sexfront.net

ISIS Beheading 4 Kurdish Peshmerga Soldiers

ISIS Beheading 4 Kurdish Peshmerga Soldiers

Home | Index of articles

---

The Slippery Slope to Pedophilia

If you had told someone in the 1950s that, in about two generations, homosexuality would largely be normalized and faux (same-sex) marriage would be gaining widespread approval, they’d have called you crazy. Never, ever under the stars and stripes. Why, pugnacious pundit Bill O’Reilly himself opined as recently as 10 to 15 years ago that faux marriage would never be accepted in America. Ah, what a difference a decade makes in the (mis?)information age, where ideas can be transmitted worldwide at a button’s touch.

I can’t tell you exactly when I knew faux marriage would gain traction — not in terms of date and time, anyway — but suffice it to say it was at least as soon as I heard the idea uttered by some obscure academic or activist on society’s fringes. As for homosexuality, there were some sagacious souls who realized decades ago that it would eventually be accepted. How? The same way a few of us knew in high school, almost instinctively, that our education paled in comparison to that of previous generations: trajectory. If you know an asteroid’s trajectory, you can predict not only where it was years ago, but where it will be in the future. And so it is with cultural trajectory.

Terrible Trajectory

Yet if I say that our current cultural trajectory — a bizarre trek that has caused us to boldly go where no American had gone before — has as a point on its arc the acceptance of pedophilia, I’m sure I’ll hear “never, ever under the stars and stripes!” This is a normal human reaction. But the past is a picture of futures man inevitably will paint again, and history hollers its warnings for those with ears to hear.

First consider a simple fact: There is virtually no historical precedent — if any at all — for faux marriage, yet we’re accepting it. But there is great historical precedent for pedophilia, that thing most would currently say we could never accept. And the obvious place to start here is with ancient Greece. The civilization is well-known for its acceptance of homosexuality, yet what actually was most common in this arena was pederasty, sexual relationships between men and boys. It is said that in the mid and late periods of ancient Sparta, the practice was institutionalized in the city-state’s military camps, with a 12-year-old boy being attached to a mature man who would become the child’s mentor and, apparently, molester. And homoerotic ancient Greek art and, more significantly, the casual way prominent Greeks spoke of pederasty attest to its widespread acceptance. As to the latter, historian Plutarch addresses Theban pederasty in Life of Pelopidas and explains that it was an educational device for boys that was designed to “soften, while they were young, their natural fierceness” and “temper the manners and characters of the youth.” The poet Solon gushed about pederasty in his poem “Boys and Sport,” and tradition tells us that the warrior group the Sacred Band of Thebes comprised pederastic man-youth pairings. In fact, the Greeks even had words describing the players in man-boy relationships: An erastes was an adult man who courted or was in a sexual relationship with a boy (this accounts for part of the derivation of “pederast”), who himself was known as an eromenos.

Yet it wasn’t just the “advanced” Greeks. History is littered with examples of primitive peoples that practiced institutionalized pedophilia; the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea does so to this day, and many military personnel will attest to how the abuse of “dancing boys” is widespread in Afghanistan. The reality? When it wasn’t actually prescribing it as a good that created a bond between brothers in arms or served some other end, pagan morality often had little negative to say about pedophilia (and Islamic cultures may tolerate it). Perhaps now we see why philosopher C.S. Lewis once said, “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And since that closet was made with Christian morality, and the faith is now ridiculed and attacked and its closet is being thrown wide open, isn’t it logical to suspect that anything and everything within it could, quite possibly, emerge? Yet how would we get from where we are now — perhaps point G — to a pederastic point X? Well, it’s instructive to explore how we got to G in the first place, and this brings us to the ABCs of social manipulation via the use of media, entertainment, academia, specious science, and philoso-babble.

A book was published in 1989 entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. In it, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen — a marketing man by trade who, take note, once used the pen name “Erastes Pill” — called for a desensitization of Americans to homosexuality through a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising,” a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” Of course, Kirk and Madsen weren’t puppeteers or prophets as much as good trajectory readers, as the movement they encouraged was well under way by the time they penned their book.

In 1977 already, we had the sitcom Soap with its openly homosexual character Jodie, played by comedian Billy Crystal. And while some would argue that the character was created to make the show cutting edge rather than to manipulate hearts (and, of course, both could have been motivations), it certainly made for ingenious propaganda. Take a funny and sympathetic character — and Crystal was most comedic — but make him a homosexual on an entertaining show that is the “thing to watch.” This is effective because whether it’s Soap, La Cage aux Folles, or another work, if you laugh at something enough, you’re no longer outraged by it. Also be sure to have that homosexual character say things such as “I’m a person, just like you,” which Jodie did (or a paraphrase of it), but, most significantly, just show him acting, and interacting with others, just as you would. For a big part of normalizing something is showing those who embody it acting normally.

The next step after normalization and tolerance is engendering sympathy and affection, and entertainment’s role in this is simple to understand. Just as people may condemn the sin but not the sinner, they also have trouble loving the sinner but not the sin. This is why a mother may accept even a son’s heinous crimes and why people will justify the scandalous behavior of a favorite politician or sports figure. Likewise, when people come to like a show — and, more specifically, a character on it — they generally start to accept what that character represents. And just think how successful this entertainment campaign has been. Homosexual characters are now a staple of TV and film and, as in the movie Sling Blade, are sometimes the work’s only compassionate voice of reason.

