"I challenge you to go back." The post James Hetfield had issues with Metallica’s ‘Enter Sandman’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

“When T.S. Eliot said that there are no lost causes because there are no won causes, he probably was not thinking of American conservatism,” begins the opening paragraph of Sam Francis’ seminal 1991 essay, “Beautiful Losers.” “American conservatism,” Francis wrote, “is a failure, and all the think tanks, magazines, direct mail barons, inaugural balls, and campaign buttons cannot disguise or alter it. Virtually every cause to which conservatives have attached themselves for the past three generations has been lost, and the tide of political and cultural battle is not likely to turn any time soon.” The reasons for this were numerous and varied, but the fundamental thesis was this: “The Old Right,” Francis wrote, “failed to understand that the revolution had already occurred.” The conservatism of William F. Buckley, Jr., Frank Meyer, National Review, and yes, even Ronald Reagan championed an ideology designed to defend an old established order that had already disappeared. That ideology’s doctrines — limited government, federalism, a capitalist “economy of privately owned and operated firms,” and a blend of Protestant moral traditionalism and entrepreneurial individualism “in politics, economy, art, religion, and ethics” — were constructed by and for “the institutions and beliefs of the bourgeois elite” that had ruled from the time of the Civil War up “until the dislocations of 20th-century technological and organizational expansion brought forth a new managerial elite that seized power in the reforms of the Progressive Era and the New Deal,” Francis argued. “These reforms constituted the revolution … in the construction of an entire architecture of economic and cultural power, based on bureaucratized corporations and unions, increasingly bureaucratized universities, foundations, churches, and mass media, and fused, directly or indirectly, with a centralized bureaucratic state.” More than 30 years later, the Right has yet to grasp this insight. The transformation of American society from a republic — with a constitutionally limited government and an authentically private civil society and economy — to a bureaucratized mass democracy, presided over by a managerial elite that moves fluidly between the public and private spheres, continues to elude the explanatory power of the old conservative ideological doctrine. Indeed, the old ideology is not capable of explaining these dynamics, as it was constructed for a world in which they did not exist. With the vast apparatus of what used to be called “civil society” at its fingertips, the Left has no need for direct state suppression of dissidents. (Although it’s often happy to advance its cultural goals via government coercion as well, from the persecution of Christian businesses and charities to the Department of Justice’s efforts to bully parent-led school board protests.) The genius of this approach is that it is largely seated in the exercise of “soft” rather than “hard” power. Large social media companies — which flood the market with credentialed “fact-checkers,” flag right-wing “misinformation” and favor content-moderation practices that advance left-wing ideological ends — intersect with a phalanx of credentialed experts, DEI consultants, lavishly-funded activist groups and foundations, and a willing legacy media to reframe the way Americans receive and digest information. These tools of modern mass society are directly at odds with the ethic and character of the old American republic — an ethic that, as Francis noted in a separate essay, “consist[ed] less in moralistic purity than in personal and social independence”: Owning and operating his own farm or shop, usually producing his own food and clothing, governing his own family and his own community, and defending himself with his own arms in company with his own relatives and neighbors, the citizen of the classical republic neither needed nor wanted a leviathan state to fight wars across the globe in behalf of democracy nor to pretend to protect him and his home. Nor did he need or want a job in someone else’s company, or a pension plan or health benefits or paid vacations or five-hour workdays. He did not want to shop in vast shopping malls where nothing is worth buying and nothing bought will last the year. It did not occur to him to enroll himself or his children in therapy courses or in sensitivity and human-relations clinics in order to find out how to get along with his neighbors, and he sought no edification or instruction from the mass media to entertain him continuously or indoctrinate him with the current cliches and slogans of public discussion or trick him into buying even more junk for which he had no use and no desire, if the citizen succumbed to such temptations, then he had become dependent on someone or something other than himself and his extensions in family and community. Men who become dependent on others cannot govern themselves, and if they cannot govern themselves, they cannot keep a republic. None of this could describe the American public today, which has become so dependent on mass organizations (of one form or another) that the republican way of life is beyond the wildest reaches of their — our — imagination. The major brands and businesses, mass media, education systems, and government bureaucracies shape the way they think and behave, often