Sea Level Rise The scare: An article published in early February 2009 by Jonathan Leake, the environment editor of The Times of London, said “The ice caps are melting so fast that the world’s oceans are rising more than twice as fast as they were in the 1970s.”
• A Storm of Errors A scientific and socio-economic analysis of multiple errors of science, fact, and data in the “science” chapter of the final report of the Arkansas Governor’s Commission on “global warming”
• Green-collar jobs – or con jobs? Environmental-union-politico alliances use their clout to promote new energy, economic vision. Will it create jobs, without impacting existing jobs, living standards and economic opportunities? The quest to be “green” has spawned countless proposals, programs, laws and advertising campaigns. In Washington, DC a “Green Jobs Advisory Council” is promoting policies for green buildings, energy efficiency, renewable energy, city infrastructure, and lower carbon emissions.
• Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Effect on Greehouse Gases in the State of Ohio
• Carbon Credits: Another Corrupt Currency? The real hockey-stick graph

Popular Articles

• 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie
• Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
• Fallacies about Global Warming
• Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
• “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over

University of Cincinnati Hosts Week of “Sexploration”

The University of Cincinnati is preparing to host a weeklong event promoting pornography.

“UC Sexploration” week is sponsored by Pure Romance and the University of Cincinnati Wellness Center.  Yes, “Wellness Center” as if this is going to support wellness in some asinine manner!  The university itself is propagating and supporting this event.

The event featured lectures by so-called sex experts, free sex kit giveaways, and a “Pizza and Porn” night.  Isn’t that what every college needs a “Pizza and Porn” night?!  I wonder how many women will be raped that week?  Does that sound like the place you would like your daughters to be?

The Wellness Center’s program director, Reagan Johnson, said this, “We’re using this to showcase that porn is not necessarily a bad thing.”  WHAT?  Who is paying this guy?  Oh, your children’s tuition!  It makes me question if the porn industry (that has proven to be so good for families!) is making a donation to the University of Cincinnati.

The message of pornography is that women exist for the sexual gratification of men.  I thought this was the message institutions of “higher learning” were suppose to be squashing and actually educating against?  This message from the University of Cincinnati is the wrong message to be sending to college students today.

The university spokesman says concerned students and parents need to make their concerns known to the University of Cincinnati.  He points to a recent study that shows 75% of UC students have had one or more sexual partners in the past year.  So, that makes it healthy to increase that number with a weeklong orgy?

This is one university that is proving there is no intelligence on their campus, so if you want an education that will teach your intellect instead of your physical gratification, this is not the one to attend.

If anything, any place of higher learning ought to be discouraging that kind of activity instead of encouraging it with these kinds of seminars and activities.

By the way, the final event of the “Sexploration” week was called “sexcapades.”  Participants were invited to test their “sex smarts” in a series of physical and mental challenges and win “great prizes.”  Some, undoubtedly, will come away with sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancies, abuse, and yes, even raped!

I wonder what idiotic thing they will try next year?

I not only read what Star writes and listen to what she says but see her as a leader, who wants so much more for America and black Americans than they seem to want for themselves.  Freedom doesn’t come from socialism … it is really a voluntary step into slavery.  Star sees the big picture from her past, our present, and your future.  You would do well to listen to her.  That’s why you see her latest article here.

Back On Uncle Sam’s Plantation
Star Parker – Syndicated Columnist – 2/9/2009 8:00:00 AM

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam’s Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas — a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

“This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending – it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education.”

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 – The War on Poverty – which President Johnson said “… does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

President Obama’s hopes for a spirit of bipartisanship, if it was there for the right reasons, sank the moment Republican leaders got their hands on the bill’s fine print. A bill that was pre-created by a select handful of liberal socialist Democrats with no input from Republicans or moderate Democrats. A bill that is so full of pork and paybacks it is astonishing. A bill with very little real stimulus but massive spending. A bill that will change America forever and for the worst. A bill that the American people will be forced to accept. A bill that will pass.

