The Latest Outrage in Leftist, Feminist Parenting
Jewish Journoscum Writer (Tacitly) Endorses Parents Exposing Minors to Sexual Content
Leftists, with increasing frequency, utter statements or admissions that reveal how evil and destructive their ideas really are. This is most readily exhibited in relation to the Great Replacement, in which leftist swine oscillate between denying or dismissing this as a “conspiracy theory” and admitting that it is happening, and it is a good thing. That tendency of course also pertains to how the left sexualizes minors, as demonstrated by deluded parents taking small children to so-called pride events, drag-queen story hour, and so on. A contemptible screed titled “It’s Family Sex Scene Night” was recently published on an off-shoot of The New York magazine, known as “The Cut,” is the latest exemplar of this disconcerting trend. The substantive content of this piece deserves far more attention than it has so far received.
Several disconcerting trends are extrapolated from the content of this essay. First, as most everyone is already aware, young teens and even preteens are watching, or rather consuming, hardcore pornography. Parents, at least of the sort to read or even be featured in a rag like New York magazine are aware of it. Rather than take affirmative steps to remove access these minors have to such content, as best one can given current circumstances as they presently exist, some parents, many of them likely single or divorced mothers, are trying to introduce other sexual content to minors as an alternative to hardcore pornography. Much of this content ranges from R to possibly even NC-17 content that might not be objectionable for mature teens in a different context—these parents are not watching an R-rated or even unrated movie with a son or daughter who is a sophomore in high school in an incidental manner, such was watching an R-rated comedy from start to finish[1], but rather are cherry-picking sexually charged, perhaps even sexually explicit scenes for their own particularly sordid reasons. But, at least in some instances, some parents are either curating actual pornographic content for minors in a manner that, at least theoretically, is subject to criminal charges, or are at least contemplating doing so. Worse yet, this is an idea that the author, Anya Kamenetz, at least tacitly condones by declaring that more and more so-called “experts” and parents alike think this is not only acceptable but a good idea.
The article recounts how women in a “Los Angeles mom circle” addressed the question “How do I explain to my 13 year-old son how sex actually happens?” Claiming that she managed to “steer her [13 year-old] son away from porn,” a claim some would be skeptical of, the mother wanted to address his interest in “how people go from, like, kissing to actually putting a penis in a vagina.” (emphasis added). Rather than consider that a thirteen year-old—a youngster either in 7th or 8th grade— is too young for anything beyond maybe a first kiss, the response by “mom circle” leader Joanna Schroeder—there is more about her, discussed below—was to exclaim “There’s so much sexy content out there,” which in turn led to a compilation of an “NSFW playlist.” This passage warrants presentation to readers in full, unredacted:
Schroeder says the whole time they were looking up smut on behalf of a 13-year-old boy, she and her mom friend were asking each other, “Is this weird? Are we being weird?” But, it turns out, their idea wasn’t even original. Sex educators I spoke with say parents today need to provide counterprogramming for their kids because the mainstream porn that teens stumble on, in addition to being full of racist stereotypes and short on body diversity, is now dominated by violent BDSM. And teenagers are mimicking what they see.
First, these leftist pigs must be corrected about racist stereotypes and a lack of “body diversity,” both of which are unmitigated goods to the public welfare; truth is racist, and what are called traditional beauty standards are nothing other than simply having standards. It is remarkable indeed that leftist swine do not decry young teens and preteens being exposed to pornography, but instead regard “racist stereotypes” and lack of “body diversity” as the true moral pariahs that must be expunged from the public consciousness. That “sex educators”—and, one suspects those who work in the psychology and counseling racket writ large—endorse parents to “provide counter programming” to pornography rather than do what one can to prevent such access at all should stand as a devastating, irrefutable indictment that permanently discredits that racket for all time.
