The term “grooming” has gone mainstream. And, of course, leftists—who have little to no wit or sense of humor—are now trying to use the term for things that do not pertain to the conditioning of children to adopt LGBT lifestyles.
Joy Behar—you know, the screaming lady from The View…wait they all scream—recently claimed that gun manufacturers are grooming kids to love guns. I wonder if kids will love guns as much as the security guards at her TV studio or at the entrance of her gated community love guns…
At any rate, she brings up a good point, even if by accident. Grooming is not just about LGBT ideology; it can happen in other ways.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
Ultimately, to groom someone is to condition them into a particular skill set or mindset. Thus, we might say he is “grooming his successor,” or “he was well groomed by that school.” The term is icky to us now, but the ickiness has to do with the purpose of the grooming rather than the process of grooming itself.
Long before corporate America and the public school system—but I repeat myself—were grooming children into adopting a rainbow way of life, Hugh Hefner was grooming generations into fornication and sexual debauchery.
Since the death of the man who did his best to damn a million souls, the not so shocking truth about Hefner’s Weinsteinesque lifestyle has been unearthed. It was common for his smut-rag to find young girls who were not 18 and do photo shoots with them before it was legal to publish, only to release the images when the age of 18 was reached.
But it wasn’t as if the girls just happened to stumble upon the sulfuric scene of Playboy mansion. No, they were sought after, influenced, encouraged, and psychologically manipulated—they were groomed.
Although he is heralded as some sort of “liberator” of sexual repression, he was nothing more than a predator and a slave master who viewed women as objects to be exploited and men as useful idiots whose desire to exploit women could be exploited for ideological reasons.
Beyond the materialist pursuits of the Playboy endeavour was a deeper ideological pursuit. Hefner spoke at times about his dislike of organized religion and Christianity in particular. He was raised in a puritanical home; thus, he presented his licentious lifestyle as a correction to an unnatural repression.
He wanted to change the way the world felt about sexual activity, and he abhorred virginity. He was a disciple of Alfred Kinsey, a man who might be one of the most detestable monsters of the 20th century, and that is saying something.
Hefner boasted of being “Kinsey’s pamphleteer.” He championed Kinsey’s work as a way of convincing young virginal women to fornicate by explaining how having sex is the fashionable and natural thing to do. “Losing her virginity will seem very unimportant compared to the fear of being different,” he once said.
Hefner did not just believe in grooming young women with junk psychology; he also put his money where his mouth was and helped fund SIECUS—the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. SIECUS was the group behind the sexuality education guidelines published by UNESCO.
Dr. Mary Calderone founded SIECUS with Hefner’s money, and she told parents: “Children are sexual and think sexual thoughts and do sexual things…parents must accept and honor their child’s erotic potential.”
She also told them, “Professionals who study children have recently affirmed the strong sexuality of the newborn.”
Hefner was obviously fine with this.
The sexual grooming of children is not just about LGBT issues, and Hefner et al. knew this. Decades before Disney was encouraging your children to act pridefully, Hefner was funding research to sexualize your kids.
As pernicious as his ideological sexualization may have been, his most prolific grooming was not of women and children but of would-be groomers themselves.
The proverbial “stash” of dirty magazines has become a normal part of modern life. Most everyone has a story about uncle so and so, or sometimes their own father, who, when he believed a son or nephew had reached a certain age, would give him his collection of Playboy magazines. With the advent of pornographic films, the stash has evolved from a collection of video tapes to a thumb drive, but the ethos behind the stash remains, and it is firmly rooted in the culture that Hefner championed.
Every man who has given a younger man a stash of smut is not qualitatively different than Hugh Hefner or Alfred Kinsey. Sure, the degree of evil perpetuated varies from person to person, but the fact remains that just as Hefner did what he could to sexualize children, so too has every uncle who gave a nephew a chest-full of images sufficient to damn his soul.
Hefner may be dead, but his demonic spirit lives on in the muddied consciences of men whose minds were infiltrated by the spirit of self-abuse that the proliferation of his magazines has perpetuated.
Without knowing it, C.S. Lewis wrote in a letter a passage that succinctly characterized the evil of what results from Hefner’s pornographic evangelism: “For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sends the man back into the prison of himself.”
As if describing Playboy mansion—which was, in reality, nothing more than a predatory brother, he added: “… there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.”
Understanding the ultimate end of such behavior, he continued: “Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself.” (Emphasis added.)
I do not have any specific psychological training, but I have long believed that the activity that accompanies the consumption of pornography—the solitary vice—is ultimately a homosexual activity. If Lewis is right and the teleological purpose of the act is adoration of self, then it stands to reason that the ultimately desired sexual object is the man partaking in the activity—thus a man is expressing sexual attraction for himself, another man.
Perhaps in some roundabout way, like a sort of satanic long-range plan, Hefner and the legions of stash-gifting uncles were, in fact, grooming kids into the LGBT scene the whole time.
[Photo Credit: Getty Images]