Enter Entertainment

But then there are the agencies working in concert with entertainment. There is specious science reported — and often twisted — by special-interest media and academia; thus do we hear about things such as the “gay gene,” which not only doesn’t concern the heritability of happiness but also has never been found. Nonetheless, it is used to give weight to the argument that homosexuality is inborn and, well, haven’t you heard, “God doesn’t make mistakes”? The media and academia are also careful to frame the homosexual agenda as a matter of “rights,” “equality,” and “minority” victimhood while avoiding talk of “morality” (they will, however, apply their feelings-derived preferences and call opponents “haters,” “bigots,” and “intolerant”). This is easy to do, too, since they’ve discredited moral reality with the philoso-babble of moral relativism and its refrains, “Who is to judge?” and “All values are equal.” Of course, this credo could be used to justify killing homosexuals as easily as accepting them, but this realization involves understanding an intellectual argument, and manipulating emotion is the name of the game here. And as long as entertainment — an arena so powerful that Plato warned how even just music had the capacity to reshape civilization — pushes people’s emotions in the desired direction, the field will be yours.

But will a day really come that marks the first time entertainment is placed in pedophilia’s service? And when would this be? I can predict this with some precision: in about 20 years ago.

There has long been the “Pedobear” Internet meme, a little comedic cartoon character Web users often associate with news stories about pedophilia. And remember what happens when people start to laugh at something? Then there was the “Chester the Molester” cartoon character in Hustler magazine (the creator of which, Dwaine Tinsley, was once convicted of molesting his 13-year-old daughter). Far more significant than a porno-mag offering, however, was a film made in 1993 called For a Lost Soldier. Based on a true story, the movie somewhat vividly portrays a WWII-era sexual relationship between a Canadian soldier and a 13-year-old European boy. What I’d like to focus on here, however, is a New York Times review of the film written by someone named Stephen Holden. Entitled “Treating a Delicate Story of a Soldier and a Boy Tenderly,” you’d think the paper was reviewing Romeo and Juliet. Holden writes that the story “takes up … a romantic relationship between a grown-up and a child, and invests it with an aching tenderness”; that it is “more than a love story”; that “Walt [the molester] seems almost as innocent as Jeroen [the child]”; and describes the “affection” between the two as “touching.” Moreover, the Times not only takes no issue with the film’s non-judgmental treatment of pederasty, it writes, “One of the strengths of the film is its refusal to load the story with contemporary psychological and social baggage. There is no mention of homosexuality. Nor is there any implied accusation of child abuse.... The film assigns no blame and assesses no damages.” In fact, the paper says the movie’s only failure “is in finding a coherent dramatic frame for the story.” And then there is the kicker: The review describes the “affection” between Walt and Jeroen as “the love that dare not speak its name.” My, where have we heard that one before? And what is the implication here? Should a man-boy sexual relationship be able to speak its name? NAMBLA certainly thinks so.

A more recent film in the same vein is L.I.E. (2001). It portrays pederast Big John, an ex-marine with a penchant for young male prostitutes but who also, you see, has a human side. As Ed Gonzalez wrote at SlantMagazine.com, the film “suggests that a pederast could actually have something useful [to] contribute to society.” And as A.O. Scott of the New York Times put it, compared “with Howie’s [the 15-year-old main character’s] well-meaning but clueless guidance counselor, Big John seems like a benign, common-sensical uncle.”

Of course, neither Big John nor For a Lost Soldier’s Walt is portrayed as particularly sympathetic. But they’re not portrayed as particularly villainous, either. And this non-judgmentalism is in fact a judgment, in that it serves to place, via embodiment representation, morally evil behavior in the morally neutral category. Except for their habit of indulging the ancient Greeks’ “unspeakable vice,” Walt and John are presented as acting, and interacting with others, normally — and often even charitably. After all, they are “people just like you,” right?

That is how it starts.

With entertainment having already broken the ice in whitewashing pedophiles, can the first claims that their desires are just another inborn orientation be far behind?

Scientific Stamp

Actually, they’re already behind us.

On January 14 of this year, the Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, “Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia: Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.” (Emphasis in original.) The piece starts out with a story about one Paul Christiano, who, as a young child, was fascinated by girls and loved “how their spindly bodies tumbled in gymnastics,” wrote the paper. We’re then told that while Christiano grew up, his sexual tastes didn’t: He remained tormented by an attraction to pre-pubescent girls. Christiano is the “sympathetic character,” mind you, the hapless soul meant to put a human face on pedophilia. But now consider what he said about unsuccessful court-ordered therapy he was forced to undergo after being caught with child pornography in 1999. As the Times reported, “‘These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed,’ he said. ‘But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.’”

“As intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality… ” Where have we heard that before? And the paper then does something else that should sound familiar. It gives Christiano’s claim the imprimatur of science, writing:

In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion.

Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change....

Scientists at the Toronto center [Center for Mental Health and Addiction in Toronto] have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.

The paper then tells us that pedophiles are generally an inch shorter than normal people, have I.Q.s 10 points lower on average and less white matter in their brains, and that the first two of these factors are “consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.” They sure are — and their interpretation is consistent with a cultural problem. The operative phrase here is “whether before birth or in childhood” because, if the latter, it indicates a nurture-oriented cause of pedophilia, not a nature-oriented one (as to nurture’s significance, research has indicated that environment can influence even, amazingly, gene expression). Yet the Times article glosses over the nurture possibility — it doesn’t match the agenda the paper is trying to advance.