Indeed, there is no indication or suggestion that the proper response is, as best one can, prevent minors from having access to pornographic content in the first place. The article explicitly states that this problem occurs with very young teens and even preteens throughout the piece. In one example, Kamenetz asserts that things like spanking or calling a woman a “slut or whore during sex” are things regularly exposed to minors, so much so that “to a 12-or-14 year-old, it’s not edgy, it’s just how you have sex.” The essay also recounts how Vanessa Kroll Bennett, author of This Is So Awkward, watched risqué scenes of Bridgerton with her thirteen year-old daughter, discussing a scene where a character loses her virginity, with the mother asking “What didn’t he find?,” to which the daughter replied “her clitoris,” demonstrating that “this was not their first conversation on the topic.” For those unaware, Bridgerton, referenced multiple times throughout this appalling text, is an inane series on Netflix that perpetrates race-swapping in regency England to pander to leftist sensibilities about representation, multiculturalism, and diversity, replete with a black Queen of England.
The essay also reports how a single mother, of Arabic background, attempted to buy her sons, 12 and 16, accounts for a feminist friendly porn site called “Make Love Not Porn,” founded by Cindy Gallop, a deracinated, miscegenated harridan, a Mischling of Anglo-Chinese ancestry who, despite being in her sixties, enjoys “sleeping with younger men, which she generally prefers,” even though they tend to favor sexual acts and behaviors that are “clearly derived from hardcore porn.” Most shockingly, the article recounts, without so much as blinking a proverbial eye, that parents exposing minors to pornographic content, even if content they somehow regard as less objectionable or not objectionable, at all is occurring as a repeatable, sociological phenomenon, so much so one professional, “Rayne,” stated least five times during her career, boys’ parents have reached out to say they had caught their sons with distasteful porn, before asking her:
“Is there any porn that is more appropriate for teenagers? Perhaps featuring teenage performers?
“ Rayne points out what they are actually for, noting, No, you can’t show your son child pornography.’”
Another so-called expert interviewed earlier in this piece, Christopher Pepper, “a sexual-health educator in the Bay Area” and co-author behind Schroeder’s coming book on these matters, offered this warning:
“Any adult showing sexually explicit materials to young people has some legal liability.” He reminds parents of this when similar requests come his way, underscoring that age-appropriate mainstream TV and movies are the way to go.
That this has to be stated at all, even with not nearly with enough severity, could not be more revealing. Far more outrageous—the author offers tacit approval of the idea that teens and preteens should be exposed to the “right kind” of pornographic material according to leftist ideological considerations from a ranger of matters including obtaining ongoing, express consent, body positivity, and whatever else. Note this passage, which, offered without even the semblance of rebuttal or refutation, can only be interpreted as tacit if not outright approval:
Mainstream series and films don’t show everything, of course. And in cases when teenagers are already watching violent porn, some educators and parents are convinced they need more explicit substitutes to kick out or counteract the other messages they’re picking up.
In response to the admonitions offered by Pepper and “Rayne” that exposing minors to pornographic content is illegal, to say nothing of depraved, immoral and wrong, the author informs readers that “some sex educators think differently” on this topic, lending credibility to the proposition of curating porn for minors by way of an appeal to authority. It is in this context that the author then discusses, with overt approval, Gallup’s porn site, and how this Gallup has been approached by a number of parents who are at least considering providing porn to their minor children:
Although the site, like all porn, is legally restricted to people 18 and over, Gallop showed me messages from parents over the years who wanted to buy gift subscriptions for their teenagers as an alternative to what they were already watching.
Then there is this damning admission by Andrea Lee, who has partnered with Gallup, the Mischling, an admission without reprobation or criticism by Kamenetz.
She has recommended the site to high-school teachers she works with and to teens and their parents.
In legal parlance, this is what is known as a “statement against interest,” or it would be in any sane, decent society, let alone a society that enforces laws already in effect. The essay even alludes to this sort of grooming in relation to an eight-year old child. In response for a “teen friendly” smut site she is going to call the “Make Love Not Porn Academy,” Gallup made this damning admission:
“I have a friend whose 8-year-old son wanted to learn about sex in a child-appropriate way, so he sweetly, innocently googled ‘sex for children,’” she says. “You can imagine what came back. He was utterly traumatized.”
