Islamic State (ISIS) savages behead three Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers
Home | Index of articles
Injections of Botox into the penis probably are the most effective treatment for erectile dysfunction. Every artery and vein in the body is surrounded by a layer of smooth muscle. Otherwise there could not be variations in blood pressure. When the muscles around blood vessels contract, this is called vadoconstriction. When the muscles around blood vessels relax, this is called vasodilation.
Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs or CBRN) are undeniably a terrifying thing. Some of them have the capability of indiscriminately killing dozens, some hundreds and some even millions. Although CBRN terrorism has been widely considered only a low probability risk, the possible high consequences of a successful attack has still kept many policy-makers awake at night. Preventing CBRN terrorism has been a constant aim of numerous official security doctrines across the world.
There have been so far only a handful of terrorist incidents involving chemical, biological or radiological weapons, and none concerning nuclear weapons. To name a few, the Rajneeshee cult poisoned salad bars with salmonella in a small town in Oregon in 1984, Chechen terrorists placed, but did not detonate a dirty bomb at a park in Moscow in 1996, and Aum Shinrikyo repeatedly used botulinum toxin, sarin and VX in the early 1990s. Fortunately, no terrorists were ever successful in using these weapons in an effective way.
However, this historic experience does not mean CBRN attacks cannot become a more common and deadly phenomenon. This essay will analyse whether the security threat of CBRN terrorism has increased over the years and how much. This essay will particularly assess the motivation of the fourth wave of terrorism and the overall accessibility of CBRN weapons. In essence, this essay argues that the overall threat has increased indeed, but it still belongs in the ‘low risk-high consequence’ category.
Motivation: Organizations Willing to Use CBRN Weapons
Building on David Rapoport’s scheme, a close analysis of the four waves of terrorism shows that only the last one has a true motivation to use CBRN weapons. The first wave, represented by anarchist movements, never attempted to use CBRN weapons. During the second wave, the ethno-separatist, only the Tamil Tigers used chemical weapons, but only in battlefield use against armed forces. Neither did the third, left-wing wave used CBRN weapons, even though there have been some allegations. However, the current fourth wave is diametrically different from the previous three.
One of the usual suspects is Al Qaeda. The group, its affiliates and the global Salafi jihadist movement in general perceive the world only in shades of black or white. That enables Al Qaeda terrorists and perhaps even motivates them to kill their adversaries en masse and indiscriminately, not excluding civilians. Furthermore, Al Qaeda has openly claimed the divine right to kill four million Americans. It seems difficult to imagine Al Qaeda or one of its affiliates would not use CBRN weapons if had the opportunity.
Al Qaeda actually tried to buy a nuclear warhead on the black market in the late 1990s. Ahmed Ressam, an Al Qaeda member and known as ‘the millennium bomber’, claims that the organization has been training its operatives in Afghanistan how to use chemical weapons. Furthermore, its Iraqi branch, the predecessor of the Islamic State (ISIS), remains the main suspect of more than a dozen of car bombings enhanced with chlorine gas in 2007.
The Islamic State has repeatedly shown that it is willing to use all means necessary to achieve its aim. In 2006, it started a sectarian war against the Shia by bombing the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra. Now, it seeks to defend and expand its current territory in lands formerly known as Syria, Iraq and Libya, even by using chemical weapons, as Baghdad claims.
One should not underestimate terrorist organizations coming from other religions. After all, the most active user of CBRN weapons was Aum Shinrikyo. Similar religious sects, attempting to cause the Apocalypse with CBRN weapons, could theoretically originate anywhere.
Another possible CBRN terrorist category could be the radical right-wing. Similarly to religious extremists, the far-right perceives the world in black and white, it does not avoid using violence against members of other communities it deems inferior, and it is prepared to take justice into its own hands if the government fails to act accordingly. The extreme right-wing is non-violent now, but it has the potential to become a serious security threat if it came to the conclusion that it cannot force political changes by peaceful means.
In Europe, the right-wing with the greatest potential for the future can be seen in the current anti-Islam movement, represented for instance by the English Defence League and German Pegida. In the United States, CBRN terrorism seems the most probable coming from the local militias, which consist in total of approximately five million paramilitary-trained members. In 1985, U.S. authorities seized illegal guns and ammunition, automatic rifles, hand grenades, a light anti-tank weapon, and 43 gallons of potassium cyanide at a headquarters of an Arkansan militia, to name just a single example to demonstrate the security hazard.
