Kathleen Gilbert

Generation XXX: 13-year-old boy sexually abuses 5-year-old sister thanks to porn, says therapist

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert
Image

April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When it comes to startling statistics, the hidden world of pornography consumption has them in spades.

For example, every second, $3,075.64 is being spent on porn, while 28,258 Internet users are viewing it. As of 2006 Big Porn was more lucrative than Google, Apple, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo!, and Netflix combined.

But perhaps the most startling of all is the age demographic: the largest group of Internet pornography consumers is between 17 and 12 years old.

Therapists now say we’re only beginning to scratch the surface of the havoc wreaked on this “Generation XXX” as it freely surfs the Internet - where 30 percent of all traffic is dedicated to porn.  They describe grade-schoolers dropping out of school to spend the day at the computer feeding their porn addiction, while their real-life budding sexuality, trained on hardcore porn, is warped away from real relationships and towards an ever-growing appetite of voyeurism and violence.

Child therapist John Woods described in a Daily Mail article on Thursday how “Jamie,” 13, found himself addicted to hardcore pornography online before he had even kissed a girl in real life.

“At first I found it a bit scary and a bit yucky ... I didn’t know it was possible for people to do those sort of things — and there were lots of nasty close-ups. But it gave me funny feelings and the pictures started to stick in my head,” the boy said, according to Woods.

“The websites led me to other websites and soon I was looking at even weirder stuff I could never have imagined — animals, children, stabbing and strangling. I stopped leaving my room and seeing my friends because when I was away from the pornography, I was dying to get back to see what else I could find.”

Woods described tales from other teens who found themselves longing for violent hardcore pornography scenarios when meeting with rejection from real-life women.

“I feel like stabbing her,” one 18-year-old gave as his usual reaction when rejected by a girl, according to Woods. The same boy admitted that he enjoyed “seeing women being hurt” and fantasized about strangling them - all the while thinking of suicide himself, because he feared that hardcore porn had ruined his chances at a real relationship forever.

Another case cited by Woods was Andrew, 13, who had sexually abused his five-year-old half-sister. “Due to his two years of constant porn use, he has built up a complex fantasy world — so it was no big step for him to try to involve her,” wrote Woods.

Monica Breaux PhD, an adults-only therapist and expert in sex addiction based in Arizona, said that Woods’ scenarios are all too accurate.

“My clients are primarily adult men seeking help for pornography compulsion, but I am painfully aware that experts report there is no way to prevent children from being exposed to pornography,” Breaux told LifeSiteNews.com in an email.

Breaux said the porn trap is especially pernicious for children, who have yet to develop a sense of boundaries against acting out what they have seen with others.

“Children are naturally drawn to images of other children as models of behavior.  They pressure peers to view and imitate pornography,” she said. Meanwhile, “group sex, bestiality, and sadomasochism are prevalent in pornographic materials that children stumble upon.”

Breaux said porn’s “dehumanizing” effect can spread into a person’s entire life.

“We select people in the pornographic pictures for our personal slaves. We do not think of their hunger, their wounds, their need for our genuine love and concern,” the therapist said. “This slaveholder attitude creeps into our relationship skills.”

As a sex addict loses sight of others’ dignity, said Breaux, this assessment of the human person ultimately takes root in themselves, destroying their self-esteem.

When addicted to porn, “we go blind to the goodness within us, believing we are bad and unlovable,” she said. “My clients, who turned to pornography to soothe their loneliness and emotional pain, tell me ‘Pornography ruined my life.  It was the worst thing that ever happened to me.’”

Woods cited a U.K. report that found four out of five 16-year-olds regularly access porn online. His own area in North London has seen 50 referrals for youths suffering from compulsive porn use in the past year.

“As a therapist, I am convinced that these images can be deeply traumatising to children — not least because a competitive market means that pornographers are trying to outdo each other to come up with the most extreme images,” he said.

“This contest to push the boundaries means that straight intercourse is considered too boring. Images of brutal anal sex and women being humiliated and degraded by two or more men at any one time are the new norms,” wrote Woods. “Some of the kids who regularly see such scenes will become conditioned to being aroused by only the most extreme practices at a critical state of their sexual development.”