Whatever questions small children may have about sex, about men and women, whatever machinations Gallup and those in her sordid entourage have in mind with the “Make Love not Porn Academy” are totally and completely inappropriate, to put it mildly. Note a further damning admission, namely that while this “Academy,” geared entirely for those under 18, which will aggregate vetted sex-education resources — videos, articles, books — from sources like Amaze.org, Scarleteen, and Bish, a U.K. site. That damning admission is this: “All the content will be PG-13, for now.”(emphasis added). Why is there a qualifier “for now?” It offers no more solace than when Julius assured white South Africans that he was “not calling for the slaughter for white people, for now.”
To better understand what all of this means, one must, as always, consider who—and what—these people are. The name Joanna Schroeder may sound vaguely familiar to some readers. This is because she enjoyed some infamy in 2019 while discussing how intervened in what she regarded as the indoctrination of her sons by the so-called alt-right. Her infamy, which some readers may vaguely, recalled, began with this twitter thread.
She was then the subject of pieces by National Public Radio, and even had an opinion piece published in the New York Times as a guest columnist. In it, she recounts she almost lost control of her car while driving because one of her teenage sons mocked a leftist for being “triggered.” Note this excerpt, taken from her op-ed piece:
The first sign was a seemingly innocuous word, used lightheartedly: “triggered.”
As my 11- and 14-year-old sons and their friends talked and bantered — phones in hand, as always — in the back seat of the car, one of them shouted it in response to a meme, and they all laughed uproariously.
I almost lost control of the car. That’s because I know that word — often used to mock people who are hurt or offended by racism as overly sensitive — is a calling card of the alt-right, which the Anti-Defamation League defines as “a segment of the white supremacist movement consisting of a loose network of racists and anti-Semites who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy.” People associated with this group are known for trolling those who disagree with them, and calling critics “triggered” is a favorite tactic.
In this podcast, with almost no views, she can be seen trotting out all the leftist orthodoxy about gender ideology, correcting her son who asked in disbelief how there could be more than two genders.
Schroeder in particular, but most—nay, all—of the figures interviewed or discussed in this piece prove that dispossession of whites, the agenda of Cultural Marxist are unified by the plethora of harms they impose on Europe and the West, from the evils of multiculturalism to overt sexualization of minors by their own parents. These sorts of tirades against the so-called “alt-right’ go hand in hand with the sort of depraved mind that thinks any of this acceptable—let alone desirable—behavior. They are the very enemy of and poison to the European soul, racially, culturally, morally. Of course, the author of this screed, Anya Kamenetz, is Jewish, as is Vanessa Kroll Bennett. Cindy Gallop has already been described, a miscegenated abomination, a deracinated but wealthy figure who is just one avatar of any number, a Kalergi plan poster girl, proving Britain was on the wrong side in both world wars, a woman in her 60s who engages in promiscuous sex with younger men. This grotesque figure is just the latest avatar of modern Britain in the aftermath of World War II. As one disaffected British veteran decried, realizing only two late they fought on the wrong side; “it’s a pity Hitler didn’t get here,” one disillusioned veteran laments in The Unkown Warriors, anthology of letters written by British veterans and what they think of modern Britain.