in ways that they themselves do not even fully understand: The unholy marriage between left-wing activist groups and massive investors like BlackRock is one of the most important stories of our time. It’s a form of political power that challenges some of the Right’s most basic ideas about government, free markets, and economic freedom. https://t.co/YrAy0zAMv5 — Nate Hochman (@njhochman) June 12, 2024 All this challenges the way conservatives should think about the reach and function of left-wing ideology. LGBT activism, for example — a subject of particularly energetic discussion now, on the high holy holiday of Pride Month — is usually thought of as a set of doctrines or ideas on the Right. It is rarely thought of as a system. (Many conservatives remain resistant to thinking in systemic terms at all — perhaps a hangover from the Cold War-era aversion to anything that might smack of Marxism). But they must understand it in those terms, if they are to understand it at all.  READ MORE from Nate Hochman: A Message From Europe Strangers in Their Own Country The post ‘LGBT’ Is a System appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

You’ve almost surely seen the famous photograph taken from space of the Koreas at night. North Korea is almost totally dark, South Korea is bright with lights. In one image, it conveys the dramatic difference between communism and capitalism.  Perhaps the most striking image to emerge from the elections for the European Parliament, the results of which began to be announced late on June 9, was a map of France showing which parts of the country had voted for President Emmanuel Macron’s ruling Renaissance party and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, which calls for radical changes in immigration policy. It was a very simple image. Paris was like a bright yellow sun, reflecting support for Macron; all the rest of the country, with the exception of a few tiny yellow dots here and there indicating smaller urban areas — like extraordinarily distant stars — was purple, like the night, denoting support for the National Rally. Almost as fascinating was the German map. If you didn’t know otherwise, you’d have thought it was a Cold War-era map of West and East Germany. The east was almost entirely blue, showing that the majority vote in that part of the country was for the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany; the west was nearly entirely black, reflecting support for the ruling coalition consisting of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU). The map of Italy was interesting, too. The south went solidly for the populist Five-Star Movement, while most of the north went for the Lega Nord, also populist. The sole exception was the notoriously left-wing Tuscany (Florence, Pisa, Siena), which supported the social-democratic Democratic Party. In Spain, the center-right European People’s Party took most of the country, with left-wing parties winning majorities only in a couple of regions, notably Catalonia (i.e. Barcelona). And in the Netherlands, the green-left-labor alliance (GL/PvdA) won the northern and central provinces (including the city of Amsterdam), except for the largely agricultural Flevoland, which went to Wilders’s Freedom Party, as did the three southern provinces bordering on Belgium.  Americans who are accustomed to thinking of their country in terms of red and blue states — and of blue cities located in the heart of red states — will understand the stark divisions represented on these maps. Then again, at least from my point of view, there are some things about the maps that can seem to be beyond understanding. How can it be that Parisians, whose city has arguably suffered more as a result of Islamic immigration than anyplace else in France, are more supportive of current policies than voters in the rest of the country? For heaven’s sake, after the election results were announced, there were furious protests in Paris — the city that experienced the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan terrorist shootings in 2015, that witnessed the still-mysterious fire that destroyed Notre Dame (one of many suspicious church fires that have taken place throughout France in recent years), and that has been turned, in large part, into a setting for sprawling immigrant encampments and open-air centers for midday Islamic prayer.  Same question about Germany. If you look at a map showing the population density of Muslims in Germany, it looks — again — exactly like a Cold War-era map of West and East Germany, with the western part being far more heavily Islamized (up til 9 percent Muslim or more) than the eastern part (less than 1 percent Muslim, except for Berlin, which is over 9 percent Muslim). So how is it that the east is so much more strongly anti-immigrant than the west?  Of course the Muslim vote itself is part of the answer. But the more important part of the explanation is the extraordinarily resilience of that inane and suicidal phenomenon known as political correctness. Or virtue signaling. Or, as I like to put it, utterly irrational Islamophilia. To watch a couple of videos of the post-election Paris demonstrations is to observe representatives of two distinct groups. One, angry young Muslim men — no surprise there. Two, elegant, respectable-looking non-Muslim women — the Gallic equivalents of the prosperous, left-wing, middle-aged, urban white females (the soccer moms, the chardonnay moms, the moms who enthuse over BLM and transgender ideology) who in the U.S. pose the greatest threat to the reelection of Donald Trump.  