Another alarming aspect of the dilemma is how easily it could be prevented: parents, he said, just aren’t in the room when kids are on the Internet. “Most parents simply have no idea of what their children are doing,” he said.

“In the Seventies and Eighties, parents were urged to ask: ‘Do you know where your child is?’ The urgent question parents should now ask is: ‘Do you know where your child is going online?’ because, in my view, where they wander on the web is potentially more dangerous.”

Without that control, the debilitating addiction could shatter a young person’s budding relationship skills and self-image for a lifetime.

Woods says Jamie told him he felt branded by the immense guilt of the addiction he had stumbled into - “as if it is written across my forehead” - and which was now completely out of his control.

“It still makes me think I might never have a proper girlfriend - because the pictures still come back to me sometimes. It make makes me want to shout, ‘Stop, stop,’” said the boy. “But sometimes they still won’t go away.”

Click here to learn more about pornography addiction.

Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.

Donate to LifeSite's fall campaign today


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dr. Thomas Ward

,

The counter-revolutionary calling of large families

Dr. Thomas Ward
By Dr. Thomas Ward

Editors Note: The following article is based on a talk delivered by Britains Dr. Thomas Ward, Vice-President and Founder of the National Association of Catholic Families, at the International Forum on the Large Family and the Future of Humanity from September 10-11 in Moscow.

Christian families of Russia thank you for your call to the generosity and joy of large families. It is a counter revolutionary call to build a new Civilisation of Love and Life.

It is a call to our families to replace today's dying Culture of Death with all its attacks on humanity: on life, love, sexuality, marriage, family, and Christianity itself.

A culture of contraception, abortion, homosexualism and their indoctrination subtly enforced on our families at home and brutally imposed upon poor families abroad.

A culture of planned demographic collapse.

A culture in which the only protectors of children are their parents, their Primary Educators who, as in Germany, Sweden, and very recently in Ireland, may have little moral alternative to civil disobedience and imprisonment.

But parents and their inalienable rights are the Achilles heel of the Culture of Death. It is here we must attack.

Many in the West oppose this madness. Do not despair of us!

I have worked over forty years as a family doctor defending the family and families. I am convinced that the root of the Culture of Death is the artificial separation in contraceptive sexual intercourse of love from life.

Contraception is associated with a rise not a fall in the abortion rate.

Hormonal contraceptives have been known to have an intrinsic abortifacient pharmacological action since1926!

This separation of life from love has spread from contraception, to in vitro fertilisation and now logically, even theologically to homosexual "marriage."

Contraception is the gateway to the Culture of Death and it is of itself wrong. But contraception alienates life from love in a second and unrecognised way. Secret contraceptive indoctrination and provision to children without parental knowledge or consent, by governments, separate our children from our protective love.  But if we parents contracept how can we convincingly protect our children from contraception?

Revealingly, both separations are promoted by one of the largest multinationals in the world, the Birth Control Lobby.

Who removed our parental rights?

In 1922 Lenin initiated what was to become the Frankfurt School of Western cultural Marxism. His intention was to destroy the obstacle of Western Christian culture to the spread of Marxism. The methods to be used were the use of sexual instinct as a weapon and overwhelming negative destructive cultural criticism in all spheres of life. The Frankfurt School targeted our families against the background of growing liberalism in church and state.

We hear the same message from different messengers over the decades:

“Communist society will take upon itself all the duties involved in the education of a child.”
   - 1920 Alexandra Kollontai, the first Soviet People's Commissar for Social Welfare

"Children have to be freed from… religious and other cultural 'prejudices' forced upon them by parents,civil and religious authorities […] sex education should be introduced in the 4th grade, (i.e. 9 to10) eliminating 'the ways of elders' by force if necessary.”
   - Brock Chisholm who became the first director of the World Health Organisation in 1948

"It is now the privilege of the Parental State to take major decisions - objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is best for the child....” 
   - Lady Helen Brook, who started the “secret” provision of contraceptives to the young the very first step in the usurping of parental rights on education and medical treatment.

“Parents –  the most dangerous people of all.”
   - A Family Planning Association spokeswoman

In 1974 the British Government prohibited doctors from contacting "the parents of a child of whatever age" when she requested contraceptives. A parent legally challenged this in the courts but our Law Lords ruled that when a doctor decided a child fully understood what was proposed, the child could consent to all treatments and parents' rights stopped. This now covers abortion.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has instructed nations to ensure the right to sexual education, to contraception and abortion for girls and adolescents without parental knowledge or consent.