Any person endowed with even with the barest semblance of a classical education is further taken aback by the notion that these people are somehow cultural elites, even in this decadent, depraved society. The very notion of a “mom circle” in a cultural center such as New York or Los Angeles is indelibly linked, at leas— in the mind any sane, enlightened individual—with undeserved wealth, power, and privilege, to say nothing of book deals or writing the sorts of screeds authored by persons like Schroeder or Kamenetz in the likes of either the New York Times or New York magazine. This contemptible affront, aside from condoning, in some way, that teens and even preteens “need more explicit substitutes to kick out or counteract the other messages they’re picking up” from pornography on the internet, reveals that liberal pretentions of cultural and intellectual sophistication are a myth. This essay is in the context of leftist goblins constantly making referencing to Star Wars or what is derisively referred to as “cape shit” in Internet parlance—in other words, it is in the context, as everything is, in the lamentable cultural milieu that envelops us all. Some leftist influencers even liken Marvel movies to be the American Iliad. Liberals like to insist they are better educated. Most undoubtedly have academic credentials, as do many on the right. Schroeder herself dropped out of college—twice—before majoring in gender studies at UCLA. Kamenetz graduated from Yale as Kroll Bennett graduated from Wellesley College, the latter being the daughter of Jules Kroll of Kroll Inc and who is worth at least two billion dollars. Kamenetz also comes from a comparably privileged Jewish family, although perhaps not quite on par with Kroll family. Such details are more than just suggestive that wealth and nepotism, rather than native born talents, are the defining factors behind their book deals and undeserved prominence. This begs the question; are these the sorts of lofty academic credentials worthy of the intelligentsia, the cultured elite?
Given how academic credentials perhaps do not have as much sway as in decades past, it should be no surprise that these contemptible philistines preoccupy themselves with abject dreck like Bridgerton, which was constantly mentioned in the article in relation to three different parties, Schroeder and her cohort in that “mom circle,” Kroll Bennett, the privileged daughter of a billionaire Jew who talks to her daughter about male whether fictional characters findt he clitoris or not, and the author and her husband. Both the author and those interviewed take a Netflix series that perpetrated a race swap in regency England as a serious work of fiction, as if it were on par with great literary works by the great masters like Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Thomas Hardy, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, let alone those rare exceptions in American television worthy of serious discussion, such as Breaking Bad, or even masterpieces of cinema from Bladerunner, to Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Casino, to, if one really wants a good period piece, Amadeus, except, of course, that Amadeus depicts historical European settings as actually European.
More observant readers who choose to read this piece will note how often those interviewed use the word “like” as a filler word, Schroeder and her cohort in that mom circle in particular. As confirmed by simply using the “CTRL F” function with the term “Rayne” in the body of the text, there is even a terrible gaffe in this piece, in which the author references a professional named “Rayne,” who is ostensibly some sort of counseling professional who cautioned multiple clients against exposing their teens to pornographic content, without an introductory sentence or clause informing readers who “Rayne” is (is that a first or last name?), or what this person does. Some might decry this as a petty criticism, but it begs the question how people make a living churning out this drivel, not to mention what proofreading or editing standards these publications have. Kamenetz’s writing is shit.
One hesitates to call these cretins our “cultural elite,” but there does not seem to be a better term. Such abject philistinism, masquerading as cultural or intellectual sophistication, transcends mere propping up dreck like Bridgerton as a serious work of fiction, but actively facilitates and even condones the further moral corruption of minors who happen to be in their care, which in turn influences and shapes greater cultural norms, which affects us all. As stated before, none of these people question why teens and even preteens are being exposed to pornography, let alone consider any effective measures in preventing such exposure. A proper remedy would, of course, be to ban pornography or at least restrict access to persons 18 or over, a seemingly impossible endeavor once the proverbial genie was let out of the bottle in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The persons and behaviors recounted in this abomination of an article are, of course, the result of defining deviancy down. Pornography has not just become commonplace to the point of banality; it has become, apparently, utterly mainstream and socially acceptable. That has been an ongoing process since the 70s, which was then accelerated first in the mid to late 90s into the naughts, as most all social restraints then collapsed in earnest in the 2010s. In the 90s there were more than whispers[2] of “boss girl” type single or divorced mothers buying adolescent daughters vibrators and dildoes as a birthday present, sweet sixteen or before. Not recently but in the late 90s, yours truly has seen with his own eyes young women walking around grocery stores with a bag clearly marked with the name of a certain sex toy shop—one in particular was female friendly, owned by a lesbian and a third wave feminist. Twenty years ago passersby were afflicted by bus stop advertisements for Sex and The City, with a caption asking reader’s what Charlotte’s new rabbit is; answers A and D were a “a pet” and D a direct allusion to a rabbit vibrator, as the author has forgotten the precise nature of answers “B” and “C.” Then there is Haliey Welch who has been desperately clinging to fleeting fame for describing to two black men how she performs oral sex, giving it that “Hawk Tuah,” an x-rated variation of that classic Simpsons episode where Bart is briefly famous for uttering “I didn’t do it” after clumsily toppling the set of a sketch on Krusty the Clown. Not at all an isolated incident, that sort of lewd, lascivious behavior has been a cultural norm for many years, as evinced, as just one example out of so very many, a middle-aged white woman recently mimicked performing oral sex on the “fan cam” at a Denver Nuggets game, which one would think some at least, would think should be a family friendly setting. Indeed, the woman mimics performing oral sex in a group setting on different men as indicated by gestures from the left and then the right hands.