There is another fact the Times has to massage. Continuing with the inborn theme, it tells us, “Among the most compelling findings is that 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, triple the general rate. Because hand dominance is established through some combination of genetics and the environment of the womb, scientists see that association as a powerful indicator that something is different about pedophiles at birth. ‘The only explanation is a physiological one,’ said James Cantor, a leader of the [Toronto] research.” Yet the Times had written earlier in its piece that researchers have basically dispensed with the “popular belief” that childhood sexual abuse is a significant factor in pedophilia because “only about a third of offenders say they were molested” as children. So let’s get this straight: When 30 percent of pedophiles share some sort of inborn characteristic, it’s compelling evidence for the nature thesis. But when (only?) 33 percent share a traumatic life experience, it’s compelling evidence discrediting the nurture one? This clearly is the spinning of data to fit an agenda.

And who are the “experts” cited in the Times article? Many of them, it seems, crawled out of the woodwork to attend a 2011 symposium in Baltimore, Maryland — an event whose focus was the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships. WND.com reported at the time that it was “held by the ‘minor-attracted people’ advocacy group B4U-ACT to disseminate ‘accurate information’ on the position that pedophilia is just one more alternative sexual orientation.” As such, the conference speakers contended, the American Psychiatric Association should no longer list pedophilia as a psychological condition in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Drawing an important parallel, Dr. Judith Reisman, a longtime crusader against child sexual abuse who attended the symposium, “explained that the same strategy was used by homosexual activists in the 1970s when same-sex attractions were removed from the APA’s list of disorders. Eventually, the legalization of ‘gay marriage,’ the mandatory homosexuality lessons in public schools and the brand new policy of allowing open homosexuality in the U.S. military resulted,” writes WND. Reporting further on the positions taken at the conference, WND wrote:

Dr. John Sadler (University of Texas) argued that diagnostic criteria for mental disorders should not be based on concepts of vice since such concepts are subject to shifting social attitudes and doing so diverts mental-health professions from their role as healers....

Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins … argued in favor of “acceptance of and compassion for people who are attracted to minors....”

… Richard Kramer, who represented B4U-ACT at the event, contended listing pedophilia as a disorder stigmatizes the “victims” of the lifestyle choice.

… Conference speakers said the Diagnostic Manual should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile and should have “a minimal focus on social control” rather than a focus on the “need to protect children.”

… Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said it is proper for children to be “the object of our attraction.” Breslow said pedophiles shouldn’t need to get consent from a child to have sex any more than they would get consent from a shoe to wear it.

… Andrew Hinderliter of the University of Illinois said the boundary between the helping professions and the criminal justice system can be blurred.

Note that B4U-ACT takes pains to rebrand pedophiles as “minor-attracted people” in the same way activists once strove to ensure the euphemism “gay” would supplant “homosexual.”

Liberty Counsel Action vice president J. Matt Barber, who also attended the conference, summed up its themes thus (quotations are Barber’s, as reported by WND): Adult lust for children is “normative,” people indulging it are unfairly “demonized,” children are capable of consenting to sex, “wrong” as a concept isn’t applicable to “minor-attracted people,” and the DSM “ignores that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ the same way adult heterosexuals have for each other.”

Logically Defending Illicit Lust

Just as significantly, these are far from the only times such views have been expressed. In a 2002 article entitled “Raising Sexually Healthy Youth: Rights. Respect. Responsibility & Parent-Child Communication,” the group Advocates for Youth stressed that children are “sexual from birth.” Ann-Katrin Müller in Der Spiegel reported that German homosexual “rights” organizations and even a sizable number of Green Party politicians have a long history of supporting pro-pedophilia causes. Author Judith Levine penned a 2003 book in which she “suggests the threat of pedophilia and molestation by strangers is exaggerated by adults who want to deny young people the opportunity for positive sexual experiences,” wrote Fox News. Anti-fracking activist Vera Scroggins has advocated that parents initiate young children into sex, writing, “Who better to do it, than the parents first?” And, of course, there is bug researcher turned self-proclaimed sex expert Alfred Kinsey, who we now know was a pedophile using science as a cover for the indulging of his perversion. As I reported in “According to Kinsey, Deviancy Is the New Normal,” in The New American, all the aforementioned ideas — that children are sexual from birth, that relations with adults don’t harm them, etc. — can be traced back to him and his associates. And these ideas are lent credibility even though it has been established that Kinsey was a scientific fraud who misrepresented data for the purposes of legitimizing perversion.

And when you combine this special-interest “science” with specious reasoning, you have a very dangerous one-two punch of prevarication. For example, consider again the Los Angeles Times article. It does contain a grain of truth. That is to say, people generally don’t ask for the feelings they have, and, as C.S. Lewis noted ages ago, sexual problems can be quite intractable. Yet it’s silly — and often just agenda-greasing spin — to confuse intractability with innateness. We all know that influences and events during formative years can have far-reaching consequences and can almost imprint behavior (that is why they’re called formative years); raise a boy in an abusive and criminal ghetto home, for instance, and he may exhibit change-resistant negative behavior patterns the rest of his days. This also places in perspective a claim made by many a homosexual: “I’ve had these feelings for my whole life.” This is either sloppy thinking or a rationalization. Since most everyone has recollections reaching back to only three, four or even five years of age, all virtually anyone can say with assurance is, “I’ve had these feelings for as long as I can remember.” And those lost-in-memory first few years of life are the most significant of all.