IPPF, based in London, is the nerve centre of the world reproductive law reform. London is the centre of Common Law jurisdiction which covers one third of humanity, the former British Empire. IPPF operates in 189 countries including Russia.

Because of same-sex legislation, Catholic adoption agencies, caring in loco parentis for our most vulnerable Catholic children, have been outlawed.

The Education Act 1996 imposes a duty on state schools, including religious schools, to teach about marriage in the National Curriculum. With the legalising of same-sex "marriage," parents who object to this being taught in certain general classes have no right to withdraw their children. The school, because of its legal obligation to promote equality, is itself obliged to refuse permission.

Because of same sex "marriage" legislation the exercising of the parental primary right to educate has been outlawed.

On the teaching of Christian sexual morality in schools the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has said: "A curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true … is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination.”

Because of same-sex legislation the right to teach Christian sexual morality as objective truth in educational institutions has been outlawed.

Never before in the history of free men has our human right to be the primary educators of our children been removed. It is enshrined in Genesis, in the New Testament, in the doctrine of the Orthodox and of the Catholic Church, in Aristotle and the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights.

The demographic recovery of your great country will depend disproportionately on generous large families. They will depend upon legally enforceable guarantees of their God-given, inalienable human right as Primary Educators.

Through these families Russia will, please God, become a Christian beacon of hope to all humanity.

A new civilisation of Love and Life will begin. It will be our civilisation. It will be God's civilisation.

Christian families of Russia, thank you.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Red-light district in Amsterdam. joyfull / Shutterstock.com
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Zurich’s drive-in brothel so successful, it may be imported to Austria

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

The government-sponsored “drive-in brothel” in Switzerland’s financial capital has been so successful that the Austrian government is now considering adopting the same practice. Zurich is Switzerland’s largest and wealthiest city and its officials have hailed the success of the pilot project.

“The new regulation of street prostitution has attained its objectives of protecting the population and the sex workers,” the city said in a statement, quoted by the Guardian newspaper. Prostitutes must pay the city for a license to use the facilities, and they must charge clients a value added tax (VAT) and declare their income to the government.

Prostitution has been legal in Switzerland, long hailed as one of Europe’s most “progressive” countries, since 1942. The country offers licenses to women who work in approved brothels and in designated “red light” districts.

The new scheme, started a year ago, involves licensed car port-like structures where a prostitute can serve her client inside the client’s car. Supporters said these brothel-carports, equipped with alarm buttons and showers, were intended to help regulate spread of the prostitution trade into suburban residential neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, Vienna Councillor Sandra Frauenberger told the newspaper Die Presse that councillors are impressed with Zurich’s success. “We need to discuss it first,” she said. “The boxes are on the agenda for the next meeting of the Steering Group.”

She denied that there were complaints against licensed prostitution based on moral objections, saying, “The residents just do not want any noise or fear the risk of harassment.”

While the arrangement is being praised as a success by politicians, police in Switzerland are expressing concerns over significant increases in intra-EU human trafficking.

An article on Swissinfo.ch headlined, “The sex industry is thriving,” noted that according to the government’s records, legalized Swiss prostitution is worth 3.2 billion Swiss Francs (approximately $2.65 billion U.S.) a year. The article quotes a report by the federal police saying the incidence of prostitution has risen 20 percent since 2003.

But this does not mean that Swiss nationals are turning to prostitution, since the same report notes that the uptick in the number of prostitutes has been paralleled by an increase in cases of human trafficking, mainly from Eastern Europe.

The report notes that the majority of prostitutes working in Switzerland are “immigrants,” and police are warning of more increases in such crimes due to the ease of movement across national borders within the EU.

According to the report, the Basel canton saw a two new brothels open a month since 2003 while Geneva saw a 50 percent increase.

Click "like" if you say NO to porn!

A report published this May on human trafficking by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) noted that Switzerland was one of the European countries that saw an “alarming trend” of increases in human trafficking cases, along with Germany, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, and Turkey. Such cases increased 18 percent, while the conviction rate fell by 13 percent between 2008 and 2010.