Another glaring problem with this whole sordid charade is how these cretins fail to understand the fundamental distinction a mother and father play in parenting, and that both sons and daughters need a mother and father with distinct gender roles intact.[3] Consider how unsavory, to put it mildly, it would be for a father to even consider providing his daughter sexual content, or providing such a daughter masturbatory aids which, anecdotally at least, is something liberated, modern women of the “boss girl, coastal elite” type have been doing since the 90s. The actions of the “mom circle” and those of similar ilk is no less sketchy—this despite the fact that men and women are different, as evinced by how fundamentally different it is for women like Amanda Seyfried or Lindsay Lohan to flash their genitalia, compared to any man doing such a thing, and how that sort of indecent exposure would be dealt with in a very different way. To the extent adolescent boys, like those raised Schroeder, have questions about the birds and the bees, they should be addressed by the father, as mothers should fill that role with daughters, without, perhaps, prolonged discussion about clitoris stimulation with a thirteen year-old. Society needs to return to distinct roles for mothers and fathers precisely because men and women are different.
Talking about the “birds and the bees” is a notoriously delicate manner, but however one approaches it, almost everything in this article should shock the conscience. The only reason it does not is because this sort of thing has become so commonplace that all of us have built a tolerance to all of this abject degeneracy to some varying degree. Like being exposed gradually to increased dosage of poison over time, deviancy is defined ever further downward. That is not to suggest this essay should be construed as an endorsement to unyielding prudery. The prohibition or discouragement of sex before marriage is laudable, but really is not practical in a society in which few marry out of high school or even young adulthood. Parents and society need to arrive at a balance that eschews both unwieldy prudery and abject profligacy. At a bare minimum, parents should not be showing their thirteen-year-old sons and daughters “sexy clips,” let alone curating pornographic content, or even salacious, NSFW work content, for them to consume, regardless of whether it comes from something like Pornhub or whatever is fielded by that Mischling monstrosity with all her feminist delusions. Something drastic, of course, needs to be done about pornography on the Internet, if only to prevent minors from getting access. At the most abstract and philosophical level, however there must be an epiphany that these people, so wrongly regarded as “thought leaders” in a moribund and decadent society, are the enemy, the very anathema to values thousands of years of old as well as to our very future the future of our posterity. Both imperatives almost certainly require a jettisoning of both democratic norms and even the democratic form of government.
[1] This point is of course debatable. When is it is appropriate for a teen to watch films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Risky Business¸ or even a hard-to-watch, disturbing film like Requiem of a Dream? This author will not offer a definitive answer, but it seems obvious there is a difference between watching film or television with sexual content from start to finish as opposed to cherry picking salacious scenes for that purpose, which Schroeder explicitly admits to.
[2] The author remembers, after all these years, a certain printed interview recounting this happening on a certain scale that was reproduced over time. The article cannot be located, and in any case the regional nature of this publication would be compromising.
[3] Kamenetz and Kroll Bennett are married, as Schroeder seems to be, although that has not been confirmed by this author. The father of Schroeder’s boys seems missing in action, and the husband in the two Jewish families do not seem to take a leading role whatsoever.