Without Morals, Everything Is Normal

The folly of the intractability-equals-innateness thesis is further illustrated by applying it consistently. For example, it’s applied to homosexuality and “gender dysphoria” (feeling you’re a member of one sex stuck in the body of the other), but what about “Body Integrity Identity Disorder” (BIID), which involves persistent and seemingly irremediable feelings that a body part doesn’t belong on your body? Would it justify amputation? Actually, two BIID “patients” found a Scottish doctor willing to do just that and had two healthy legs removed, a testimonial to what can happen when we elevate feelings to ultimate-arbiter status. When beset by anomalous, self-destructive, or perverse impulses, the default assumption should be that the issue is a psychological problem, not a physical or genetically induced one.

But this counsel is now viewed as heresy because the “experts” have transitioned back to the nature side in the nature/nurture debate (at least when political correctness allows it: They certainly won’t attribute different achievement among the races to genetics — yet). It was in fashion during the early 1900s as well, then in the form of the eugenics movement, until the association with Nazi horrors discredited it. We then saw nurture dogma’s ascendancy and heard pap such as, “The sexes will be the same if we raise them identically,” as these pendulum-and-pabulum practitioners swung from one extreme to the other and proved that G.K. Chesterton was right when he called common sense “that forgotten branch of psychology.” But of more concern right now is what is quickly becoming a forgotten branch of philosophy: morality.

While the nature-oriented eugenics movement sought to eliminate what it deemed defects, our nature-oriented movement often holds that if something is natural, it cannot be a defect. This is the “God doesn’t make mistakes” argument, the implication being that if something is inborn, it cannot be wrong. And the greatest danger here isn’t that this is used to justify homosexuality — or even that it could be used to justify pedophilia — but that it could literally justify anything branded “innate.”

First note that whether we believe our world is naturally flawed or demonically fallen, it’s plain we aren’t born perfect. Spina bifida, cleft palates, and Down syndrome attest to this in the physical realm, and the only reason there hasn’t been a powerful movement to normalize such things is that people generally don’t find being deformed or mentally compromised a turn-on. But few things feel better than satisfying sexual desire, and you can’t easily satisfy what is stigmatized — ergo the innateness-equals-legitimacy argument. Consider, however, that the same social scientists claiming that homosexuality, and now pedophilia, is inborn, also tell us sociopaths are born and not made. Now, question: If in addition it’s determined that homicidal feelings are innate, would it be moral for a person of such nature to kill?

The lesson here?

Genetics doesn’t determine morality.

Whether or not feelings are disordered — and whether their corresponding behaviors are moral — has nothing at all to do with whether those feelings were bred not by despotic abuse but the dark workings of DNA. Saying otherwise is to discard morality and replace it with biological determinism. And no idea is more destructive to civilization. No idea should be more quickly rejected by civilized men.

Unfortunately, civilized men are in increasingly short supply, especially among the Left, which seems remarkably untroubled by pedophilia. How can I say this? Well, just observe leftists’ telling contradictions — and what they refuse to tell. If pedophilia were anything but a convenient hammer they use when reporting incessantly on hated targets such as the Catholic Church, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times would not have run articles legitimizing it. The 61 biggest California newspapers would not have published nearly 2,000 articles on the church scandal during the first half of 2002 but, during the same period, only four on the public-school sex scandal, which a government-sponsored Hofstra University study found is 100 times the magnitude of the church scandal and is still ongoing. And the Left would hold pedophile Alfred Kinsey in contempt and reject his fraudulent work; instead, they generally defend him to this day. Hollywood even gave us the film Kinsey (2004), which heroicized the deviant as a maverick pushing back the frontiers of a “repressed” society’s ignorance.

Most significant, however, is the philosophical corruption. Whenever the Left seeks to justify homosexuality or anything else, it invariably peddles moral relativism, the notion that right and wrong are determined by man and therefore change based on time and place. But what this really implies is that right and wrong, morality, don’t exist; only human preference does. Thus, when leftists say “You can’t judge this or that because everything is a matter of perspective,” “this or that” truly fits because you can just fill in the blank. Relativism is a package deal with the Devil: Once accepting that moral boundaries are illusory, the sky — or, I should say, Hades — is the limit. All we are then left with is occultist Aleister Crowley’s formulation, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

So how will the Left further legitimize pedophilia? As the ancient Greeks proved, relativism isn’t even necessary. The idea that sexuality has a specific and limited conjugal context is a Judeo-Christian one. And post-Christian America is gradually accepting the notion that consensual sex, whatever the stripe, hurts no one. It’s just pleasure like eating ice cream, you see, except that sexual exploration is far more important. And children have a right to it, to sexual self-determination, to not be placed in a stifling straitjacket woven of outdated Puritan morality. Why, Barack Obama himself has said that having sex education in kindergarten is the “right thing to do.”

The past is a picture of futures man inevitably will paint again, and ancient Greece, and perhaps beyond, is where our cultural trajectory takes us. But there is good news — that is also bad news. Cultural trajectories can change via the explosion of civilizational realignment, and, to paraphrase economist Herbert Stein, “If something can’t go on, it won’t.” Until then, however, the planet of man will continue hurtling away from morality and sanity at light speed, on its journey toward that black hole of civilizations past.