The report noted that “intra-EU trafficking represents the majority of the identified and presumed cases: 61 percent of victims of trafficking are EU citizens.”

Several of the report’s interlocutors in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands “indicated that the EU enlargement of 2007 had marked a milestone, as the largest share of victims of trafficking come from Bulgaria and Romania,” the report said.

A similar report on human trafficking in Switzerland by the U.S. State Department, said that Switzerland “is primarily a destination and, to a lesser extent, a transit country for women and children subjected to sex trafficking and children forced into begging and theft.”

That report said that the victims come mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, including Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Romania, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania.

“Federal police assessed that the total number of potential trafficking victims residing in Switzerland was between 2,000 and 3,000,” the American report said.

It noted that the Swiss government “does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking” but is “making significant efforts to do so.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Anthony Esolen Anthony Esolen Follow Anthony

The illusion of neutrality

Anthony Esolen Anthony Esolen Follow Anthony
By Anthony Esolen

We have all heard what has come to be a liberal dictum, that the State must remain neutral as regards religion or irreligion. One can show fairly easily that the men who wrote our constitution had no such neutrality in mind, given the laws that they and their fellows subsequently passed, their habits of public prayer at meetings, and their common understanding that freedom without virtue, and virtue without piety, were chimeras. To show that that understanding persisted, all one need do is open every textbook for school children published for almost two hundred years; or recall that Catholic immigrants established their own schools not so that their pupils might read the Bible, but so that they might choose which translation they were to read.

Still, there are two more fundamental reasons for rejecting the dictum. One is that it is not possible. The other is that it is not conceivable, even if it were possible. It is a contradiction in terms.

The Nude Beach Principle

On the impossibility: consider the effects of a permission that radically alters the nature of the context in which the action is permitted. We might call this the Nude Beach Principle. Suppose that Surftown has one beautiful beach, where young and old, boys and girls, single people and whole families, have been used to relax, go swimming, and have picnics. Now suppose that a small group of nudists petitions the town council to allow for nude bathing. Their argument is simple—actually, it is no more than a fig leaf for the mere expression of desire. They say, “We want to do this, and we, tolerant as we are, do not wish to impose our standards on anyone else. No one will be required to bathe in the raw. Live and let live, that's our motto.”

But you cannot have a Half-Nude Beach. A beach on which some people stroll without a stitch of clothing is a nude beach, period. A councilman cannot say, “I remain entirely neutral on whether clothing should be required on a beach,” because that is equivalent to saying that it is not opprobrious or not despicable to walk naked in front of other people, including children.

Two factors must be at work, for the Nude Beach Principle to apply. One is whether we can expect some people to act upon the permission. The other is an easily predictable harm that the permission so acted upon will bring to people who do not act upon it, or who, because of moral disapprobation, disgust, fear, or pain, would never act upon it. In Surftown, it means that ordinary people will have lost their beach. They will have lost it to the intolerance of the nude bathers, who, even if they were correct about the moral permissibility of their parading their wares, will not forbear with their more scrupulous neighbors. In this matter, to pretend not to choose is to choose.

Nor do we need physical proximity to invoke the principle. A few years ago in Nova Scotia, after losing a string of referenda, proponents of all-day any-day business won out, meaning that, for the first time, businesses other than hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations could remain open on Sunday. Opponents of the referendum appealed to the good that families and neighborhoods enjoyed, because they could rely on almost everyone being at home at least one day in the week. They understood that it was illogical to say that no particular business would be compelled to keep the strange hours, since the permission would mean almost immediately that many would do so—just as the permission to wear nothing on a beach will bring out many sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. They saw that that in itself would compromise or destroy the good they sought to preserve.

Now, you could say that that lost good was outweighed by the good of some purported economic development, just as you could say that the lost good of a beach friendly to families was outweighed by the good of exhibitionism or what have you. But you could not plead neutrality. To say, “I remain neutral on whether a people should set aside one day in a week for cessation of most business,” is to say that it is not important that such a day be set aside. Again, to pretend not to choose is to choose.