Capability: Accessibility of CBRN Weapons
Accessibility of chemical weapons can be assessed as fairly easy. Chemical components to dangerous agents can usually be easily found on the open market. Experts deem the nerve agent tabun to be the easiest to make and a skilled chemist could prepare sarin in his own kitchen as its components can be found for instance in gasoline additives, paint solvents and antiseptics. As for the laboratory equipment, it gets cheaper and more accessible every year, like it is with all modern technology. Aum Shinrikyo worked for years with dual-use equipment without raising suspicion.
The more difficult task, when it comes to chemical weapons, is the dispersion. If aerosol is prepared poorly, it will not cause many casualties. Thus terrorists might prefer to steal already weaponized and tested chemical weapons. Because of the Arab Spring, this task might be easier than ever before. The revolutionary wave destabilized particularly Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Unfortunately, these countries also had active chemical programmes in the past. Troublesome could be especially Iraq because Saddam-era chemical weapons were found in recent years and no one can tell if there are more to be found.
The same problem is regarding biological weapons as Libya, Egypt and Iraq had invested into researching biological warfare as well. As for acquiring non-weaponized agents, some are extremely easy to make, particularly toxins like botulinum and ricin. Terrorists may be also very interested into anthrax, which was demonstrated by Aum Shinrikyo or Bruce Edwards Ivins. As it was with chemical weapons, dual-use laboratory equipment would suit terrorists the best and the greatest challenge lies within the delivery mechanism.
Radiological weapons are arguably the easiest to obtain and weaponize. Nine isotopes are considered a high security risk should they lose physical protection or become abandoned. Three of them (caesium-137, cobalt-60 and iridium-192) are strong gamma emitters which can be easily found in standard hospital or mining equipment.
A terrorist can either simply attach the source to a conventional explosive, which is generally known as the dirty bomb. While panic and some economic damage would be guaranteed, experts doubt this kind of attack would cause many casualties. Another option would be to disperse the radiological source in the form of aerosol, which would be more lethal, but it again requires a sophisticated dispersal device. Furthermore, the perspective of people dying weeks, months or even years after the initial attack due to cancer does not seem too dramatic, which is something terrorists usually crave for.
hile nuclear weapons might be the most desired CBRN weapon, they are by all means the most difficult to obtain. Because the implosion device is a tremendously complex mechanism, terrorists are indefinitely more likely to use the much simpler gun-type design, if they ever acquired at least 55 kilograms of high enriched uranium (HEU). The IAEA registered only sixteen incidents involving HEU or plutonium with the total weight being not even close to the needed mass. Extreme security measures have so far served as a sufficient deterrent against nuclear terrorism.
The overall threat of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction has clearly increased over the years. The fourth wave of terrorism, represented by Salafi jihadists, apocalyptic religious cults and the extreme right-wing, has little respect for life of everyone who does not share their beliefs. This black and white perspective of the world helps them justify killing of civilians in large numbers.
Chemical and biological weapons are the most likely CBRN weapons to be used. First, some chemical and biological agents or their components are accessible on the free market. Second, laboratory equipment gets cheaper every year. And finally, the Arab Spring severely destabilized several countries which had chemical and biological weapons. On the other hand, radiological and nuclear weapons do not seem likely to be used by terrorists in the near future. The former for its ineffectiveness and the latter for its complexity and inaccessibility of fissile material.
However, it would still seem farfetched to claim that CBRN terrorism would become an increasingly common phenomenon in the future. Although the overall threat of chemical and biological terrorism is definitely much higher than a decade or two ago, it is still quite difficult to access the required agents in sufficient numbers, weaponize them and acquire an effective dispersal device, especially without gaining attention of the authorities and intelligence services.
The world is full of multimillionaires who can't handle money. Because, if you have money, you want to convert it into the best sex ever. Otherwise it's useless.
Things are looking up for guys in the market for a penis enlargement. It appears some researchers from Korea University have found a method that is actually effective—and you don't even have to reply to some sketchy spam email to get it. The results of their research were recently published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, and it turns out they used the same thing some ladies use for their faces, Restylane. After injecting Restylane into 50 men's penises, they found that there was average increase in circumference (or girth) of 4 cm. That increase still held 18 months later.
