Gender and Sex

“It Can’t Happen Here”? Brazil Gives Us A Glimpse Of What The Woke Passionately Wish For America

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

In April, Brazilian father and mother, Audato and Ieda Denardi were found guilty of the crime of “intellectual neglect” and were sentenced to 50 days in prison for homeschooling their two daughters without sufficient instruction on“gender and sex education” or “tolerance and diversity.”

The court also found that the girls, aged 15 and 11, not enjoying popular Brazilian musical genres such as “trap” or “sertanejo” was evidence of a criminal deficiency in their cultural education.

Even though the prosecutors in the São Paulo trial requested an acquittal after concluding that the minors were not suffering from any neglect and were demonstrating appropriate academic and social development, the conviction was handed down. It is currently under appeal before the Seventh Criminal Court Chamber of the São Paulo State Court of Justice. The Christian legal organization ADF International is representing the family, and it denounced the case as “a grotesque abuse of criminal law.”

Ya think?

Despite the fact that both girls are pianists with advanced training and are fluent in several languages, the judge accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the state’s involvement.” Julio Pohl, legal counsel for Latin America at ADF International, neatly pointed out the obvious: to be concise, the verdict is crackers.

“An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education,” Pohl said. “The judge convicted anyway because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender. A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.”

Let’s go through the occupants of Congress, the Senate, state houses and mayors’ offices and speculate which of them secretly (or not so secretly) would like to see similar “justice” in the United States. Do we even have to speculate on the how the leadership of the teachers unions would regard the Denardi case?

Confronting My Biases #30: Fake Puffy Lips

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

More than 10 years ago I wrote about Kristina Rei, 22, of St. Petersburg, Russia. She wanted to look like Jessica Rabbit, the cartoon character, so she got herself a pair of huge—lips.She has undergone over 100 silicon-injection procedures, and considers it just the initial step in her quest to look like Roger Rabbit’s Toon wife from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”. ” At the time, I asked whether it ethical for a plastic surgeon to give her the ridiculous lips she coveted, since plastic surgeons are subject to the Hippocratic Oath like other doctors. My own position then and now, was that it is unethical, though I tried to give both sides of the issue.

“If Kristin can eat, drink and breathe with her mega-lips,” I wrote, “and there is no risk that they might explode, killing everyone near her, the decision to do what she wants is probably ethical, at least by medical ethics standards. The fact that her Chap-Stick costs will be astronomical is not the doctor’s concern, however.” Nevertheless, I concluded that “a plastic surgeon who assists a patient, especially one so young, in disfiguring herself to this extent is unethical. Autonomy is to be respected always, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Kristin’s lips are so far beyond reason that a plastic surgeon debases his profession by assisting in what can fairly be called self-mutilation.”

My bias regarding fake puffy lips does not involve such extreme disfigurement; indeed most would agree that young women getting their lips puffed up isn’t disfiguring at all. However, it is increasingly becoming apparent to me that this particular form of supposedly aesthetic enhancement is becoming a norm, and a harmful one.

Continue reading →

The U.K.’s Rape Gangs and the Warning to America

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

A Guest Post by

Sarah Beth

There have been two major incidents that brought my attention to this problem in the UK.  I think we have all heard about Henry Nowak, but the fact that he died while being arrested for racism rather than having someone take care of him and arrest the kid who knifed him rather upset me.  In case we are confused about the problem, at least in the US Karmelo Anthony was arrested rather than Metcalf, whom he had stabbed.  However, a new report has come out regarding the Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and that, with the background of Henry Nowak, leads me to some conclusions.  Read the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it.  I cried as I read it.

If it is too upsetting to read it all, here is an article about the report.  It doesn’t hurt as much to read. 

There are three main causes that I can see for this situation.  The first cause, like the cause for much human suffering and trafficking, is poor structure, in this case, family structure.  Most trafficked girls are either sold to traffickers or, as in many of the victim’s reports, from a less than ideal, often abusive, family structure.  I don’t plan to discuss the problems or solutions to this, as it is a serious can of worms and the hardest to fix. If we work on the other two problems, this, while still an issue, will be less of one.

