The resurfacing of clips from a recent BBC-affiliated documentary has rightly set off a firestorm of public anger after sex therapist Sonalee Rashatwar suggested there could be a “consensual” way to accommodate a fetish involving unconscious partners by paying women to be drugged. Americans who value basic decency and the rule of law should be alarmed that such ideas were even aired on a major network without immediate outrage from producers. The comments were widely shared and condemned, forcing outlets and social media to confront how far mainstream media will go to normalize disturbing behavior.
This controversy isn’t merely about one provocative clip; it’s emblematic of a cultural rot in which media elites elevate fringe ideas while treating basic safety and consent as negotiable. Viewers and clinicians alike described the remarks as beyond the pale, and the backlash quickly focused on why a respected broadcaster would platform such thinking. The episode has reignited debate over editorial judgment and the responsibilities broadcasters owe to audiences when covering sexual crimes and exploitation.
At the same time, another related controversy has exposed the same institutional complacency: guidance from University Hospitals Sussex about “induced lactation” claimed that milk produced by transgender women on hormonal regimens can be comparable to milk produced after childbirth. That claim, published in hospital guidance and amplified in some media pieces, prompted fierce criticism from parents, clinicians, and public-interest commentators who said evidence was thin and the welfare of infants should not be an experiment in identity politics. The debate shows how hospitals and broadcasters can rush to embrace progressive framing without fully grappling with scientific uncertainty.
Even the BBC’s own complaints unit found problems with how the coverage presented the evidence, warning that viewers were left with a materially misleading impression about the science behind induced lactation and its comparability to postpartum breastfeeding. That finding ought to be a wake-up call: if the BBC can mislead the public on an emotionally charged issue like infant feeding, what else is slipping past ordinary editorial checks? If institutions are going to weigh in on matters of child health and consent, their claims need to be grounded in robust science and common sense, not ideology.
Conservatives should seize this moment to demand accountability from both media and medical establishments. We are not opposed to respectful debate about identity, but we will not stand silent while institutions normalize proposals that flirt with the boundaries of criminality or that place children at potential risk. BBC executives, hospital boards, and licensing authorities must explain how these segments passed editorial review and what safeguards will be put in place to prevent similarly dangerous messaging in the future.
This story is ultimately about priorities. Are public institutions going to protect the vulnerable—women and infants—or are they going to chase woke talking points at the expense of safety and truth? Voters and taxpayers deserve answers, not spin. Policymakers should consider investigations and stricter oversight to ensure that media outlets and medical bodies serve the public interest rather than acting as laboratories for social experimentation.
Patriotic Americans who care about decency, family, and the safety of the next generation must make their voices heard. Call your local representatives, demand transparent reviews, and refuse to let Big Media and woke institutions rewrite the rules without scrutiny. Our culture will not be saved by silence; it will be saved by people willing to stand up for commonsense standards that protect women, children, and the truth.