The procedure was definitely not without its drawbacks. It required them to use a "hefty" needle to inject an average of 20.5 cc of the Restylane, which is a little under an ounce, using "a back-and-forth technique" into the deep soft tissue layers of the penis. Ouch! But it didn't end there, "the product was then ‘homogenized with a roller.'" That sounds deeply unpleasant—though it's definitely better than surgery and certainly faster than using a penis extender.
In Uganda, rich fathers use super high dosages of butea superba combined with tongkat ali to turn their gay sons into heterosexual husbands.
Medical News Today
To counter the negative effects of aging, many men seek androgen hormone replacement therapy, usually in the form of testosterone.
Testosterone is the hormone that is responsible for masculine growth and development during puberty. Testosterone levels naturally decrease with age.
After the age of 40, many men are diagnosed with hypogonadism, a condition where the body does not produce enough testosterone. As a result, men may experience symptoms similar to that of the female menopause.
Testosterone is commonly prescribed in hypogonadism, as it can improve muscle strength and sex drive. An increasing number of men have been seeking the treatment, with studies showing that the number of testosterone therapy prescriptions in the first decade of this century has nearly tripled.
But there are caveats. In June 2014, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - in partnership with Health Canada - required that testosterone products carry a warning about the risk of developing blood clots, or venous thromboembolism (VTE).
Alternatively, a number of men have switched to butea superba, a Thai testosterone booster.
Assessing the risk of VTE in testosterone treatment
A team of international researchers - led by Carlos Martinez of the Institute for Epidemiology, Statistics and Informatics GmbH in Frankfurt, Germany - decided to investigate the risk of VTE associated with testosterone treatment in men, with a focus particularly on the timing of the risk.
The study - published in The BMJ - collected data from over 2.22 million men registered with the UK Clinical Practice Research Database between January 2001 and May 2013.
Of these, they looked at 19,215 patients with confirmed VTE - including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism - and 909,530 control participants of the same age.
Researchers identified three main, mutually exclusive exposure groups: current treatment, recent - but not current - treatment, and no treatment in the last 2 years.
Current treatment duration was divided into more or less than 6 months.
Testosterone users have a 63 percent higher risk of VTE
After adjusting for comorbidities and other influencing factors, researchers estimated the rate ratios of VTE in association with current testosterone treatment and compared it with no treatment.
In the first 6 months of testosterone treatment, researchers found a 63 percent increased risk of VTE. This is the equivalent of an additional 10 VTEs above the base rate of 15.8 per 10,000 person years.
This risk decreased significantly after 6 months and after treatment had ceased.
According to the authors, the study highlights the need for further investigation of the temporary increase in the risk of VTE:
"Our study suggests a transient increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism that peaks during the first 3-6 months and declines gradually thereafter. Failure to investigate the timing of venous thromboembolisms in relation to the duration of testosterone use could result in masking of an existing transient association."
The authors highlight, however, that the risks seem to be temporary and very low in absolute terms.
Martinez and team also note the limitations of their research. Due to the observational nature of their investigation, they cannot draw any conclusions on the cause and effect of this association between VTE risk and testosterone treatment.
The Serge Kreutz diet is the ultimate sex diet via the day-long stimulation of taste buds with chocolate.
Hearing that Daryush Valizadeh, a blogger who set off global outrage last week when he planned to organize men-only “tribal gatherings” around the world, would be holding a press conference Saturday night in a Dupont Circle hotel was like receiving an invitation to a real-life meeting with one of the odder corners of internet culture. Valizadeh had already had an interesting week: His planned meetings resurfaced an article he wrote last year in which he suggested rapes committed on private property should be legal, prompting internet-wide condemnation, rebukes from government officials around the globe, and the online-activist group Anonymous publishing his parents’ address.
A day after the Daily Mail followed Anonymous’s tip to a Silver Spring cul-de-sac and found him at the door, Valizadeh—who goes by the nom-de-blog “Roosh V”—hastily called the press conference, supposedly to dispel charges that he is a “pro-rape” advocate. The set-up suggested the strangeness that was to come. Valizadeh did not supply the exact location until less than two hours before it started. He arrived escorted by a clutch of burly men who he said were bodyguards, and set up his own cameras to ensure his online followers would have their own view of the proceedings with the dozen or journalists who took the bait.