The next problem is that of Islam.  Islam itself is not a good religion for a civilized society.  We see that the Koran states that you may marry up to four wives and have as many concubines as you wish, as long as they are not Islamic women.   Sex with prepubescent girls is also totally okay, with child marriage accepted and consummation recommended at the age of 9 with some versions of Islam suggesting it even earlier.  Some Imams have said that it is better for a girl to not to become a woman (referring to her first period) in her father’s house, but instead in her husband’s.  We also have the precepts in the Koran for how Muslims should behave in society, peaceful as the powerless, lying to unbelievers at any time, and when reaching a majority and having power, becoming brutal. 

Before discussing the repercussions on society for those precepts, I think it is fair to address the concern that this is not all of Islam, the “religion of peace.”  We can always have the discussion of what in a holy book is to be taken literally, figuratively, or even transiently.  I know of many statements in the Bible that we could debate.  However, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the Koran is far more troublesome than the Bible.  First, many Imams today proclaim the harsher rules, and the Imams who do not are almost always in non-majority Muslim countries, which could perhaps fall under the “lying to infidels” rule.  If we compare that to how Jewish rabbis, protestant ministers, and the Pope relate to the Bible, you will see that the violence recommended in the Bible is not taken to be a command to take literally today by the majority, even in countries where Jews or Christians are the majority. 

The second reason we should consider the Koran’s violence to still be considered a literal command instead of a figurative one is the sheer number of Muslims that follow it.  We can look at Jews and Christians and see that the majority of followers of those religions do not follow the violent commands.  Consider the commands in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to stone homosexuals and witches.  There aren’t many Christians who do either, and the majority loudly denounces people like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists.  We don’t see much of the Muslim world decrying other Muslim’s antisocial behaviors.  The best we tend to get is, “that’s not how we follow our faith, so don’t blame us.”

Pages: 1 2

Special Interest Forced-Celebration Pushback: “Pride Month” Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

It’s especially appropriate to ponder this phenomenon today, because the manufactured “Black Independence Day” holiday with the obnoxiously precious name “Juneteenth” is one of the most glaring examples.

However, the focus of this post is “Pride Month,” when everyone is supposed to say “Yay!” about what special people do with their hoo-haas as long it doesn’t square with conventional mores or biology. We’ve already discussed some of the more annoying examples of this pandering, as in this post, and certain organizations’ unethical (but not illegal) efforts to punish individualists who object to being forced to celebrate something their faith, good tatste or brain cells tell them shouldn’t be celebrated. To choose an analogous example, baseball players shouldn’t have to promote masturbation on “Masturbation Day” because masturbation enthusiasts banded together and bullied the teams into the promotion

Two ethics tales on this topic:

1. A flag comes down.

It is an ethics tell that some of the groveling organizations find themselves under attack when they finally decide not to grovel.

For the first time in the history of Webster, New York, on June 1 the Rainbow flag at went up the flagpole at the Town Hall and Webster issued a “Pride Month” proclamation. Republicans on the town board, however, voted to adopt a policy that limits flags flown on town property to Old Glory and New York state flags. The “Pride” flag came down after just four days, and LGTBQ bullies and their supporters freaked out. Protesters screamed at the flag removal. One woman shouted that the flag coming down would get children killed.

This is the predictable result when a special benefit adopted for a specific purpose at a specific time in a specific context no longer is appropriate, and therefore is ended. The end of a positive for the affected group is immediately and deliberately treated as a rejection, so the special status must remain in perpetuity. The LGTBQ community is no longer closeted nor widely discriminated against, nor treated as second class citizens. If that community has to have its “flag” flown over government property, what group doesn’t have a claim that their tribe warrants equal status? Notes Victory Girls,

“The American flag does not belong to one political party, one religion, one race, or one sexual orientation. It represents every citizen equally. Gay Americans are not excluded from that symbol. They are included within it, just as every other American is. That is why many people are perfectly comfortable with government buildings displaying the American flag and little else. The flag already represents the entire community. It does not become more inclusive simply because someone hangs extra flags next to it. Nothing about Webster’s decision prevents anyone from advocating for LGBT causes. People remain free to organize events, hold rallies, raise money, celebrate pride month, wear rainbow clothing, and express their views publicly. None of those activities depend upon a town hall flagpole. That is what makes some of the reaction so curious. A movement that enjoys widespread corporate support, extensive media coverage, political backing, and cultural prominence should not be endangered by the absence of a single government-displayed symbol. At some point, the demand stops looking like a request for acceptance and starts looking like a demand for official endorsement.”

It starts looking like that because that is exactly what it is. Days later, the American flag at Town Hall was discovered at the bottom of the flagpole, and a Rainbow flag was flying far above it. U.S. Flag Code dictates that no other flag should be flown above the American flag when they are displayed together. The vandalism was addressed, and currently the American flag is the only flag flying at Webster Town Hall, with padlocks added to the flagpole.

The result of groveling to various tribes, splinters and interest groups is that their members come to regard division as more important than union, and eventually other sectors demand equal submission.

2. A woke organization gets its priorities wrong.

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Website of the Month: Piper Rockelle on TikTok

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Piper Rockelle is human civilization rot. The child star turned slut-for-bucks epitomizes how the social media age has curdled childhood, taste and ethics. It’s an ugly story, and one that I was blissfully unaware of until recently.

Piper, 18, has been performing for money since she started winning kiddie beauty pageants—a dubious “ick or ethics” activity itself—from about the age of three. Her mother began uploading clips of her prancing around to YouTube when Piper was 8. The mother, a stage mother from Hell (and hopefully destined to end up there) moved her budding meal-ticket to LA when the girl was 10, “homeschooling” her (it is anyone’s guess how much of the schooling involved actual education) while selling her daughter’s images online. Next, Mom began recruiting “the Squad”, a group of other preteen children to exploit with Piper as the leader. First they were filmed doing darling little girl things until they were transitioned to tween “crush content”: scripted reality show-style drama with episodes about infatuation, coming of age, teenage angst, first kisses and dating.

Piper Rockelle became the most famous online “kidfluencer.” Her tween and teen content was popular and lucrative on YouTube, and Piper built a fan base of millions of bored low-lifes and budding pedophiles on TikTok and Instagram. Then, in 2022, eleven members of the Squad sued Rockelle’s mother Tiffany Smith, and her boyfriend and business partner, Hunter Hill, alleging abuse and exploitation. TheirYouTube channel was demonetised, costing Piper and her mom hundreds of thousands in lost dollars every month.

Pages: 1 2

Now THIS Is An Unethical Judge!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia had a habit of having noisy sex with a police commander in her chambers during office hours. This resulted in a “chambers workplace that was extremely uncomfortable and troubling for clerks,” a judicial panel concluded.

Gee, ya think?

Ross was nominated to the bench in the Northern District of Georgia in 2014 by President Obama. Of course she was. She’s a Democrat, she’s black, she’s arrogant, and she’s unqualified to be a judge. A special committee released damning findings of misconduct in a report two weeks ago. Ross was found to have lied about having sexual intercourse in her chambers—judges aren’t supposed to lie either—but inexplicably, the Eleventh Circuit and Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability decided sufficient punishment was to bar Ross from serving as a chief judge and require her to write apology letters to her clerks. Other than that, she only received a private reprimand. The disciplinary report signaled a whitewash by stating, “Although the special committee is deeply troubled by the conduct in which the judge engaged, the subject judge has demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary.” She lied to investigators! She was screwing around during work hours. That’s “diligent service to the judiciary”?

The lack of serious sanctions is indefensible. Ross shattered the following Canons in the Federal Judicial Code of Ethics:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: “Ick!”or Ethics [Hello Fresh’s Anal Sex Ad]

/ Jack Marshall / 62 Comments

Nice.

I guess I had to post about that, though I wish I didn’t have to. I feel, and I always have felt, that being “proud” of how you have sex is like being proud of how often you have to visit the bathroom. It’s desperate and stupid, as well as gross.

That ad, and so much else our grovelling to the LGBTQ community has burdened society with, demonstrates how pernicious slippery slopes are. Because ancient taboos held that gay people should hide themselves in shame, some genius decided our society should declare that what one chooses to do with their naughty bits should swing to the other end of the spectrum and be a source of “pride.” No, it shouldn’t. In my experience, only mega-jerks boast about how and where they choose to have sex. I don’t care. It’s none of my business. If I’m interested, I’ll ask, and since I’m not and never will be, I won’t, so shut the hell up.

Hello Fresh has now exposed its marketing department as tasteless and pandering, like all those cowardly, pusillanimous companies that slobbered all over Black Lives Matter. I remember a late night D.C. horror movie TV host got himself fired for suddenly talking about smegma between reels of “The Brain From Planet Arous.” I thought his outburst was hilarious, but it didn’t belong on TV, and that was the end of “Gore DeVol.” This ad should be the end of Hello Fresh if there’s any justice in the world, and we know there isn’t.

I’m going to ask anyway, though I know my answer…

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is the Hello Fresh “Pride” ad alluding to anal sex just in terrible taste and icky, or is it unethical, as in wrong?

________________

Pointer: Willem Reese

Ethics Foul Call: The Jeffrey Epstein Obsession Is a Pure Trump Derangement Symptom and Another “Get Trump!” Hoax, Nothing Else

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

At this point, the statement above must be ruled not an opinion, but a fact. As a fact, it is another indictment against the political forces—“the resistance,” Democrats, the Left’s captive media, its politicized and corrupted justice system, and furious Republicans who resent the overthrow of their weak Bushy establishment—-that have plotted to destroy Donald Trump from the moment he upset Hillary Clinton’s dream of being the first female President.

The New York Times, hardly a neutral bystander in the Left’s unyielding effort to destroy an elected President by any means necessary, recently published a compendium of what their crack reporters have learned about Epstein, who has been dead for seven years. Sixteen years ago, in 2008, he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution, and thanks to a “Dream Team” of high-priced defense lawyers and incompetent prosecutors, was allowed to accept a sweetheart plea deal. Epstein got himself indicted again in 2019 for sex trafficking minors but died in custody awaiting his trial, almost certainly by suicide. It is inconceivable that this single rich sociopath would still be in the news today or even remembered by most Americans if there was not an ongoing effort to use him to take down the President of the United States.

“More than 60 Times journalists have delved into the life of the sexual predator whose secrets spurred an international reckoning over money, power and complicity,” the Times announced in “The Big Questions About Jeffrey Epstein: What The Times Has Learned.” [Gift Link] “Oh!” I thought. “At least I know the Times will move heaven and earth to represent the matter in the most damning way possible regarding Donald Trump. Okay, let’s see it. Give us all the innuendo, the presumed Bad Orange Man criminal perversion sand guilt by association. What have you got, Times Trump Hit Squad? Lay it on me.”

Here is what they have under the “big question” “What were his relationships with Trump and Clinton?” First I should note that combining Trump with Clinton is a cheat and a guilt by association tactic all by itself. They are not equivalent cases. Clinton was involved with Epstein while Bubba was living in the White House and fooling around with a young female intern there. There is substantial circumstantial evidence raising legitimate questions about Clinton’s possible involvement in Epstein’s criminal sex procurement activities. The answer to that “big question” regarding Donald Trump however is, I conclude, zzzzzzzzzzzip.

The Times writes,

“Mr. Epstein was friends with Mr. Trump long before he became president, and he developed a relationship with Mr. Clinton during his time in the White House. Those relationships involved bonding with Trump over their pursuit of young women. The two men became good friends in the late 1980s, hanging out together at casinos, Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and other venues. A note and sexually suggestive drawing containing what appeared to be Mr. Trump’s signature was included in a 2003 book for Mr. Epstein’s birthday. Mr. Trump has denied writing the note. Some of Mr. Epstein’s victims, including [Epstein accuser] Giuffre, were recruited by Ms. Maxwell from Mr. Trump’s Florida club and residence, where Ms. Giuffre worked as a spa attendant. Mr. Trump said last year that he cut ties with Mr. Epstein in the early 2000s because he “stole” his female employees, although the relationship also deteriorated when the men fought over a piece of Florida real estate.”

Wait…that’s it? Based on that, Democrats, Graham Platner, Marjorie Taylor Greene and my Trump Deranged Facebook friends call the President of the United States a pedophile, allege a cover-up, and claim that everything Trump does, eventhe war on Iran, is an effort to “distract from the Epstein scandal”? What scandal? Two billionaires knowing each other isn’t a scandal because one of them breaks the law. Hanging out in casinos isn’t illegal or unethical. Rich guys pursuing young women isn’t a crime; heck, it is inevitable. I don’t know why Trump bothers to deny a doodle included in a birthday book: it proves nothing. And that’s all! That’s all the New York Times has after it has sent 60 reporters to get dirt on the President and seven years of searching.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunce: Bride-To-Be Rochelle Mindrum

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

When social media over-sharing meets publicity obsession, the result is misbehavior like Rochelle Mindrum’s.

