They Just Can’t Believe It!

Why No Swimsuit Issue of Men?

On the happily few occasions when callers to my radio show make a particularly foolish comment, I ask them what graduate school they attended.

When they ask why I assume they attended graduate school, I respond, “Only someone who went to graduate school would say something that foolish.”

Because it is never my intention to humiliate a caller, I always hasten to explain that my comment is not directed at the caller; it is directed at our universities. Moreover, I mean it literally. In order to say certain things that are so obviously foolish, one has to be taught them.

Kudos to Dennis Prager for writing this. In any age except our own this observation about the sexual instincts of men and women would be filed under “common sense.” You may have read this idea before in the pages of Salvo by Dr. Louis Markos. Personally, this is one of my favorite Salvo articles (and it’s a two parter).

In case you missed it, enjoy!

Just Brilliant!
Three Things Only a PhD Can Believe by Louis Markos
Absurdity #1: There Are No Universal Standards
Absurdity #2: There Are No Essential Differences Between Men & Women
Absurdity #3: There Is No Clear Dividing Line Between Humans & Animals

Highly Creative
Three More Things Only a PhD Can Believe
by Louis Markos
Absurdity #1: The Design We See Around Us Is Only Apparent
Absurdity #2: Man Is by Nature Good and Is Therefore Perfectible
Absurdity #3: Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare Are Products of Their Socio-Economic Milieus

Hear Contributing Editor Terrell Clemmons Talk About Her Latest Article In Salvo on “Fifty Shades of Grey”

50 Shades of Grey Commentary

As Valentine’s Day approaches, many media outlets are focusing on the much-hyped release of the ’50 Shades of Grey’ movie release. The Morning Cruise shared their thoughts on the movie and Bill shared an article by Terrell Clemmons of Salvo Magazine. Be sure to check out the alternatives to both the book and the film.

from Tim Constantine’s Capitol Hill Show
Fifty Shades of Grey… Does it Have a Biblical Message?

Interview starts at about 32 minutes

from Yes FM
Terrell Clemmons from Salvo Magazine. How Christian Women Should React to “50 Shades of Grey”.

A Psychiatrist’s Take on “Fifty Shades of Grey”

by Marcia Segelstein

Dr. Miriam Grossman is a psychiatrist and author of several books, including “Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student.”  Dr. Grossman has been quoted often in the pages of Salvo, and continues to expose the dangers of our sexually permissive culture on her website .

Her latest blog post is about the dangerous ideas promoted in the movie “Fifty Shades of Grey.”

Here’s a brief portion of what she writes:

“The ideas of Fifty Shades of Grey are dangerous, and can lead to confusion and poor decisions about love.  There are vast differences between healthy and unhealthy relationships, but the movie blurs those differences, so you begin to wonder:  what’s healthy in a relationship?  What’s sick?  There are so many shades of grey…I’m not sure.
Listen, it’s your safety and future we’re talking about here.  There’s no room for doubt:  an intimate relationship that includes violence, consensual or not, is completely unacceptable.

This is black and white.  There are no shades of grey here.  Not even one.”

You can read her entire post here:

Women Are Affected by Abortion

by Marcia Segelstein

Sadly, but not surprisingly, there was little media attention paid again this year to the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. But the Media Research Center sent a reporter and videographer to interview some of the women marching, find out why they were there, and let them tell their stories. Some were conceived in rape, and some of those were pro-choice before they found out the truth. Some brought their babies who had been conceived in rape. And some were there because they regretted the abortions they’d had.  “I bought into the radical feminist lies of the 1960′s and 70′s,” said one woman who had two abortions. “It’s only through the grace of God that I started being truthful — and then I had to be truthful about what I had done.”

Salvo covered the issue of post-abortion suffering in “A Buried Grief.” It includes links to ministries and organizations that offer healing for women who’ve had abortions.

“Three-parent” IVF, it’s more than an organ donation

Britain’s House of Commons has approved, by an overwhelming majority, to allow a form of technology that involves replacing the nucleus of one woman’s egg with the nucleus of another to be used in so-called “three-parent IVF.”

This vote has been wrought with controversy. Many people are hopeful that this technology will help those women with mitochondrial disease to have biological children without passing on their mitochondrial DNA. Others are concerned about the long-term consequences that this procedure will have on the children born from it.

In November of 2013, I wrote an article about mitochondrial screening and three-parent IVF for that discusses the science and the bioethical issues behind these techniques. It also provides a some background information on mitochondria. The issues raised in this article remain relevant to today’s vote. I do want to add a comment about something that has appeared in recent media reports.