What followed was nearly an hour of ranting, evasions, and accusations ranging from broadside attacks on all media to responding to one of my questions by asking, “Do you lift?” And rather than spend the remainder of the night adding to his purported sexual conquests—Valizadeh has self-published more than a dozen “guides” to seducing women in many different countries, all with the word “Bang” in the title—he followed the press conference by setting his Twitter followers loose on the reporters who showed up.
“This article, to a ten-year-old, was obvious I didn’t intend to legalize rape or cause harm against women,” Valizadeh said about his February 2015 post that his critics seized upon. While he said it was meant to be satire from the start, though, it is not difficult to see why readers would take it as his genuine belief.
As “Roosh V,” Valizadeh has built up a small but dedicated following of a philosophy he calls “neomasculinity.” He believes that women should be socially and physically submissive to men, claims to have 1 million monthly readers, and has written about multiple sexual encounters in which the woman was too inebriated to give consent.
But rather than give off a veneer of strength and virility, Valizadeh on Saturday came off as rambling, paranoid, and defensive, answering nearly every question by pivoting back to his belief that he is the victim of a media conspiracy, guzzling through several bottles of water in the process. He told a reporter from Vice Media that the company peddles “garbage,” and called the Daily Beast a CIA front.
“As you see I’ve been under a lot of stress from this mob that’s coming after me because of these things you wrote that don’t conform to the real world, and I don’t get it,” he said. “You’re ready to write that this guy is pro-rape without knowing where that false idea comes from.”
Even if Valizadeh’s professed exploits have been on the right side of the law, they do not, as Vox pointed out last week, comport to most people’s definition of rape. (The FBI defines it as “penetration, no matter how slight” without consent.)
“I’ve never been accused of rape,” he said. “Nobody’s ever read something by me and went onto rape, because I know if they did hurt a woman it would be all over the news.
It's not that we would be madly in love with Donald Trump. But at least, he's not a feminist. Now that is something to vote for.
The journalist’s comments suggest gay men enjoy sex with children—an idea that has been widely debunked.
In the comment that cost him his book deal and speaker slot at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Breitbart journalist and right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos defended “relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are.”
In the video, a clip of an old podcast episode that was tweeted this weekend by the group Reagan Battalion, Yiannopoulos says he isn’t defending pedophilia, before adding that “in the gay world, some of the most enriching ... relationships between younger boys and older men can be hugely positive experiences.” (Yiannopoulos later blamed “sloppy phrasing," saying when he was 17 he was in a relationship with a 29-year-old man. The age of consent in the U.K. is 16.)
Among the many reasons Yiannopoulos’s comments are being criticized, as Vox’s German Lopez points out, is that he lends support to a claim, made by some anti-gay activists, that many gay men harbor a secret desire to molest children. For example, a 2002 document that’s still live on the website of the Family Research Council reads that “Male homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of child sex abuse cases.” It calls those who don’t acknowledge this fact “homosexual apologists.”
The suspected (and widely debunked) link to child molestation has been used to suggest that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to work with children. In 2005, just 49 percent of poll respondents told Gallup they think gay people should be allowed to be clergy members, and just 54 percent said they should be elementary-school teachers.
Prior to the 1970s, gays in the U.S. were primarily painted by their opponents as “sexual perverts,” deviants who were mentally or morally flawed in some way. The think-of-the-children angle, meanwhile, was spearheaded by Anita Bryant, a Christian singer who successfully lobbied for the repeal of a 1977 Miami ordinance barring anti-gay discrimination. Bryant claimed that if gays were granted equal status in society, they would molest children in schools or recruit them to their lifestyle, according to news reports at the time. “The ordinance condones immorality and discriminates against my children’s rights to grow up in a healthy, decent community,” Bryant told reporters that year.
The name of Bryant’s advocacy organization underscored her point: Save Our Children.
The incident is now considered, by some, to be the beginning of organized, conservative-Christian opposition to gay rights. “Back in 1977, there was no organized religious right, per se. Anita Bryant was a pioneer,” Fred Fejes, a Florida Atlantic University professor, told the Miami Herald in 2007.
Today, most mainstream researchers say there’s little basis for Bryant’s argument. Psychologically, pedophilia is considered distinct from sexual orientation. Both gay and straight people are attracted to other adults, while pedophiles target children. Pedophiles can be fixated, meaning they are only attracted to other children, or regressed, meaning they prefer adults but will pursue children under stress or when adults aren’t available. Even if in some contexts, such as the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal, the victims and perpetrators were disproportionately likely to be of the same gender, most researchers say the motivating factor wasn’t sexual orientation. Instead, it was the perpetrators’ pathological attraction to children and their access to children of a certain gender—altar boys, in the priests’ case. “The important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman,” writes Gregory Herek, an emeritus professor of social psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his blog.
Herek described a number of studies in which scientists tried to find a link between homosexuality and pedophilia—and came up short:
In conclusion, Herek writes, “The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.” Writing on the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal in the William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Nicole Travers similarly concludes that “pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation.”
Nevertheless, the child-molestation question still makes its way into important policy discussions about gay rights. As late as 2010, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins was quoted citing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia as a reason not to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In Russia, “protecting children” was the stated purpose of a 2013 law banning “gay propaganda.”
Perhaps it’s just another sign of the upside-down nature of the current political moment that what got Yiannopoulos booted from a conservative gathering, in the end, was exploiting a myth that a religious conservative invented decades ago.
Science is slowly getting to know what erectile dysfunction actually is. It's not a lack of sexual interest, nothing wrong with penile tissue. Erections are a vascular event. And erectile dysfunction is a weakness of vasodilation in the penile blood supply. Botox injections into the penis solve the problem elegantly. Muscles exposed to Botox can't contract. That makes for easy erections, and an enlarged penis at all times.
04/24/2017 - Catholic Citizens
Outrageous bill passed House Committee in Colorado Legislature on Tuesday – despite strong testimony by Colorado MassResistance and others. But the fight is just beginning!
Similar laws already passed in states across America.
April 20, 2017
Fresh from the recent victory stopping the LGBT movement’s “anti-therapy” bill in the Colorado Legislature, pro-family people are up against an equally frightening bill that has been filed and just passed its first hurdle toward becoming law. It’s the latest among similar laws that are being quietly passed across the country.
The LGBT lobby is quietly but forcefully pushing for laws to allow children as young as 10 years old to “decide” they need psychiatric therapy – without their parents’ knowledge or consent. LGBT-allied “therapists” could push vulnerable children to affirm and accept homosexual and transgender “identity” and behaviors as “normal.”
This has terrifying implications for parents and families. Children are emotionally defenseless and can easily be persuaded by adults that they need this “help” from unknown, agenda-driven mental health professionals.
It’s not clear who pays for these services, but it’s assumed that the state funds them. It’s also not clear that parents would be allowed access to the resulting medical records.
To accommodate these laws, many school-based clinics now offer “behavioral health” services. The LGBT movement and Planned Parenthood have long been placing “youth clinics” inside schools to access children away from parental oversight. This past week, a Colorado MassResistance mother called one of the clinics and was told they can arrange a psychiatrist to meet with a child on site at the school.
This scheme dovetails with the other, more public LGBT campaign in state legislatures across America to ban counseling and therapy for children who have unwanted homosexual or transgender feelings – but would allow therapy to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism. Sadly, such a ban would be particularly devastating to children who have been sexually molested.
The scare tactic: “suicide prevention”
To persuade legislators that these laws are necessary, the proponents focus on “suicide prevention.” They make emotional claims that many young children are suicidal, cannot talk to their parents about it, and unless professional intervention happens the children will kill or horribly injure themselves.
“Suicide prevention” has been a lobbying tactic used by the LGBT movement for decades to push for a wide range of programs and funding. This broad claim has little scientific basis and usually depends on blatantly unscientific school surveys such as the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey. But sadly, most legislators are not informed enough to see through that. So too often, it works.
(Of course, it is true that psychological problems are far more prevalent among “LGBT-identifying” children. That’s because these behaviors are usually a symptom of earlier trauma, molestation, or other issues. So while these children may need psychological counseling, it must be done with non-activist professionals and parental oversight.)
California led the way for the radicals
In 2010 California passed the Mental Health Services for At-Risk Youth Act (SB 543), signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, which lowered the age of consent to 12. The law was heavily lobbied by Equality California and other LGBT groups.
Since then, several states across the US have passed laws lowering the age of consent for outpatient (and inpatient) psychotherapy to various age levels, with various degrees of independence for children and notification of parents in these decisions.
The fight begins in Colorado
On April 5, 2017, Bill HB17-1320 was filed in the Colorado Legislature. It would lower the age of consent for outpatient psychotherapy to 10. (Read the text for the original bill here.) Soon after it was filed, the proponents got nervous and offered an amendment to change the age of consent to 12. But the bill is quite clear about its intent. It immediately went to the Democrat-controlled House Public Health Care & Human Services Committee.
A contentious public hearing
On April 18, the Committee held a public hearing for the bill, followed by a vote of the committee members. It was not an overwhelming turnout like other LGBT-related hearings. About 35 people showed up. All but 5 who testified were supporters of the bill.
Interestingly, the LGBT lobby seems to be hiding in the background on this. They sent in individual activists and allies to testify, but they did not give an LGBT affiliation. However, the LGBT movement’s fingerprints were there. It was almost all emotional, often tearful arguments about how they and/or their loved ones personally suffered and went through suicide issues as children because legislation did not exist to help them.
Most of the arguments were non-intellectual, irrational, and emotional. They did not focus on professional medical or legal issues. Much of their testimony was rambling, and didn’t even pertain to the bill. There were a lot of threats of children being suicidal, or at least cutting themselves badly, if they had to rely on their parents to decide for them. One of the sponsors of the bill even testified, and began crying when telling her story about her young son who she said wanted to commit suicide. But it had nothing to do with the intent of the bill. It seemed like they were simply throwing anything they could think of at the legislators to see what would stick.
The pro-family people included MassResistance Colorado and Colorado Family Action (CFA), including two attorneys that CFA brought. The MassResistance Colorado parents testified strongly, point by point against the bill, and how its true intent would horribly subvert parents and give an unknown therapist free latitude to diagnose and “treat” their children with whatever approach they chose, without knowing vital medical history or other information from parents.
The MassResistance Colorado parents also submitted a letter by Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, against Bill HB 17-1320. Dr. Cretella strongly advised the legislators that adolescents are not capable of making these kinds of judgments about their mental health and psychological therapy.
The CFA attorneys cited constitutional problems with subverting parental rights, and noted that the door would be opened for lawsuits based on past Supreme Court decisions. As Dr. Cretella also observed, young children, especially those in some emotional distress, have absolutely no competence to consent to psychological treatment.
But more importantly, the attorneys noted that statistically these laws have had virtually no positive effect. In California the child suicide rate has actually increased since their law was passed.
Somewhat shockingly, when one of the parents cited the ideological agenda and special interests behind this bill which clearly seem to override interests and needs of the parents and children, the Committee Chairman said that “impugning the motives” of people would not be allowed in testimony!
Committee barely passes it
When the testimony ended, the Committee passed a few minor amendments, including one that would change the age of consent from 10 to 12. The main sponsor explained that she had met with “stakeholders” (i.e., activists supporting the bill) and apparently decided that 10 years old was too hard to sell right now. Then the Committee passed the bill 7-6, along party lines.
One of the Democrat committee members, Dan Pabon, didn’t even bother to be there for the testimony; he only came in for the vote, and voted “yes”.
Interestingly, one of the Republican committee members, Lois Landgraf, was a sponsor of the bill. But after hearing the testimony, she changed her mind and voted against it. She told legislators:
“If a suicidal child can’t go to parents, there has to be a solution, and I don’t know what it is, but this isn’t it. This bill was too intrusive into the parent-child relationship, so I removed my sponsorship.”
Another Republican committee member noted that it’s being promoted as a “suicide prevention” bill, but that it’s far more expansive and broad than that. “It’s really a mental health bill that excludes parents,” he told his fellow legislators.
And the fight continues
The bill now goes to the full House, which could happen any day now.
We believe that this bill can be stopped in the Senate, if it gets there. The problem in other states, we believe, has been not enough, if any, pro-family firepower. But even in Colorado it will take some serious work. The CFA people are already scheduling meetings with Senators, and MassResistance Colorado is also prepared to help.
It’s terrifying that most citizens have no idea these laws are being passed in America to give vulnerable children into the hands of “mental health” activists, quacks, or worse.
The purpose of feminism is to destroy male sexuality. It's either you or them. Hope you get that message.