These are the same kinds of people who, ever since Oct. 7, have been taking to the streets every weekend in cities all over the West to condemn Israel and cheer on Hamas. Some of these chic Parisiennes, like their distaff ideological counterparts in cities like London, Florence, Barcelona, and Berlin, presumably live in affluent neighborhoods that are still largely insulated from the Muslim threat. Others have doubtless embraced political correctness so ardently, so irrationally — with, that is to say, an ardor bordering on the religious — that, even when confronted with the reality of increasing Islamic power, which plainly represents an existential threat to their own culture and freedom (including sexual freedom), can’t bring themselves to do anything other than to applaud it.  Which means that if the Europeans who are living in the most heavily Islamized parts of their continent — cities like Paris and Marseilles, Brussels and Rotterdam, London, and Bradford — are to be spared a full-scale Muslim takeover, it looks, ironically, as if the voters who will prevent that takeover and save their skins may well be the humble provincial folks who are Europe’s version of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” — the farmers and other unsophisticated types whom the self-regarding inhabitants of the big cities look down upon and regard as unregenerate bigots. Interesting prospect, that. READ MORE: The Polite European Right Missed the Point A Message From Europe Will the Sun Shine Again in the Netherlands? The post What Doesn’t Make Sense About the EU Elections appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

So it’s official. The last Italian will be born in 2225, says the Italian publication Il Messaggero. And will die 82 years later, undoubtedly childless. The problem is, of course, the dearth of children. Birth rates in Italy have dropped well below replacement rates and entered the realm of extinction. Viewed across 2,400 years of Western civilization, 200 years is not so very far away. Imminent, in fact. But we will not have to wait that long to feel the effects of all those children gone missing. As soon as 2116, the Italian population will be 10 million, down from 60 million today. And a lot older. Caught between lower birthrates and greater lifespans, Italians will grow older for longer. As these trends play out, seniors will comprise a higher and higher percentage of the population right up until the final die-off. What does an Italian gerontocracy look like? In the absence of grandchildren to dote on, I imagine oldsters engaged in cards, bocci, wine tasting, gourmet food, music, and spectator sports. Maybe some light travel to break things up. The good life, Italian style. Probably not so many discos, start-ups, and families. Endless farewell tours by the Rolling Stones. Not a lot of change as the civilization winds down like an old watch until the hands simply stop at some predetermined time. Italy is not alone. The demographic winter has already descended over Japan, China, Russia, and Germany. The problem in these countries is always the same. In an agricultural age, parents needed children for the same reason they needed animals: extra arms and legs to handle the grueling, un-automated chores around the farm. In the absence of pensions, children provided a comfort in the golden years. A big family was a prosperous family. In our urban era, children morphed into luxury goods, little mini-mes, who cost a lot more than they contribute to the family fortunes. Kids are not without their charms, but they restrict lifestyle choices, cut into free time, postpone retirement, and shorten vacations — you get the picture. It is easy to understand the math behind a growing population: one child begot four, who each begot four more so that you go from one to 22 people within a single lifespan. Repeat for a several generations and you create a country. Geometric decreases are less intuitive, but compound in the same way: for every child that is not born, 21 others never show up. Repeat this for a several generations and a country disappears. While the problem is common across the industrialized world, each nation has reacted differently to its own demise. Japan moved manufacturing operations (which require a youthful workforce) to countries with growing markets (driven by youthful consumers). The more sedate functions like research and design stayed at home with the elderly Japanese knowledge workers, (Peter Zeihan, The Absent Superpower). This should work — for a while. The one-child policy in China delivered less children and even fewer girls due to the disproportionate termination of female babies. The missing girls dramatically reduced the fertility of the nation. Meanwhile, China embarked on an ambitious industrial policy and a military buildup. These initiatives require lots of young people to man the supply chains and serve in the military — young people who are in short supply. Maybe the CCP will start growing little Han Chinese in test tubes who will look to the state for parenting. Absent some technological breakthrough, it looks like the aggressive new policies will be undone by the unwelcome success of the old policies. Russia is going out with a bang. Here in the worker’s paradise, 25 percent of males die before age 55 due to alcoholism and smoking. Higher rates of TB, HIV, and suicide don’t