The 29-year-old was expecting her boyfriend Jak Keller to pop the question, and had even gone ring shopping with him. She specified that she wanted the proposal to be done “in nature.” When they took a trip to Georgia together, she figured it must be coming soon. Sure enough, after a hike, on the side of a cliff, Keller set up his phone to take a video. He took Mindrum’s hands in his, got down on one knee, and proposed. But when Mindrum looked down at the ring, she saw that her fiancé had chosen a blue diamond rather than the colorless diamond she’d picked out. And she blurted out her disappointment on camera: “It’s so blue!”

Rochelle accepted, then posted the video on Tik-Tok along with a note that she was disappointed with the color. “I was extremely surprised by the blue diamond,” she says now. “The box it was in was dark blue, so at first I thought it was a reflection of the box. Once it was on my finger though, I was able to see that the diamond was in fact blue.”

The Amityville House has some advice for Jak, her already hen-pecked fiancé:

Unbelievable! This guy tries his best to give his girlfriend the proposal she dreams of, and the thanks he gets is to have her complain about the color of the diamond on TikTok, where it went viral. Why? Because she’s an ungrateful ethics dunce, and viewers were horrified.

It gets worse! Since the video was getting so much attention, “People” magazine, which apparently has nothing better to write about, gave Rachel another platform to bitch from, and sure enough, she did. From the article “Woman Surprised When Boyfriend Got Down on One Knee and Proposed. The Type of Ring He Chose Left Her ‘Shocked’ (Exclusive)”:

“I thought the ring was gorgeous, however, I had always dreamed of my engagement ring being a colorless diamond, so it just didn’t fit my vision,” she explains. “It does not help that my birthstone is aquamarine, so I am used to receiving blue-hued stones.” “It turns out he was trying to get me a higher quality diamond and the website was a little confusing, so he thought the higher quality diamonds all threw off a little blue hue, as the pictures online were a very faint blue,” continues Mindrum. “He was scared to drop the ring, so he never took it out of the box. He only looked at in the box. So he was just as shocked as I was with how blue it was!”

Pages: 1 2

Confronting My Biases, #29: Absurd Fake Eyelashes

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

This is really a “two-fer,” as in “two-for-one.” Here’s the bonus bias:

I visited the gloomy medical office in which I get my monthly blood analysis—I think I’ve mentioned here that the only decoration in the waiting room is a photograph of gravestones. This time I learned that the sad, monosyllabic tech who had manned the office alone for years finally had hired an assistant, and it would be she who would be sticking a needle in that prominent vein in my right arm.

As I went into the blood-letting area, I greeted her, said hello, introduced myself, cheerfully said that I was looking forward to her expertise, and basically tried to be cordial and friendly to a new acquaintance. The youngish African American woman wouldn’t answer, smile, or look me in the face; she just grimly went about her business. She did it well, too: I barely felt the needle, which is more than I can say for her boss’s performance at least 50% of the time.

However, I resent the sullen freeze-out conduct from service providers, clerks and those in similar jobs, and maybe this is my bigoted imagination, but I seem to get this treatment from young black women more often than not. It is the result of poor training, poor manners, and a rotten attitude. My current house guest, who is much younger than I, says this is a Gen Z thing, “pretending to be autistic.” I don’t care what it is: it makes life and society less pleasant, and there is no excuse for it. In the past, there have been instances where I have forced the issue and confronted such jerks, but I sure wasn’t going to try that approach with a woman about to plunge a needle into me.

Now on to the main bias…

The rude tech also was wearing the longest, thickest, fakest looking false eyelashes I have ever seen in my life. I’ve been checking the web about this phenomenon: it’s apparently part of current “black culture,” so no white person is supposed to question it, because to do so is racist. Whatever. We are doing black women no favors by being afraid to point out that this werewolf look is unprofessional, unattractive, makes women of any race look like not just hookers, but cheap hookers, and is a career handicap.

True, a tech in a back office can dress up in a mushroom suit if she wants, but I wouldn’t hire any woman wearing those lashes for a job requiring her to represent me and my company, even if the woman had the charisma of Gladys Knight. My instant reaction to a woman in eyelashes that would make Bambi self-conscious is to assume that she is not too bright, has bad taste, is inclined to blindly follow fads, and therefore untrustworthy. My conclusions about establishments that hire such woman are also uncomplimentary.

Yes, it’s a bias, just like my bias against young black men a while back who wore their pants slightly above their knees. And, as in that ridiculous case, the bias is absolutely justified.