Julian Savulescu, ethicist at Oxford, said in a recent article in The Guardian that the technology used for “three-parent IVF” is akin to micro-organ, or organelle, donation. Arthur Caplan, medical ethicist at NYU, in an article in Wired, also likened this technology to a kind of organ donation. However, replacing the nucleus of an egg with another is not analogous to organ donation, or stem cell donation, because this kind of procedure changes the germ line. In other words, the results from replacing the nucleus in an egg cell changes not only the child born from the subsequent IVF procedure, but the children that come from this child, and so on down the generational line.

With something like a kidney transplant or a stem cell transplant, the procedure does not introduce the donor’s DNA into the recipient’s gametes, and thus, does not incorporate new DNA into the germ line. If the recipient has children after receiving an organ or stem cell donation, he or she will not pass the donor’s DNA along to the child.

Some would consider the multi-generational effect from this nuclear transfer procedure beneficial because it means that mitochondrial disease is not passed down to the next generation. Others are concerned that any unforeseen problems that emerge later would be perpetuated down the generational line. Even though there have been studies with primates and human embryos, we cannot truly know if there will be long-term negative effects until it is done on a human embryo that is allowed to mature.

However, if we assume, as Julian Savulescu and Arthur Caplan have said, that this technique is like organ (or micro-organ) donation, then should we be concerned with compatibility issues? While the mitochondrial DNA has its own replication and transcription processes and it codes for some of the proteins used in mitochondrial processes, it does not code for all of them. Many of the genes necessary to code for proteins used in the mitochondria are made from the nuclear DNA. The proteins are transported from the nucleus to the mitochondria through the cytosol. The assumption is that this interaction will be compatible even though the nucleus and the mitochondria have DNA from different people.

Healthy primate offspring have been born from this technique, so this assumptions not unfounded, but, particularly in cases of reproductive technologies, there is a conceptual and biological leap when going from animal models to human subjects. This technique has, apparently, been done in human embryos that have not been implanted in a womb, but there is a limit to what can be discerned from the laboratory setting because human embryological development is a complex process from beginning to end. We must assume that the nucleus and the other organelles are compatible, but we will not actually know until the embryo is implanted development continues.

On Gender Fluidity

Women’s College Cancels ‘Vagina Monologues’ Because It Excludes Women Without Vaginas

Good riddance! Yet I just can’t get on board with the logic of Mount Holyoke’s dismissal…

In a school-wide email from Mount Holyoke’s student-theater board, relayed by Campus Reform, student Erin Murphy explained that “at its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman … Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable presenting material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive.”

I know people HATE when “slippery slope” reasoning gets employed for use in an argument, but the story above is exactly why I think such reasoning is now fair game. This article comes to us from

Author Robin Phillips has written in the pages of Salvo on the subject of gender being viewed as “a wide and varied experience.” I submit to you for further reading: Gender Benders Is My Sexual Identity an Accident Just Waiting to Happen?

If gender polarity really is that fluid, then do the categories of male and female have any objective meaning at all? To find the answer to that question, I turned to books written by gender scholars. Surely, I thought, they would have the answer.

And so they did (or claimed to), and their answer was a resounding no. Far from having any objective meaning, gender, many of these books claim, is in fact illusory. For example, in Woman Hating, Andrea Dworkin asserts that “the discovery is, of course, that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are fictions, caricatures, cultural constructs?.?.?.?demeaning to the female, dead-ended for male and female both.”

Family therapist Olga Silverstein expresses similar sentiments when she urges “the end of the gender split,” for, according to her, “until we are willing to question the very idea of a male sex role?.?.?. we will be denying both men and women their full ­humanity.”

In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir is even more blunt: “Women are made, they are not born,” she asserts. And since women have been “made” by society, the corollary to becoming more enlightened is that we should strive to unmake the female.

This is exactly what the influential psychologist Sandra Bem has suggested. She would like to see the concept of androgyny so absorbed by the culture that, as Melanie Phillips puts it in The Sex-Change Society, paraphrasing Bem’s views, “concepts of masculinity and femininity would cease to have distinct content and distinctions would ‘blur into invisibility.’”

Susan Moller Okin is equally wistful when contemplating a future without gender. She thinks that “a just future would be one without gender. In its social structures and practices, one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye color or the length of one’s toes.”

If we take the above statements seriously, then we’d have to say that Nietzsche was wrong when he posited the Übermensch as the pinnacle of the evolutionary process. Rather, true utopia will be found in neither the superman nor the superwoman, but in the liberated unisex being that will emerge out of the liquidation of gender.

I think it’s starting to be obvious to most people that worldviews do matter and that “ideas have consequences”–and that is a very good thing.