help. Caught between low birth rates and high death rates, Russia is shrinking quickly. The leadership tried to solve this problem by waging war against its neighbors — a war that further depleted its own population through attrition and emigration. Kidnapping Ukrainian children will not make up these losses. In its twilight, Russia is determined to take one last shot at world domination. Even though it lacks the money and people to succeed, Russia does have the nuclear capabilities to take us all down in a Jimmy Cagney-I’m-the-top-of-the-world ball of fire. This is quite dangerous. The losses of two world wars and a muted baby boom left Germany without any sustainable path to remain, well, German. Unless you can envision Germany without Teutons. Until very recently, the voters were unconcerned and obsessed more about the long-term effects of climate change than their own upcoming extinction, giving every appearance of sacrificing themselves to appease the weather gods. This is just weird. The United States suffered less from declining birth rates than other countries and continues to grow from higher levels of immigration. That’s not to say America will be unaffected. Like everything in our divided nation, declining births have a political dimension. Religious people have larger families than secular ones. I look forward to more Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals, Amish, and conservative Catholics — and not so many atheist wokies. (Fun fact: San Francisco has more dogs than children.) Depopulation is not limited to the developed world. Indian birthrates are now below replacement levels. This is where the crystal ball starts to cloud over. Some futurists predict a breakdown in civilization, where the animal kingdom reasserts its dominance over an empty planet. The Gates Foundation spent billions to defuse a nonexistent population bomb. Will Gates continue to suppress the birth of children, or just declare victory and go home? David Brooks thinks we should replace the nuclear family with personal interests — extended groups who bond over sexual identity and shared professional interests rather than direct bloodlines. The Catholic Church is having none of this. Long an advocate for life and family, the Church stands for procreation. Translation: more families, more children, more orphanages — more self-sacrifice to achieve these good things. And less divorce, less contraception, less abortion — less selfishness to avoid these bad things. This message falls harshly on our modern ears, tuned as they are to the wavelength of ever-increasing personal freedom and deaf to pleas for more personal responsibility. One thing is clear: if the Church had its way, there would be no population crisis — a reality that is as unwelcome to our present age as it is undeniable. Perhaps the meek will inherit the earth after all. The post The Demographic Winter of Our Discontent appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — One of the major public health crusades in recent years has been a push to ban the sale of flavored-tobacco products — something California adopted statewide in 2023. “It will be a point of deep pride and personal privilege as a father of four and as someone who’s had many, many family members die at the hands of the tobacco industry to sign that bill,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom as Senate Bill 793 made its way toward his desk. The tobacco industry then qualified a referendum in an attempt to overturn the law, but voters sided with the governor and his allies by nearly a two-to-one margin. That initiative campaign delayed the law’s implementation, but didn’t make much headway among the political class or voters. Supporters of the ban mainly targeted e-cigarettes, most of which contain flavors. They also succeeded in banning lower-risk nicotine pouches that contain flavors. Yet two working papers released this week by the well-respected National Bureau of Economic Research confirm what other studies (and this writer) have long argued: Such bans will undermine rather than improve public health. The reasons aren’t hard to understand. Most smokers and vapers are addicted to nicotine. Every nicotine product in the country is labeled with warnings, including one noting that “nicotine is an addictive substance.” People who are addicted to substances have a strong craving to obtain them. Therefore, if the state or localities vastly limit the access to nicotine products that are demonstrably safer while still allowing access to the most dangerous products, more nicotine-addicted people will choose the latter — and not worry about the long-term health consequences of doing so. Forgive me for slow-walking this point, but lawmakers routinely rejected this argument. In the working paper, “Comprehensive E-cigarette Flavor Bans and Tobacco Use among Youth and Adults,” the researchers came to the following conclusion: “We find evidence that young adults decrease their use of the banned flavored e-cigarettes as well as their overall e-cigarette use by about two percentage points, while increasing cigarette use.” They found little effect of such bans on adult smokers, but “some suggestive evidence of increasing cigarette use” among youth.  