Even though the American people seem to be catching a new wave of skepticism about this liberal plan it will be too late. According to the latest Rasmussen poll 63% of voters are now not in support of the President’s plan. A plan that reeks of government control and social engineering. A plan that will burden multiple generations in many ways. A plan that was devoid of real change. A plan that has changed a projected hope to hype!

As the shady elements of the stimulus are unveiled more people are understanding what’s at stake. Even the New York Times confirmed an article that the “Stimulus Offers Road to Retooling Social Policy” with “little notice and no public hearings.” This bill did not come from the usual process with normal public hearings. All normal processes were fast-tracked.

Any later “compromises” in the bill have not been comprehensive but token in nature. After all, the Democrats continue to remind everyone that they won the election, and they will pass the bill and authorize Obama’s social agenda. The Democrats really only sought Republican assistance so when the bill fails to stimulate they can have someone else to share the blame. I applaud most of the Republicans for thus far showing real backbone against this unprecedented government expansion.

The audacity of hope was railroaded by the audacity of hype!

The Mexico City policy was first implemented via a memorandum by President Reagan in 1984 at a United Nations population conference in Mexico City, thus the name Mexico City policy. Prior to President Reagan’s actions American policy on paper was to never promote abortion overseas, however in practice US tax dollars directly supported organizations which advocated and performed abortion. It remained in effect until 1993 when President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City policy on January 22, 1993 for the entirety of his tenure in office. On January 22, 2001, President Bush issued a memorandum restoring the Mexico City policy.

In as little words as possible, the Mexico City policy halts U.S. family planning funds from going to foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform abortions or “actively promote” abortion as a method of family planning in other countries.

What does this mean? Under the Mexico City Policy for an NGO to be “actively promoting” abortions means they provide advice and information regarding the availability of abortion or encourage women to consider abortion; lobby a foreign government to legalize or make more available abortion; or conduct a public information campaign regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion.

That is what NGO’s can’t do. What they CAN still do under the Mexico City Policy is provide referrals for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term; and treat injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, i.e., post-abortion care. The argument that the Mexico City Policy is in actually a “global gag rule” is pure and utter nonsense – unless you actually believe that abortion, killing the child in the womb, is a form of family planning.

The effect of President Obama rescinding the Mexico City Policy is that now millions ($461 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008) of dollars are taken away from family planning groups that do not promote abortion, and delivered into the hands of organizations that are the most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method – especially in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds.

To those like Pelosi who refuse to learn from history, and think population control and controlling people is the answer, are not just socialists but are working out of Marxist thought of government. That government, among other things, sees themselves as smarter and superior than their people, and that they have the ability to take care of the people better than they can take care of themselves.

Population control, abortion, entitlement programs, industry takeovers, etc. are all part of this thinking.

The notion that a larger population will produce a lower standard of living can be traced to the 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus. But during Malthus’s own lifetime, his prediction was proved false, as he later acknowledged. Population and living standards rose simultaneously, and have continued to do so.

Ms. Pelosi’s remarks ignore the importance of human capital, which is the ultimate resource. Fewer babies would move the U.S. in the demographic direction of Europe and Asia. On the Continent, birth rates already are effectively zero, and economists are predicting labor shortages in the years ahead. In Japan, where the population is aging very fast, workers are now encouraged to go home early to procreate. Japan is projected to lose 21% of its population by 2050.

America needs to produce 2.1 children per couple to keep up with births to support the population — and that rate is not being maintained. Economies in Europe have been especially hurt by a drop in birth rates.

WSJ.com International

Set your edition

Log In / Register to set your edition

• WSJ.com is available in the following editions and languages:
• U.S.
• Asia
• India
• China
• Europe
• Americas en Español
• Americas em Português

The age and growth rate of a nation help determine its economic prosperity. A smaller workforce can result in less overall economic output. Without enough younger workers to replace retirees, health and pension costs can become debilitating. And when domestic markets shrink, so does capital investment. Taxpayer subsidies for contraception as economic stimulus are suicide.