---

Got the balls? Men are super-sizing their testicles with this bizarre new procedure

Daily Star

Most lads worry about the look and feel of their penis, which can make them less confident in the sack. But now men are shifting attention away from their schlongs and towards their scrotums.

A certain testicle-boosting injection is the latest cosmetic surgery fad that lads are flocking to have – and forking over £2,800 in the process.

The procedure involves squirting botox into the scrotum – leading the trend to be dubbed “scrotox” and “balltox” – in a bid to get a lower hanging and more relaxed-looking ballsack.

Scrotox doesn’t just decrease sweating and reduce the wrinkled appearance of lads’ testicles, it also boosts their size.

It seems men are paying more and more attention to their looks and the number of guys going under the knife in the quest for beauty has doubled in the last decade.

But scrotox isn’t the only bizarre cosmetic operation to hit the market, with men also seeking to increase their girth down below by injecting their own fat into their schlongs.

The procedure takes around 45 minutes and will set you back £4,500 but you have abstain from sex for six weeks to let the penis heal.

As for the results of the manhood makeover, don’t expect to stretch more than one inch wider than you were before.

Speaking exclusively to Dailystar.co.uk, certified plastic surgeon Dr David Alessi explained the long-term effects of the procedure are often less than desirable.

“Unfortunately, upwards of 90% of men are dissatisfied with the results,” he said.

The medic, who founded the Alessi Institutes and Face Forward, a charity offering free procedures for victims of domestic abuse, warned that lads’ obsession with penis size could be a symptom of a serious psychological problem.

He said: “Most men who think they have a small penis actually don’t.

"Studies vary, but research suggests that the average erect penis ranges from under five inches to just under six inches.

“Most men who think their penis is too small have penis dysmorphic syndrome and would be better off seeing a shrink and not a surgeon.”

---

Europe is doomed. Once terrorists have understood that arson everywhere is a cost that even Europe cannot shoulder, the European era will end. Time to dispose of Euro bonds.

---

Albanian court finds British paedophile guilty of sexual abuse

David Brown has been sentenced to 20 years in jail for abusing children in the orphanage he opened in Tirana seven years ago

The Guardian

A British paedophile who ran a Christian missionary orphanage for abandoned street children in Albania has been sentenced to 20 years in jail after being found guilty of sexually abusing children.

David Brown, 57, a charity worker from Edinburgh, opened the orphanage seven years ago, claiming to be receiving instructions from God. He was found guilty in Tirana's district court today of "sexual relations with minors".

When the Guardian recently interviewed him in prison, Brown denied ever abusing the boys at the "His Children" orphanage, a ramshackle and overcrowded home for Gypsy children in Tirana, Albania's capital.

"I came to Albania because I wanted to help the Albanian children," he said. "Everything that I set out to do has been violated. I was these children's father."

During his trial Brown accused two other British helpers at the home of committing the abuse. Dino Christodoulou, 45, a social therapy nurse from Blackburn in Lancashire, and Robin Arnold, 56, a salesman from Cromer in Norfolk were extradited to Albania in May and are being tried separately for their alleged role in the abuse.

Brown was arrested in May 2006, following a raid on the orphanage. Sentencing him to the maximum sentence in a high security jail in Albania, the judge said he hoped the punishment would serve as a warning to other paedophiles. He ordered Brown to be expelled from Albania when he is released from prison, in 2028.

Before travelling to Albania, Brown provided bible lessons and camping holidays to boys in Scotland over two decades.

---


It is the secret dream of every Swedish or German woman to marry a black men, or at least have sex with a black man. Every smart young African man should migrate to Europe. Free money, nice house, good sex!

---

I Can Orgasm Without My Genitals Being Touched — Am I A Freak?

Hey Refinery29,

The other night, something embarrassing happened. I jizzed my pants. Well, the female equivalent of it. There's this guy named Sean who I've had sexual tension with for years. Like, you could cut it with a knife. Up until recently, we've just been good friends with an unspoken desire to fuck each other's brains out. Simply sitting next to him in public gets me wet. Anyway, the other night he finally came home with me. We were making out on my couch, and I was sitting on his lap. I came. I mean, I came before we even really got to foreplay, let alone sex. His hands weren't even on my clit. This has happened to me once or twice before in my life. I'll be in a sexual situation and be so turned on that I'll have an orgasm before anything even happens below the belt. Usually, I just try to pretend like it didn't happen and continue hooking up (like I did recently with Sean), because coming this quickly seems a little embarrassing.

I realize that may sound like every woman's dream, and is a shitty thing to complain about when a lot of women can't have an orgasm at all, but I have to ask: Is this normal or am I a freak?

Sincerely,

Captain Comes In Her Pants

Dear Captain Comes In Her Pants,

If you're a freak, I'm a freak. Not too long ago, something similar happened to me. I was at a play (sex) party, so I had been around public sex for literally hours — which means I was very horny. As the party was winding down, I hooked up with a woman I met earlier in the night. We first began chatting about art and hit it off right away. But since I felt like a socially awkward teenager in her presence, I hid from her for a lot of the party. I was so attracted to her, it was as if I made her up in my head. I thought our sexual tension would cause the place to explode should we act on it.