The researchers found that “statewide comprehensive flavor bans may have generated an unintended consequence by encouraging substitution towards traditional smoking.” These comprehensive bans were pushed specifically as a means to protect teens from smoking. The approach seemed nonsensical, in that they banned certain adult-only products to limit their use by non-adult populations who already were forbidden from purchasing them. But that was supporters’ main argument, and it appears to be having the opposite effect. The other study, “The Effect of E-Cigarette Flavor Bans on Tobacco Use,” garnered similar results: “Advocates for sales restrictions on flavored e-cigarettes argue that flavors appeal to young people and lead them down a path to nicotine addiction. … Using data from the State and National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys, we find that the adoption of an ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems) flavor restriction reduces frequent and everyday youth ENDS use by 1.2 to 2.5 percentage points. … However, we also detect evidence of an unintended effect of ENDS flavor restrictions that is especially clear among 18-20-year-olds: inducing substitution to combustible cigarette smoking.” These may be unintended consequences, but they weren’t unexpected. Before the statewide ban went into place, Yale researchers surveyed the impact of San Francisco’s flavored ban. Per a Yale News report, “After the ban’s implementation, high school students’ odds of smoking conventional cigarettes doubled in San Francisco’s school district relative to trends in districts without the ban, even when adjusting for individual demographics and other tobacco policies.” The publication quoted that study’s author, who made the obvious point: “While neither smoking cigarettes nor vaping nicotine are safe per se, the bulk of current evidence indicates substantially greater harms from smoking, which is responsible for nearly one in five adult deaths annually. Even if it is well-intentioned, a law that increases youth smoking could pose a threat to public health.” Great Britain’s top health agency, Public Health England, reports that vaping is 95 percent safer than smoking — a point also known long before California approved its law. These studies should serve as a wakeup call for those public health officials who are seriously interested in improving public health rather than simply waging a crusade against Big Tobacco. Abstinence is always the preferred option, but vaping or the use of pouches with pharmaceutical-grade nicotine are far safer than the main alternative. As I reported for The American Spectator, the Biden administration is sadly echoing California’s policy. The Biden administration strongly opposed efforts by Congress to limit the Food and Drug Administration’s “ability to protect the nation’s youth from tobacco products by prohibiting FDA from eliminating menthol in cigarettes, flavors in cigars and from setting science-based nicotine standards that reduce the addictive properties of these products.”  Ironically, the administration backed away from its stated health concerns when it feared political consequences. As AP reported, the administration recently announced that it “is indefinitely delaying a long-awaited menthol cigarette ban, a decision that infuriated anti-smoking advocates but could avoid a political backlash from Black voters in November.” Unlike vapes, menthol cigarettes are truly dangerous — but they are the preferred choice among African American smokers. The evidence increasingly suggests that nicotine users will choose the most dangerous products if they can’t have access to safer ones. Progressive politicians love to yammer about protecting children, yet their own tobacco policies put them at risk. What are the chances California officials and the Biden administration will recognize the latest science? Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post The Dangers of Public Health Zealotry appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Mainstream media outlets have highlighted (and even exulted in) the massive growth of Americans embracing a “LGBTQ+” identity in recent years. They have routinely acknowledged that this shift is heavily tilted toward teens and younger adults. Often more muted is another observation: that by huge margins these increases have been disproportionately driven by those embracing bisexual identities. Further acknowledgment that this explosion in bisexual identity among the young has been heavily driven by females, not males, tends to be even more subdued. All of this was evident in a USA Today piece this past March that covered a seminal Gallup poll documenting the sexual orientation and gender identity of American adults ages 18 and up, headlined “Portion of US Adults Identifying as LGBTQ Has More Than Doubled in Last 12 Years.” A more accurate headline would have been, “Explosion of Young Females Describing Themselves as Bisexual Is the Biggest Driver in the Growth in Non-Heterosexual Identity Among U.S. Adults.” But if the barely hidden agenda is further establishing “LGBTQ+” as statistically normal, the broad brush is preferable. That Gallup report showed that, among females in 2023, 20.7 percent of Generation Z, 9 percent of Millennials, 2.8 percent of Generation X, 4/10th of 1 percent of Baby Boomers, and 1/10th of 1 percent of the Silent Generation identified as bisexual. The comparable percentages for males were, in order, 6.9 percent, 2.5 percent, 0.7 percent each for Generation X and Baby Boomers, and 0.2 percent for the Silent Generation. The total LGBTQ+ percentage for females was 28.5 percent for Generation Z, and 12.4 percent for Millennials, compared to, respectively, a far lower 10.6 percent and 5.4 percent for males. Meanwhile, 72.6 percent of both Generation Z and Millennial non-heterosexual females were bisexual, compared to, respectively, 65.1 percent and 46.3 percent for males. These numbers make it clear how outsized the contribution of bisexual females is to the overall growth in LGBTQ+ identity in the United States. We have known about this shift to bisexualism, particularly among young females, for a long time. For example, in 2004, the Washington Post covered the growing contingent of teenage girls who were open to sex and romance with both females and males — and who often resisted the “bisexual” label or lesbian identity in favor of cool terms like “gayish” or even “queer.” The Post referred to this as the “partway gay” phenomenon.  