Wait a minute, you’re telling me that an unrestrained/undisciplined sexuality doesn’t always result in freedom and individuality and haaaaaappiness? Who knew? From the Telegraph:
The death of 13-year-old Chevonea Kendall-Bryan has driven the debate on the sexualisation of the young to fever pitch, but what will we do about it?
There is a storm coming. I can feel it as I stand on a street corner in south London, thinking about my daughters. Lily and Rose are both 11 years old. One is crazy about dogs, the other loves owls.
They are at that tender age when the hormones have begun to stir, and they could be stomping around the room like furious teenagers one minute but snuggling up for a cuddle the next.
The girls are fast approaching 13, the age that Chevonea Kendall-Bryan was when she leaned out of one of the windows on the fourth floor of a block of flats on this street. A boy she knew was down here on the ground, but this was not Romeo and Juliet. Far from it.
Chevonea had been pressurised into performing a sex act on him, and he had shared a phone clip of her doing so with all his mates. She threatened to jump from the window if he did not delete it. Then she slipped and fell 60 feet to the ground, dying from massive brain injuries.
I couldn’t help but notice that one of the top stories on the inauguration today at a popular American news website was this:
Here’s the thing. HARDLY ANYBODY appreciates or sympathizes with Westboro Baptist Church’s ideology or methods. The fact that they are even called a “Church” or “Baptist” is very sad and not even accurate. But, unfortunately, this handful of people is there grabbing the headlines. The trouble is that it’s so easy for the less thoughtful or discerning (or intellectually honest) people to lump all religious types in with Westboro. It reminds me of David Klinghoffer’s blog post titled Why Richard Dawkins is Angry where he tweaks the old saying: If the members of Westboro Baptist Church didn’t exist, Richard Dawkins would have to invent them.
Yes, the entire case against the contemporary Christian religion, a faith of 2 billion self-described believers worldwide, is allowed to rest on the actions of a single tiny group of nuts, reviled by everyone else in their faith if they are known at all and comprising just 40 members in total. This is the kind of evidence that Dawkins thinks we should find compelling.
MPs are trying to ensure that Princess Kate will never become queen, but will occupy the sanitized and politically correct title of “princess consort.”
The move to bring equality to the laws of succession governing the British throne, has taken a strange twist as a member of Parliament has proposed legislation that would prevent Princess Kate from ever becoming Queen.
John Hemming, MP, is attempting to add a clause to the Succession to the Crown Bill that would mean Princess Kate would be called “Princess consort” rather than Queen when Prince William ascends to the throne.
The proposed amendment is based on allegations that the current system is ‘sexist’ since it allows the wife of a King to be called Queen but it does not allow the husband of a queen to be called King. Mr Hemming said: “It’s not right that a Queen Regnant is treated as less important than a King Regnant.”
If the House of Commons agrees to add Mr Hemming’s amendment it to the Succession Bill, then the royal family could become the first victims of the British government’s attempt to ‘modernize’ the monarchy.
“The increasingly pervasive stereotype of gender neutrality often relies on bogus science combined with fanciful anthropology, both of which assert that there is no necessary connection between our gender identity (i.e., being feminine or masculine, together with many of the things this can entail within a given cultural context) and the fixities of our biological sex. This idea is enshrined in countless sociology, anthropology, and women’s studies courses at colleges and universities, where students are regularly taught that there is no necessary relation between one’s biological sex and one’s gender.”
From Unmaking a Difference Is Gender Neutrality the New Stereotype? by Robin Phillips
From The American Conservative: Evolution, Individualism, and the End of the Family. It’s a long article and this quote comes near the end, but I highly recommend the entire piece to you.
. . .
To a large extent unintentionally, but surely and dramatically, the three great philosophical movements of the nineteenth century—individualism, statism, and evolutionary progressivism—drove familism to the farthest extreme of atomism. In most states, the industrial revolution loosened the family from parental control. Its first result was a rapid increase in the birthrate of these industrial countries, followed by a rapid decline. By 1870–80, the birth rates had begun to decline in almost all European countries. Except in the peasant-agrarian countries of Eastern Europe and Southern Italy, they were below reproductive levels by 1930.
Legal backstays of the family—some degree of manus, potestas, coverture, and mutuality—were destroyed on a large scale, more so in some countries and periods than in others. The individual arose and became the subject and the dependent of the state. Theories of the family as but a nominal group, a private contract to be broken at will, gained ascendancy. The minds of the people were being filled constantly with the idea that “happiness,” as defined by individual egotism, was the goal of life. Marriage and family must justify themselves according to this concept of “happiness” or be abandoned. Happiness is a very subjective term, being defined each moment, each day, and in each age by different psychological considerations. Consequently, the family had no understandable objective for its guidance.
. . .