I remember thinking, "I can't talk to this person, because I'm going to jizz myself the second she touches me." I was right. She grabbed my hand and led me to a bed. We made out for a long time, but never took off our underwear — and I came from dry humping alone. She wasn't even rubbing my clit! We were just making out and gyrating, and all of a sudden I felt an orgasm coming and thought, "Oh shit." I came and (like you) was a little embarrassed.

Granted, dry humping does involve some genital stimulation, so it's not a perfect parallel to your story. But I usually need intense direct clitoral stimulation with a hand or vibrator to get off. So, after I came, I told my new friend, "Oh my god, I came already. You must be magic." And honestly, she just seemed super flattered, and we continued hooking up.

While I understand your mortification, there's no reason to feel embarrassed. Many straight men, in particular, are obsessed with wanting to get women off, since it makes them feel like they're good in bed. And being good in bed can be an incredible ego boost (for anyone, not just straight men). Should this happen again with Sean, I think it's a great idea to tell him that he made you come so quickly — he'll be flattered. And since people with vaginas are capable of multiple orgasms, after you tell him and continue hooking up, you could even come again.

To make sure that we're not just both freaks, I asked a doctor if it's normal to come without direct genital stimulation. She has good news: We're normal! "There have been studies that show orgasm can be reached without necessarily directly stimulating the genitals," says Jessica Shepherd, MD, an Ob/Gyn at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "This is much more common in women and not often seen in men." The reason humans have this mystical ability is because the brain is the most powerful sex organ, Dr. Shepherd says. That's why you could come just by making out and sitting on Sean's lap after what sounds like literally years of fantasizing about him. It's also why I was able to have an orgasm while making out and gyrating with the woman of my dreams, even though I usually need much more than that to get off. Our brains were so aroused that our genitals climaxed like the chorus in a Katy Perry song.

And you're right: Some women have anorgasmia and can't reach orgasm at all. So I'd say you should consider your unexpected orgasms divine blessings, not sources for embarrassment. Also, it's worth mentioning that some women can come simply from nipple stimulation, so if your partner was fondling your breasts or nipples, that may have also contributed to your serendipitous orgasm.

So no, you're not a freak. Well, you might be, but that's a good thing.

Love,

Sophie

---

The Serge Kreutz diet is the ultimate sex diet via the day-long stimulation of taste buds with chocolate.

---

Unveiling the Middle East’s sex industry

Salon

If asked to identify a country with a thriving sex industry, ubiquitous exposure to pornography and rampant homosexual sex, most would point somewhere in the Western world. But what about Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia? These would be equally accurate answers, according to John R. Bradley, author of “Behind the Veil of Vice: The Business and Culture of Sex in the Middle East.”

Bradley, a journalist with an expertise in the Arab world, crushes the popular perception of the Middle East as erotically stifled, and the West as the land of sexual expression and freedom. The more nuanced truth, he says, is that these seemingly oppositional cultures have far more in common than we often admit: Both “live under rulers who, under different pretexts and with varying degrees of severity, seek to curb the unruly sex urge as a way of maintaining social control.” There is also a shared “gap between propaganda and reality” and “a vast gulf between public and private morality,” he argues. This fascinating and comprehensive book guides readers through the seedy underbelly of the Middle East — from prostitution in Bahrain to temporary marriages in Iran — but it is just as much a reflection on Western sexual mores.

I recently spoke with Bradley about child brides, temporary marriage and Islamic feminist perspectives on the sex industry.

You frame your book as a look at the cultural sexual similarities between Arabs and Westerners. Can you explain that?

The supposed licentiousness of the West is forever being contrasted, to my mind, in wholly spurious ways, with a sexually barren Middle East. “Behind the Veil of Vice” undermines stereotypes about Arab sexualities that have become entrenched in the English-speaking world, partly by reminding readers that we still have plenty of sexual hang-ups in the West, too. In particular, it debunks the notion, promoted by the likes of Martin Amis, that terrorism carried out by Islamists can be explained away with reference to the repressed, envious Arab male who can only find release by flying airliners into phallic-shaped skyscrapers.

I’ve been based in the region for a decade, and the sexuality in the Middle East I know is every bit as capricious as its Western counterpart, as unruly and multifarious, and occasionally as becalmed. By exploring the diverse sex cultures in countries like Morocco, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen and Iran, I try to show that, as in the West, illicit sex continues to thrive in the Middle East, often in the open and despite the increasingly shrill public discourse.

What kind of pornography do you find in Arab countries?

Watching pornography is no longer a big deal for young Arabs, any more than it is for young Americans. It has become a normal part of growing up. Just about anyone in the Middle East with a satellite dish has access to hardcore pornography channels, and just about everyone has a satellite dish. In that sense it’s probably more accessible than in the West. Technically, these porn channels are banned, but even in Saudi Arabia you find guys selling “special” cards for your satellite decoder in the back alleys around the major shopping districts.

Even in countries with governments infamous for blocking political content on the Web, the porn sites are still mostly accessible, and the more secular regimes tend not to view sex as a threat in the way Islamist regimes do. The people who tend to obsess, of course, are the minority Islamists, because for them the personal is always political. Did anyone ever think so much about sex as those who want to ban it? But they are fighting a losing battle when it comes to the proliferation of smut in the Middle East, much as evangelicals are in America.