The large and prestigious National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for decades, enables us to track the rapid increase in bisexual identity over time, by age group, with laser-sharp specificity. I analyzed it, distinguishing those 15 to 17, 18 to 22, 23 to 27, and 28 to 32. In the NSFG 2011-13 cycle, the percentages of female describing themselves as bisexual or equivalent were 10 percent, 8 percent, 7.4 percent, and 4.8 percent, respectively. By their 2017-19 cycle, only six years later, those numbers had risen to 15.4 percent, 17.8 percent, 14.7 percent, and 10.8 percent, respectively. The percentages for females ages 15 to 17 had increased by over a third, and for those 18 to 22 by more than double. Now, compare those last percentages with those for males, among the same age groups in the same order — 3.5 percent, 5.1 percent, 3 percent, 2.3 percent. There was certainly growth in bisexual identity among males, with comparable percentages in 2011-13 being 1.3 percent, 1.9 percent, 3 percent, and 2.6 percent. But, once again, the big story about skyrocketing bisexual identity is its growth in females, not males. By a long shot. Sadly, many of these females flocking to embrace a bisexual identity do not know some of the harsh realities of the landscape they are stepping into, at least not until it is too late. Without at all being speculative or bigoted, there are at least two things they should be aware of before making the leap into active bisexuality. First, they will not necessarily be accepted within the gay and lesbian community. Quite the contrary, as those willing to speak up among the latter are happy to admit. Second, within their intimate partnerships, they will be much more likely than heterosexual or lesbian females to experience violence.  On that first point, even quick Google searches reveal that bisexuals are often not liked or embraced by the LGBTQ+ community. They face rejection by both the latter and straights, which is often called “double closet, “double discrimination,” “double hurt,” or “double stigma.” The growth of those identifying as bisexual has not alleviated this problem. One writer for a gay publication described lesbians as “notorious for rejecting bisexual women as potential friends and … partners.” This double rejection of bisexuals has negative mental health consequences, discussed for example here, here, and here.  On the second point, the elevated risk for “intimate partner violence” for bisexuals is enormous. This was abundantly documented in a well-regarded 2013 report using data from a large (16,507 adults, 9,086 of whom were women) 2010 survey of American adults’ experience of intimate partner violence, which I also discussed in my recent American Spectator column on intimate partner violence among lesbians. (Note: for female bisexuals, things are a whole lot worse.) The following percentages are those who have ever experienced such violence within intimate partnerships, and only include females. Twenty-two percent of bisexuals had been raped (completed, attempted, or fueled by alcohol or drugs), compared to 9.1 percent for heterosexuals. What about other forms of sexual violence? The difference was 40 percent versus 15.3 percent. Then there was stalking (“harassing or threatening tactics … that is both unwanted and causes fear or safety concerns”) — which bisexuals experienced at a rate of 31.1 percent compared to 10.2 percent for heterosexuals. Moving on to physical violence, the difference between bisexuals and heterosexuals ever experiencing slapping, pushing, or shoving was 55.1 percent versus 29.8 percent. What about more severe physical violence? The difference was 49.3 percent versus 23.6 percent. And then there was psychological aggression: 76.2 percent versus 47.5 percent. For the most serious forms of this, classified as “coercive control,” the difference was 68.8 percent versus 40.5 percent.  Rejected within the larger LGBTQ+ community, often isolated and lonely, and astronomically more likely to suffer violence from intimate partners. This is not a pleasant picture. Compassion and common sense tell us that young females need to be informed about the realities of living out a bisexual orientation that so many are obviously viewing as “hip” and “liberating,” a pathway out of that increasingly “uncool” straight identity. Then, at least if they proceed, they will be forewarned. But I doubt these grim facts are being covered much in sex ed classes. Maybe it is time for this factual negligence to end. READ MORE: Intimate Partner Violence In Lesbian Relationships The post Explosion of Female Bisexuality appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.