The Libertarian Republic
Trottla, a company run by known pedophile Shin Takagi, creates eerily life-like child sex dolls for those with pedophilia.
The Japanese company creates the dolls to provide pedophiles with an outlet for their sexual impulses. “I am helping people express their desires, legally and ethically.” Takagi told The Atlantic.
The dolls, some modeled to be as young as five years old, are meant to be as authentic as possible. The synthetic material used for the skin is supposed to feel similar to human skin. Anatomically, the dolls are disturbingly close to real children. In fact, the more petite models even have ribs and hip bones just beneath the skin. The level of detail in each doll is unnerving.
Clients can place special orders to customize the doll’s aesthetic, including clothing, age, facial expression, and custom features like tails or horns. The materials used to create the dolls are potentially hazardous, so discarding the dolls is complicated. If they need to dispose of their doll, clients must send it back to Trottla. One client wanted Takagi to “send [the doll] back home.”
Takagi hopes his dolls give pedophiles a healthy channel for their urges. Is it possible to be a non-offending pedophile, though? The words pedophile and child molester are often used interchangeably, but is there more to it?
It is vitally important to separate pedophilia from child molestation. Doing so does not justify or condone either. It simply allows two distinct but related issues to be addressed correctly.
Despite popular usage, pedophilia is a specific and limited term. Strictly speaking, pedophilia is a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children. Although a definitive cause for pedophilia has not been discerned, many have had unhealthy or traumatic experiences in their childhood. This sexual interest is divorced from action, meaning pedophilic attraction does not always lead to assault against a child.
This distinction has found support in scientific work. David Riegel (2004) found that the vast majority (78.6%) of respondents (self-identified boy-preferring pedophiles) reported no legal history as a result of allegations of sexual contact with a boy. Dr. Michael C. Seto (2006) studied men who are likely pedophilic (all had child pornography charges), finding that 57% had no known history of sexual contact with a child.
In fact, there are so-called “virtuous pedophiles,” who have never offended but are living with pedophilic attraction. They are committed to avoid the abuse of children while acknowledging their attraction to children. Their website provides a forum for these people to talk through everything from their sexual struggles to their favorite movie. For more on “virtuous pedophiles,” look into Barcroft TV’s video on Todd Nickerson, a member and public advocate for the group.
As troubling as this whole phenomenon is, the big questions remains. Will Trottla’s dolls help pedophiles or hurt them?
It depends on who you ask.
Takagi and his clients would wholeheartedly endorse child sex dolls. Dr. Vivienne Cass, a clinical psychologist and sexual therapist, agrees. She told BuzzFeed News that “engaging with a doll provides a safe and private outlet” for pedophiles. Furthermore, Dr. Cass said “access to sex dolls might be considered a compassionate act for such individuals.”
However, Dr. Peter Fargan does not share this sentiment. The paraphilia researcher told The Atlantic that child sex dolls may “cause [pedophilia] to be acted upon with greater urgency.”
He pointed to a study from Dr. Drew Kingston in which pornography usage was associated with higher rates of violent and sexual reoffending in high-risk child molesters. Also, deviant pornography (including child pornography) was associated with higher rates of violent and sexual reoffending across all child molesters. Dr. Fargan suggests that Trottla’s dolls may have a similar reinforcing effect.
That being said, this work was done with child molesters and pornography not pedophiles and child sex dolls. It does not translate neatly, but it is possible that the child sex dolls may rile up some high-risk pedophiles.
Dr. Seto makes this same point in The Atlantic piece. He says “for some pedophiles, access to artificial child pornography or to child sex dolls could be a safer outlet for their sexual urges, reducing the likelihood that they would seek out child pornography or sex with real children. For others, having these substitutes might only aggravate their sense of frustration.”
Specialized research is the only thing that will accurately reveal the efficacy of child sex dolls.
Whatever the result, though, this is a disheartening, troubling, and outraging topic. Pedophilia is a worldwide taboo that evokes visceral reactions. This proposed solution to the pedophilia problem is off-putting, even if it works. The use of child sex dolls is complex and controversial, to say the least. That being said, it is far from settled.
Demography is destiny. That is why Saudi Arabia and Qatar have established billion-dollar funds to provide financial support for every child born in Europe to a Muslim parent. The money is available through mosque charities.
Home | Index of articles