What impact did the Iraq war have on the sex industry?

The book opens with an evening I spent with a young woman whose family had fled Iraq and who had turned to working as an escort in a Damascus nightclub after her family had run out of money. There are definitely many more Iraqi women like her working as prostitutes or escorts in Syria than there were before the Iraq war. The local women in Damascus working as prostitutes were forever complaining in my conversations with them about how these Iraqis were bad for business, because they charged less than the going rate.

This increase in numbers of Iraqi women working as prostitutes in Syria should come as little surprise. A million refugees, many of them impoverished, flooded into the country from Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are to blame for this situation. We bombed Iraq back into the Stone Age on the back of a pack of lies, have done nothing to bring to justice these war criminals who lead us, and at the same time feign concern and feel all superior when reading about the plight of Iraqi women working as prostitutes in Damascus.

What did you find with regards to sex trafficking in the Middle East?

The issue has unhelpfully come to frame the debate about prostitution in the Middle East, as it has in the West, in the sense that if you advocate legalization and regulation you are accused of being by default in league with the human traffickers. I found no evidence that human trafficking is widespread in the Middle East, and the statistics routinely quoted are almost always unsourced and often wildly contradictory.

---

Why is sex so important? Because love is anyway just an illusion.

---

UAE has strict rules against prostitution

Khaleej Times

Reacting to media reports about a Russian hooker in Dubai earning thousands of dollars working as a prostitute, the Dubai Police have confirmed that prostitution and adultery are illegal and punishable crimes, and that sex workers will be brought to justice and deported if caught by police.

Must read: Man, woman on trial in UAE for trafficking, running brothel

The Sun newspaper reported, recently, that the woman makes about Dh500,000 a year. According to the newspaper, the woman who has been working in prostitution for the last eight years, deals with about five customers per day. However, it is not clear if she has spent all the eight years in the UAE.

Shocking: Asian man sells Dubai maid into prostitution for Dh4,000

The Sun reported that the 25-year-old Russian recently featured in a high court case where she was said to have been paid by an investment banking company to befriend a Libyan contact. She is said to have taken the client to a hotel in Dubai.

Unbelievable:Two Sharjah men force wives into prostitution for expenses

According to The Sun, the woman used to advertise as: "I have sexy shapes and great appetite for naughty games."

Commenting on the report, a police official said that the Dubai Police will not turn a blind-eye to such behaviour and that there are strict laws banning women from even wearing indecent cloths or committing any kind of immoral activities.

Crime: 3 men steal money from prostitute, court hears

He clarified that such odd incidents happen in every country and that such activities are against the UAE's tradition and culture.

He added that the Dubai Police conduct raids on a daily basis and arrest all those involved in prostitution. They are then brought to justice and deported.

The police also blocks websites with indecent photographs of women and interact with such kind of women in order to trap them after getting necessary permission from legal authorities.

The official called up on the public to inform the police if they came across any such advertisements or illegal activities.

---

---

Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria

Warnings by the United States and other countries threatening the Syrian regime with dire consequences if chemical weapons are used against rebel forces may have had the intended effect. Recent media reports suggest this concern has now diminished. It is just as plausible, however, that the regime had little intention of using its chemical weapons but fabricated the preparations that prompted the warnings to deter outside intervention in Syria’s civil war.

Either way, it is wrong to assume the danger of chemical weapons use in Syria is receding. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe it could grow in the coming weeks and months.

Syria, which is not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, is widely believed to possess sizeable stocks of different kinds of chemical weapons (CRS)--principally nerve (Sarin, VX) and blister (mustard gas) agents--that have been weaponized into bombs, artillery shells, and possibly warheads for delivery by missiles. How quickly this arsenal could be employed today is unclear from public reports, but it is prudent to believe that some, if not all of it, is operationally ready. Although the fighting to date has more than demonstrated the lethality of conventional weapons, the use of chemical agents would represent a significant escalation of the violence with potentially mass casualty consequences. It would also breach an international norm against the use of chemical weapons that is important to maintain.

Deliberate use of chemical weapons by government forces against either rebel groups or population centers considered sympathetic to their cause is certainly the scenario that has attracted the most concern. But it is just one of many conceivable scenarios to worry about.

For example, should rebel forces progressively gain the upper hand--as they seem to be doing--the regime or elements of the regime might retreat to predominantly Alawite areas of Syria to create a rump state. Chemical weapons could eventually be employed to deter further encroachment or defend these areas when they are assaulted. And if defeat looked inevitable, their use as a final act of defiance cannot be discounted.

Leaky Weapons

The United States and its international partners cannot assume, moreover, that they know of all the chemical weapons storage sites in Syria or that the movement of munitions from the known ones will be detected in a timely manner. Some may already have been secreted away by the regime as Muammar el-Qaddafi reportedly did after Libya had agreed to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons.

Maintaining tight command and control over units and personnel with access to chemical weapons will become increasingly difficult as the regime collapses.

Maintaining tight command and control over units and personnel with access to chemical weapons will also become increasingly difficult as the regime collapses. For those in the field, any ambiguity about who is in charge and in the chain of command heightens the prospect of unauthorized use. Whether there is some pre-delegated authority to use these weapons under certain circumstances is also something be concerned about.

Another set of worrisome contingencies involve the capture and potential use of chemical weapons stocks by rebel forces. It is not hard to imagine how, in the heat of battle, chemical weapons could be turned against government forces or used in retribution for past atrocities. Some might even see their use as a way to trigger outside intervention. Other wildcard possibilities involve terrorist groups like Hezbollah acquiring chemical weapons in various ways as the Syrian regime crumbles.

Preventing these various threats from materializing clearly represents a much harder challenge than issuing warnings to the Syrian government. A broader, more nuanced strategy is required.

Though not conceived with potential chemical weapons use in mind, the elements of such a strategy can be found in the final report of the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.S. secretary of defense William Cohen. Their report advocated targeting each of the principal groups in any given atrocity situation with a tailored set of preventive measures.

Preventive Steps

In the context of Syria, these target groups would be: those in a position to authorize the use of chemical weapons; those in physical control of them and able to execute orders; the potential victims of their use; and various third parties. The following measures should be considered by the principal international actors concerned by the potential use or loss of chemical weapons in Syria:

Warnings. In the event the Assad regime begins to unravel, U.S. officials as well as leading North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and the United Nations secretary-general can reiterate public warnings of the consequences of using chemical weapons and, moreover, bolster these with more explicit threats. These can also be complemented with private messaging to leading figures in the regime that underscores the general warnings with more specific threats of punitive action, including likely criminal indictment.

Securing loose weapons. Known representatives of rebel groups operating in Syria can be given instructions about securing, if not disabling, chemical weapons stocks that fall into their possession while also being warned of the consequences should their fighters use them. At the same time, consideration should be given to offering inducements, including financial rewards, to rebel forces for supporting this effort. Governments known to be backing other groups with weapons and financial assistance can also be tapped to transmit the same message. These governments could likewise be warned of potential penalties if their proxies use chemical weapons.

Information warfare. To the extent that government units guarding or capable of using chemical weapons can be identified, these too can be the target of a discrete information warfare campaign. This could include television and radio broadcasts, email messaging (as was apparently used by U.S. forces in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003), and leafleting known storage sites in a collective effort to dissuade military personnel from using chemical weapons. Again, the messaging can be a mixture of positive and negative inducements to elicit cooperation.

Military strikes. Military options to deny or preempt the use of chemical weapons by any actor can be readied for rapid execution on receipt of compelling early warning. These range from the use of air strikes (including drones) and special operations forces to cyberattacks. Rebel groups in the vicinity of an expected attack might conceivably be employed to interdict use. Each of these options has different operational implications in terms of speed of use, potential effectiveness, and placing U.S. service personnel in harm’s way.

Surviving an attack. Unless there is accurate forewarning of intentions and preparations to use chemical weapons, the options to help vulnerable populations either avoid or survive an attack are limited. Some basic survival information could conceivably be transmitted to rebel groups to disseminate among local communities. Warnings might also be broadcast through various channels to specific areas deemed at risk but the potential unintended consequence of this could be to instigate mass panic that makes the situation worse.

Third party interventions. In addition to rebel supporters, there are several critical third parties that can be used to reinforce messaging on chemical weapons by the United States and others. This includes those with long-standing contacts with the Syrian regime (Russia and Iran), and Hezbollah (Iran).Other neighboring countries can be supported to improve their border security against the possible transfer of chemical weapons. And finally, various UN bodies and regional organizations in the Middle East can be encouraged to stress concerns already expressed by the UN secretary-general.

Collectively, these efforts would not preclude the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but they would lessen the risk. Moreover, they should not be a substitute for additional measures in the event these preventive efforts fail. These include additional diplomatic initiatives and potential military measures to disrupt or deter further chemical weapons use in Syria, as well as humanitarian assistance to help affected areas and respond to the possibility of large-scale refugee flows.

---

Women, especially when they get older, shit and stink, and when they shit anyway, and they enslave men, and are ugly, and they fuck around when they have the opportunity. No such problems with sex dolls, and they don't shit. Let's invest in a future without women.

---

Deadly Fake ‘Pfizer blue’ in Kenyan Market Biggest Worry for Poisons Board

Kenyan authorities are grappling with the challenge of counterfeit lifestyle drugs circulating the in the market.

The counterfeits, which can be cheaply bought over the counter in chemists, pose a death threat or could lead to organ malfunction on consumers.

An official of the Pharmacy and Poisons Board on Wednesday said counterfeit lifestyle drugs enjoy the biggest circulation of counterfeits in Kenya.

The most notorious brands are those associated with sexual enhancement, namely Vega tablets and Enzoy Plus.

The board’s head of crime investigations and enforcement unit Dennis Otieno said they made their first seizure of counterfeit Vega tablets at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in 2015.

The tablets, valued at Sh4 million, had been packed in cartons to prevent detection.

“We arrested the suspects and took them to court where they faced charges of being in possession of falsified medicine,” he said.

In Mombasa, they seized 20 cartons of falsified Enzoy Plus at a Container Freight Station in Mombasa in 2015.

Both cargo originated from China.

“It is dangerous for people to consume falsified sildenafil because it can cause death,” Mr Otieno warned.

---

When African men in Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Morocco, or Egypt are confronted with the masturbation lifestyle propagated by the Spanish masturbation teacher Fran Sanchez Oria, they feel disturbed. Does Sanchez not have a mother who feels ashame when her son propagates worldwide that men should keep on masturbating on and on. Does he want his family to be known for such a member?

---

Home | Index of articles