The referendum in Nova Scotia illustrates something else, too, beyond the particular issue. Sometimes to permit is not only to alter the context of the permitted action, but to alter the whole social order. You cannot say, as Stephen Douglas tried to say, that you will allow slavery in those states whose citizens vote for it, and then pretend that that is an act of calm and statesmanlike neutrality. A society that says that some people may own slaves is an utterly different society from one that says that no one may own slaves. That is not a distant consequence of the permission; it is immediate, indeed implied in the permission itself.

You cannot say, as liberals try to say, that you will allow abortion for people inclined to procure one, and then pretend that that too is to remain blissfully neutral and tolerant, no more than if you tried to say that you would allow infanticide for parents who decide, after all, that the diapers are too messy, or the baby too ugly or too sickly or handicapped. A society that allows some people to kill babies is a society that does not protect babies, period. It is a society that does not view them as possessing any inherent claim upon our protection. A society that freely permits pornography is, by that very permission, a society that sees nothing especially sacred in the human body and the marital act. You can say all you want that no one is required to leap into the open sewer. They still have to live with it right there, with all its stench, among people who have grown accustomed to it, or fond of it.

You will be deprived of the help that a very different kind of society might have conferred upon you, as you try to discipline yourself and your children to virtue. There's a scene in Eugenio Corti's semi-autobiographical novel about the Second World War that illustrates the point quite well. One of the soldiers from their district—the writer and intellectual among them—has fallen in love with a chaste and beautiful girl. But his imagination has not been formed or deformed by the vices of military life or the brutalities he witnessed on the Russian front. It has been formed by his faith. The girl is sure not only that Michele loves her, but “that his love was great, the kind of love given by a real man who had held himself ready for an only love.” When she daydreams about the children she will give him, she does not dwell on the physical expression of love, though that, says Corti, was to be great and joyful: “Her Christian morals at present forbade that, and she would obey that in her docile way, realizing that her so splendid love was in no small way brought about by her faithful acceptance of the moral code.” Without that code publicly acknowledged and fostered, there is no such marriage, for “Michele's love for her would have been less, perhaps limping along, spent.” No Ferdinand and Miranda, no Orlando and Rosalind, no Renzo and Lucia.

The Principle of the Empty Distinction

And these considerations bring us to the edge of recognizing that neutrality in many questions is not only practically impossible, but perfectly meaningless. We might call this the Principle of the Empty Distinction. Suppose you say you are agnostic on the issue of whether you will recognize a man's property as his own. You have just contradicted yourself. You are not agnostic at all; that is but a hand-washing distinction without a difference. You have in effect refused to recognize the right of property, and where the right of property is not recognized, what is yours is mine if I have the inclination and the power to take it. Given the same object, there is no conceivable compromise between (sometimes or somewhere) permissible and (always and everywhere) impermissible.

The illogic is most acute when the professed agnosticism applies directly to the duties of the party so professing. If I say, “I must remain assiduously neutral on the question of honoring my father and mother,” I have declared that I do not owe them the honor that they are due, and that is in itself to dishonor them. If I say, “I am strictly agnostic on the question as to whether I owe gratitude to the man who has paid for my college education without any expectation of return,” I have declared that there is no debt, nothing that binds me. I am saying that my gratitude is a matter of indifference or caprice; and that is itself ungrateful.

It does not matter whether the party is a person or a nation. The virtue of religion, as our founders used the word, pertains to the duty that a person or a people owe to God. Now there either is a duty or there is not. You cannot say, “The People must remain absolutely neutral as to whether the People, as such, owe any allegiance to God, to acknowledge His benefits, and to pray for His protection.” To say it is to deny the debt. It is to take a position while trying to appear to take none. To decline to choose to pray, now and ever, is to choose not to pray. It is to choose irreligion. One should at least be honest about it.

The reader will no doubt know which side I take on these issues. My point here is that for certain questions, neutrality is an illusion. The nakedly secular state is not a neutral thing. It is something utterly different from, and irreconcilable with, every human polity that has existed until a few anthropological minutes ago. It is itself a set of choices which, like all such, forecloses others; a way of living that makes other ways of living unlikely, practically impossible, or inconceivable.

Anthony Esolen is Professor of English at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island, and the author of Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child and Ironies of Faith. He has translated Tasso's Gerusalemme liberata and Dante's The Divine Comedy.

Reprinted with permission from the Public Discourse.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook