John Jalsevac

Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex

John Jalsevac
John Jalsevac

August 3, 2012, ( – At some point yesterday I was scrolling through a rather mundane news article on an equally mundane news site, when my eye was suddenly drawn to the lascivious photo of a beautiful woman prominently featured on the left-hand side of the story. Superimposed on the photo was the headline, “Actresses’ first nude scenes.” And then the words, “Click here.”

I confess that, as attractive as the invitation seemed, I didn’t react quite as the proprietors of the website evidently intended. I did not “click here.” Instead, I got mad.

As a proud, chest-thumping moral Neanderthal, I still believe that sex should be reserved for people who are married, and even then, only with each other (that’s a joke). Indeed, so primitive is my moral code that I even take seriously that much-maligned (and misunderstood) Gospel stricture that “He who looks at a woman lustfully is already guilty of adultery with her in his heart.”

This, of course, has interesting ramifications for someone like myself, who is required to work all day, every day, on the internet. Most of us spend so much time immersed in media that we no longer see it clearly, or have any concept of what life is like apart from it. But if we stepped back for a moment from the bizarre virtual reality into which we have willingly immersed ourselves we would realize that the internet and television are completely, and absurdly, saturated with sex.

Those who have no particular interest in pursuing what is traditionally called “purity” (i.e. reserving sexual thoughts and actions for one person – viz. one’s spouse) may not have noticed this. For such a person, the provocative ads, prurient celebrity gossip, and increasingly ubiquitous sex scenes and soft-core porn come and go, and may or may not be indulged in depending on his or her mood at the time. No big deal either way: if the constant bombardment of sexual stimuli leads to an uncomfortable build-up of sexual energy, there’s always porn and masturbation to turn to for relief.

But try for one single day to stand sentry at the gates of your mind against any sexual thoughts involving any person other than your spouse, and you will be given a rude awakening into how vast is the horde of uninvited interlopers. Surf Facebook, read a news article, browse the latest movie trailers, watch the latest drama (or the news for that matter) – and, if you wish to avoid sexual titillation, you will find yourself switching the channel, clicking to a new page, or covering up part of your screen, for about as much time as you actually spend surfing or watching.

By this point, most online publishers, for instance, have realized that Jennifer Lopez’s sculpted bottom, or Victoria Secret’s latest super-model, or the ‘50 hottest sex tips’, are much more likely to translate into “click-throughs” - and, hence, more pageviews, and more advertizing revenue – than an article, say, about, well, just about anything else.

Such publishers, of course, are simply catching up with what retailers have long known. As C.S. Lewis once put it: “There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance.”

Necessity requires that, to a point, we accept things as they are and get on as best we can. When it comes to the preponderance of soft-core porn on television, at the checkout counter, in our movies, at the mall, on our street corners, on the internet, we simply have to do our best to avoid the “near occasion of sin” and pray for the grace to get through relatively unscathed. After all, sexual temptation is hardly new. But yesterday, being abruptly presented with the unwanted, unwelcome, and unapologetically blunt option of ogling a cornucopia of nude actresses, or remaining faithful to my wife, made me step back and take in the cultural landscape.

And, as I have already said, it made me mad.

Consider, for instance, that the entertainment industry has successfully marketed to millions of our children pop starlets whose single ambition in life seems to be to outdo their rivals in shocking the moral sensibilities of the age—which, given the dullness of the aforementioned moral sensibilities, by this point simply means doing everything short of having actual intercourse on stage and in their music videos.

Even movie trailers – prefaced with the increasingly laughable statement that they have been “approved for all audiences” – are more and more playing host to snippets of explicit sex scenes, nudity, and suggestive motions inclusive, with only the “important parts” strategically covered up. But, really, how important are the “important parts,” when confronted with the sight of two nude bodies intertwined, labored breathing and all? The actual movies, of course, don’t leave nearly as much to the imagination.

This is to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of explicitly pornographic websites that have given rise to a prevalence of sexual addiction, even amongst many of our children and youngest teens, that truly boggles the imagination. Ultimately, of course, this is the Rome to which all these other paths lead. Inflame the passions sufficiently in myriad more subtle ways, and then provide easy access to hardcore pornography, and it is only a matter of time before most people follow the rabbit hole to the very bottom. Which is why the pornography industry is raking in billions of dollars every year.

There are those who say: “So, you want to remain chaste? Then don’t look at pornography, don’t click on the links, don’t look at the ads, don’t read the gossip.” Which is all well and good. Except that it completely fails to take into account human nature, not to mention the near omnipresence of sexual stimuli in our culture. Such people may as well say, “Pluck out your eyes,” or “Cut off your ears.” Someone did once say something to that effect, but the Church (except for one notable exception) has typically interpreted the remark as dramatic overstatement.

We can no more “turn off” our senses than we can stop the sun from shining. And as long as the senses are performing their tasks well, and the body is otherwise healthy, the sight of the human form presented in a sexual manner will entice, and set in motion certain thoughts and desires. Of course, as free human beings we have the capacity to reject those thoughts and desires, to gain control of our reactions (and that, indeed, should be our goal), but if we are continually being bombarded with unwanted and increasingly explicit stimuli, the effort to stand aloof can be mentally and spiritually wearing: so much so that for many in a sex-saturated society such as ours, defeat may seem practically inevitable.

In this world there will never be any freedom from temptation, and those who seek to coercively eradicate all occasions of sin are rightly labeled fundamentalists, and dangerous. But it is not Puritanism to argue that one should not have to be bombarded with invitations to see “actresses’ first nude scenes” while simply wishing to read about latest poll numbers, or the weather. If we were walking along the street and someone walked up to us and shoved a copy of Playboy in our face, we would rightly be offended and angry. And yet, we tolerate precisely such behavior from advertisers, publishers and entertainers every day, behavior that can only be termed a form of spiritual assault. It is little different from a drug pusher who offers the first hit “free,” except that the pushers of pornography have the additional advantage of being able to deliver the first “free” hit with or without the viewer’s explicit approval.

This article is not endorsing any particular solution to the problem. The question of how to redress the excesses of a society in which sex has been blown out of any sense of proportion, is a complex and multifaceted one, and cannot, for instance, be reduced to a simplistic legal solution such as enforcing laws against pornography (although that might not be a bad place to start). If I hope for anything it is simply that my readers will share in my anger, for anger is the first and necessary reaction against an injustice. Every day we are being taken advantage of by people “who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us.”

Let us reject their advances and send them the message loud and clear that “no means no.”


Share this article

Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, ,

Revolt over plan to tax churches forces Canadian city to back down

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

LANGLEY, British Columbia, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- The city council in Langley, British Columbia, unanimously decided Monday to revoke its plan to raise $82,000 by taxing eight local churches. The decision came after an uprising of Protestants, Anglicans, and Catholics descended upon the meeting and demand that the plan be canceled.

“The council made a decision not to proceed with this initiative,” Don Adams, a member of Langley’s St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, told LifeSiteNews.

Adams said that about 100 protesters from local churches and various community groups that would be affected by the City’s plan attended the meeting to state their opposition. About 15 different presentations were made focusing on how losing the tax exemption would cripple programs and outreach, even forcing some churches to close.

“Everyone spoke against it,” he said. “When the Council voted against it, everyone stood up and clapped. It was overwhelming.”

On September 28, Langley Council approved a strategy to tax properties that had previously been exempt in order to “reduce the tax burden for the general taxpayers.” The plan was to go into effect in 2017.

Of about 30 properties that were currently receiving tax exemption, the first to be considered for the removal of the exemption were churches. While the provincial government has declared that land beneath buildings used for public worship is statutorily exempt from property taxation, the municipality has the power to tax the land surrounding the building, such as parking lots, playgrounds, and grass areas.

Despite admitting that the churches provide a “benefit to society,” the city nevertheless voted 5-2 on September 28 — Mayor Ted Schaffer voted against it with councillor Rudy Storteboom — to begin taxing the churches as well as a few other non-profit organizations.

The responses from the churches submitted to the City Council was heartbreaking. The letters are available on the City’s website.

Stuart Allan, People Warden at St. Andrew’s Anglican Church of Canada in Langley, wrote to the Council that he was “surprised and somewhat shocked” to receive a letter indicating that the church’s tax exemption status was in jeopardy.

“Historically, in Canada, churches have not been taxed by the local, provincial or federal governments for the very good reason that churches are nonprofit and provide community services that are often not able to be provided by others.”

“Without exaggeration, if the City of Langley were to move forward with the proposal to reduce or eliminate Saint Andrew’s property tax exemption the additional tax burden would force us to close our doors and cease operation,” the letter stated. “This would result in the elimination of the Anglican Church in the City of Langley, all the services it provides and the nonprofit groups who rely on us would have to find other space, likely at a cost they would have difficulty managing.”

Writing on behalf of St. Joseph’s Catholic Parish located in Langley, the Archdiocese of Vancouver stated that services provided by the parish — including religious worship, education for pre-school and elementary children, women’s groups, men’s groups, and youth groups — would cost the city more than almost $40,000 that the parish would lose annually if it started being taxed.

“I think if I were to cost out the value of all the above services for the City of Langley to provide, the cost will outweigh the property exemption amount by a significant amount,” the letter written by the Archdiocese’s Director of Finances Francis Wong, stated.

The City of Langley’s director of corporate services, Darrin Leite, told LifeSiteNews that it is “reasonable” to assume that the delegations proved effective.

“After last night’s meeting, the motion was on the agenda and there was a number of delegations that spoke to council. When it came time for council to make a vote on the motion, it never got a seconder,” he said.

Share this article

Featured Image
Fr. Mark Hodges

, , , ,

VIDEO: Expert says China will continue forced abortions, sterilizations

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

IRONDALE, Alabama, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – An expert on China says the country's move from the infamous "one-child per family" policy of forced abortion and sterilization to a "two-child" policy will leave the status quo largely intact.

Human rights activist Reggie Littlejohn, an expert on China and the president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, spoke with Raymond Arroyo of Eternal Word Television Network's The World Over show about China's new policy of allowing families two children.

Littlejohn said that the change from a one-child to a two-child policy is motivated not by human rights, but by demographics. "It is not that the Chinese communist party has suddenly grown a all. It is that they are facing a threefold demographic disaster."

First of all, Ms. Littlejohn said, China "doesn't have enough women, because of their gendercide."

"The core of the policy is not that they allow one child or two children, but is that they are setting a limit, and enforcing it through forced sterilization, forced contraception, and a whole web of surveillance of women, monitoring women's menstrual cycles and their fertility," Littlejohn explained. "All of that coercion will remain the same under a two-child policy."

"A two-child policy carries all of the [same] terrible and appalling methods of abortion as the one child policy," Ms. Littlejohn explained. "It's just that they start killing after two, instead of after one."

Littlejohn went on to say that China's demographic problems resulting from 40 years of gendercide will not be fixed by the new two-child allowance. "Even if China were to completely abolish their policy right now, and allow to everybody to have as many kids as they want to have, it's going to take twenty years for the women to grow to the point where they can marry, and everybody to the point where they can be workers," she said.

She said that the Chinese have "dug themselves in a hole that they can't get out of."  Arroyo pointed out that there are 33 million more men than women in China today.

Littlejohn does not expect gendercide to decrease immediately. "What I think is going to happen," Littlejohn said, "is couples who have a boy are going to stop at one," because of the high expense of having children in China. "And those who have a girl first are going to continue to abort a second daughter, because they still want to have a son."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

When Arroyo pointed out that government statistics say 350 billion dollars since 1980 were levied in fines against those who tried to defy China's one-child policy, Littlejohn responded, "That's why I don't think China will ever abandon its policy: it's a huge money-maker for them." She noted that local officials determine the amount of fines and line their pockets with the cash.

She pointed out that five years ago, the Chinese government admitted that over four hundred million babies in the womb have been killed – and that number is far greater today.

Littlejohn pointed out that any Chinese citizen who dares to tell the truth about the communist policy is persecuted. "People who get their stories to the West – not only do they have to endure the trauma of the forced abortion itself, but they have to endure trauma [against] themselves and their families from the Chinese Communist Party for seeing them before the world."

"Thank God for Ted Cruz, also for Marco Rubio, and for Congressman Chris Smith – all three of those have come out with very, very powerful statements saying basically that the two-child policy does not fix any of the problems with the one-child policy," Littlejohn said. "I'm so glad that they ... are getting the truth out there."

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz spoke against China's policy earlier this month. "In America, we should stand with victims of oppression," he said. "These are horrific acts of brutality. They are inhumane. They are contrary not only to American values, but to human rights across the globe, and they are carried out as a matter of policy."

Rep. Chris Smith and Sen. Marco Rubio have also issued statements cautioning that China's move to a two-child policy will not end brutal, coercive population control.  

Rep. Smith, chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees human rights and chairman of the Congressional-Executive China Commission, held a hearing entitled "China's One-Child Policy: The Government's Massive Crime Against Women and Unborn Babies." Smith explained, "The policy has directly contributed to what is accurately described as gendercide – the deliberate extermination of a girl, born or unborn, simply because she happens to be female."

In October, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio criticized China's two-child policy. "The policy is still repressive," Rubio explained. "The fact remains that when couples conceive a third child, the Chinese government will force them to eliminate him or her, by any means necessary."

Rubio concluded, "A two-child policy is as indefensible and inhumane as a one-child policy, and it would be a mistake to assume this change in any way reflects a newfound respect for human rights by Beijing. The U.S. must continue advocating for the complete elimination of government-forced population planning."

Featured Image
Steve Weatherbe

, ,

Irish children’s minister joins call for nation to abandon pro-life constitution

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

DUBLIN, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Ireland's health minister has joined the chorus of feminist groups calling for a referendum to repeal the country's 30-year-old Eighth Amendment, a part of the Constitution, which allows abortion only when the mother's life is directly threatened.

Children's Minister Dr. James Reilly told the Sunday Independent that despite the reluctance of the major parties (including his own Fine Gael) to support a referendum, the public wants it. "We have had more than 30 years on this and we really need political leadership on this issue. I think it is quite clear from opinion polls that the vast majority of people are way ahead of politicians on this."

Reilly said women carrying unborn babies with fatal abnormalities should be allowed to have abortions, regardless of whether delivery poses a risk to their lives or health.

But Cora Sherlock, the head of the Prolife Campaign, told LifeSiteNews, "It is not something the people really want; it is not coming from the grassroots, but from a few pressure groups like Amnesty International. The people of Ireland have always had a heart for the unborn."

Pro-abortion activist Sinead Kennedy of the Repeal the Eighth Coalition said every politician should declare his or her position. "We would like to see political parties in the run up to the election [expected in spring] come out and declare that this will be [a] red-line issue for any participation in government."

In fact, in September, Ireland's Taoiseach, or prime minister, Enda Kenny, said his government, if re-elected, will hold a referendum on the Eighth Amendment only if a workable alternative is advanced at the same time.

Sherlock noted that despite an "aggressive campaign" from Amnesty Ireland and its uncritical promotion by the news media, popular support for the referendum is waning. A poll published by the Sunday Independent on Nov. 22 showed 56% in favor of the referendum, down 10% from June, with 22% opposed.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Support for abortion in specific cases is also down: in cases of fatal abnormalities in the unborn baby, support for abortion is down 9% to 55%; when the mother threatens suicide, it is down 4% to 68%; and when there is a long-term threat to the mother's health, support is down 5% to 64%.

"I think it is going down because people are becoming aware of the Planned Parenthood stories from the U.S., and of Kermit Gosnell," Sherlock said, in reference to the videos showing America's leading abortion provider trafficking in body parts from aborted babies, and to the abortionist convicted of multiple murders of babies who survived his botched abortions only to be executed by him and his staff afterwards. "The news media don't like to cover those stories, but the social media has a mind of its own," she added.

Last year, several government ministers declared that the people of Ireland had "no appetite" or "little appetite" for a referendum; however, they might vote if it were held anyway. They promised there would be no referendum before the 2016 election and even warned against making it an election issue, which was the case in 1983 with the referendum that put Amendment Eight in the Constitution in the first place.

The Eighth Amendment declares the unborn child's life as equal to, and equally worthy of protection as, the life of the mother. The vagueness of this formula led the current government to pass a law two years ago allowing abortion when the mother's life is at risk, including at risk by suicide, right up to the day of a child's birth.

Popular opinion still opposed abortion as late as 2007, but by 2012, support for abortion had risen to 85%. Lately, Amnesty International has lent its reputation to the push for a referendum, leading Sherlock to predict, "Amnesty will be the loser when the hypocrisy of a so-called human rights group attacking the unborn becomes evident and when people see that they are only willing to talk about teenage pregnancy, but not about the unborn, not about the Planned Parenthood videos nor Kermit Gosnell, and about how these go hand in hand with abortion on request."


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook