- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Selling sex in the U.S.A.
Posted By David Kupelian On 11/12/2004 @ 1:00 am In Commentary | Comments Disabled
“Weeeeeeeeeeeee are the chaaam-pions, mah frehhhhh-und …”
To triumphant strains of the “Queen” rock anthem, the paunchy, middle-aged male actor is jumping up and down in an ecstatic victory ritual – in slow motion yet, to immortalize the transcendent moment – delirious over his new-found sexual potency, thanks to Viagra.
“Oh no, not on Fox News?!” Click. “Let’s see what else is on.”
A middle-aged man and woman, presumably naked, lying in his-and-hers bathtubs on a mountain bluff, are cozying up to each other to the tender strains of jazz guitar music, while the announcer poses the towering question of our age: “When the moment is right, will you be ready?” For Eli Lilly & Co., the moment was right during the third quarter of the Super Bowl, when the drug manufacturer paid over $4 million to subject 90 million unsuspecting fans to this 60-second Cialis commercial. (Serendipitously, just a few minutes earlier pop singer Janet Jackson had warmed up the viewers by baring her breast during her strategically naughty half-time show.)
In the fierce battle for market share in what Wall Street analysts project will be a $6 billion-a-year market by 2010, Lilly spent over $100 million launching its competitor to Pfizer’s Viagra, the market leader. To further penetrate the mass mind, Cialis’s marketers even met with sitcom writers and Broadway producers to induce them to incorporate the sex-drug into their scripts.
An attractive brunette talking directly to the camera asks viewers if they “want to know a secret?” In this racier and more aggressive TV commercial than those of Viagra and Cialis, market underdog Levitra, made by GlaxoSmithKline, presents prime-time viewers – including millions of innocent children – with a sultry seductress reveling in how the drug’s effectiveness has increased her partner’s desire to “do this more often.”
“For him, Levitra works,” she coos. “Just look at that smile.”
Click, TV off.And all across the nation, from sea to shining sea, children look up at their parents and ask, “Daddy, what’s ‘an erection that lasts longer than four hours?’”
Such ads are inundating not just TV, but radio, the Internet, newspapers, magazines and mailboxes nationwide. They’ve become part of today’s “mainstream” cultural landscape, along with Cosmopolitan and clones with their “Hot Sex Tips!” and in-your-face cleavage screaming from every grocery checkout in the country, not to mention ever-more-explicit TV and movie fare, ubiquitous spam e-mail messages hawking supplements to enlarge one’s private parts, salacious condom demonstrations in public school classrooms, Howard Stern, MTV, swimsuits, the fashion industry, cars, children’s toys – you name it, and it’s been sexualized.
And that’s just what’s on the surface – the still-”civilized” world of titillation, temptation and tease – readily visible to all who turn on the television or drive down the street.
But scratch just a fraction of an inch beneath that veneer of civilization and you’ll leave the world of entertainment and marketing and enter the world of hardcore sex, perversion, crime and self-destruction.
First, there’s the multi-billion-dollar pornography industry, which through the Internet is magically being transported into previously unreachable market territory – namely, the sanctity of millions of middle-class homes. By all accounts, Internet pornography has become a genuine national epidemic, ensnaring millions of people who never had a pornography problem before. Online porn is immediately accessible, almost totally anonymous, inexpensive (or free), and highly addictive. Indeed, it has been called “the crack cocaine of pornography.”
According to Internet Filter Review, which analyzes and rates Web content filters, revenues from pornography exceed those of all professional football, baseball and basketball franchises combined. There are 4.2 million pornographic websites – that’s 12 percent of all websites in the world, totaling 372 million pornographic pages. Pornographic search engine requests total 68 million per day.
Exactly how damaging is pornography? After all, some “scientific studies” – mostly from Scandinavia, of course – claim pornography can actually be beneficial.
Not quite. As scientist and adjunct law professor of bioethics Dr. Kelly Hollowell points out:
Studies reveal that acts of sexual violence are commonly linked to pornography and the numbers of victims are massive. According to sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate, experts reveal that by the time a female in this country is 18 years old, 38 percent have been sexually molested. One in eight women will be raped. Fifty percent of women will be sexually harassed on their jobs during their lifetimes. In fact, sexual dysfunction is on such a rampant rise that experts are calling it more than an epidemic. They are calling it a sexual holocaust.
Just hours before he was executed on Jan. 24, 1989, notorious serial killer Ted Bundy was interviewed by Focus on the Family chief Dr. James Dobson, a clinical psychologist. Bundy movingly revealed how pornography had fueled his thought world and later his murderous rampages, and also confirmed the central role porn played in the lives of virtually all the other violent offenders with whom he was incarcerated.
Chillingly, Hollowell discloses that “when one study group was exposed to as little as five hours of non-violent pornography, they began to think pornography was not offensive and that rapists deserved milder punishments. They also became more callous and negative toward women and developed an appetite for more deviant or violent types of pornography.”
Driving it all, of course, is money. Pornography is a lucrative business. As PBS reported in its “Frontline” documentary titled “American Porn,” many U.S. companies have profited handsomely from peddling smut. The Marriott, Westin and Hilton hotel chains, for instance, have enjoyed a nice income stream from making X-rated fare available in their hotel rooms. Many other mega-corporations including AT&T, News Corporation and Yahoo! have earned big bucks over the years from their involvement in cable and Internet distribution of “adult entertainment.”
But pornography is just the fuel. A quick survey of the sexual fires now blazing is even more disturbing:
Many people seem to think having sex with children is a good thing, as 100,000 websites now offer illegal child pornography, reports Internet Filter Review. Worldwide, child porn generates $3 billion in revenues every year. And culturally, adult-child sexuality is creeping, ever so artfully and gradually, into the public consciousness.
For instance, in the 2004 movie “Birth,” Oscar-winner Nicole Kidman plays Anna, a young widow who thinks her deceased husband has been reincarnated – into the body of a 10-year-old boy. Thus, one scene depicts Kidman tenderly kissing the boy on the lips. Another scene has her asking the boy – played by 11-year-old Cameron Bright – if he has ever had sex. In still another scene – which elicited boos from the audience when “Birth” was first screened at the Venice International Film Festival – the boy slowly undresses in front of Kidman before joining her in the bathtub.
“The film disturbs some people and it makes them uncomfortable,” Kidman admitted in a Hollywood interview, according to the New York Post. “It’s meant to do that, but not in a way where you’re trying to exploit a young boy.”
Well now, what an ingenious way to justify intimacy between an adult female and a male child: The little boy is not your normal kid, you see, but is actually the reincarnation of the woman’s grown husband. We, the audience, “understand” her behavior since she’s not actually seducing a little boy, but rather, is just being intimate with her husband. In reality of course, she’s sexually corrupting a child in front of millions of viewers.
How on earth did America get to this point where we’re literally drowning in sex and corrupting each other right and left? How can we return to a more innocent time, to a culture of morality, and of real respect between men and women? Is it even possible?
Maybe the first question we have to answer is: Exactly how and when did we “buy into” wanton sexual anarchy disguised as freedom?
Ozzie, Harriet … and Kinsey
Let’s turn the clock back a few decades – before the days of the Internet and instant, anonymous and free online porn.
Back before the 1990s with Bill and Monica, and before the 1980s with its major growth in sex education and birth-control clinics in government schools.
Back before the high point of the sexual revolution – the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
Back even before the tumultuous 1960s and its “Make love, not war” and “Sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll” youth counterculture.
Let’s go back to the era most Americans still remember fondly as the Golden Age of traditional values and national sanity – the 1950s.
Divorce was rare, abortion and homosexuality were “in the closet” and out of view of polite society. It was the age of “Ozzie and Harriet,” “Father knows best” and “Leave it to Beaver.” Classics like “Ben-Hur” and “High Noon” were box-office favorites, and C.S. Lewis was publishing his beloved adventure book series, “The Chronicles of Narnia.”
It was a more innocent and na?ve time than now. We were at peace. John F. Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated. Americans trusted their government, schools and news media. They bought whatever caught their fancy at the supermarket without reading the labels – it was before the era of “Caveat emptor” (“Buyer beware”).
We’ll stop our time machine at the very beginning of this era – around the start of the Baby Boomer generation – in 1948.
Truman was president of a nation greatly relieved to be home from war. America’s traditional values were intact, and hope for a prosperous and peaceful future was everywhere in the air.
Then, on Jan. 5, 1948, a bomb was dropped on America. Indiana University zoologist Alfred C. Kinsey released his book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.”
Today, more than five decades later, Kinsey is universally referred to as the “father of the sexual revolution.”
The respected National Research Council says the science of sex “can be divided somewhat crudely into the pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey eras.”
“The history of sex in America,” writes Scott McLemee in Salon, “falls into two large, unequal, yet clearly defined periods. The first era belonged to the Puritans, the Victorians. … This epoch of libidinal prohibition lasted until Jan. 4, 1948. The following day, Professor Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana published ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.’ Whereupon, as the expression has it, the earth moved.”
What, exactly, did Kinsey’s research reveal?
Funded by the prestigious Rockefeller Foundation and based on thousands of interviews, Kinsey had “discovered” that while American men of the World War II “greatest generation” pretended to be faithful and monogamous, virtually all of them – 95 percent – were, according to 1948 law, sex offenders. Specifically, Kinsey claimed that 85 percent of males had intercourse prior to marriage, nearly 70 percent had sex with prostitutes, and 30-45 percent of husbands had extramarital affairs. Moreover, from 10 to 37 percent of men had engaged in homosexual acts, according to Kinsey. In fact, the oft-repeated claim that one in 10 human beings is homosexual – a cornerstone of the “gay rights” movement – comes directly from Kinsey’s published research.
In endless and graphic detail, Kinsey painted a picture of Americans as being amoral sexual animals seeking constant gratification.
If Kinsey had discovered the cure for all diseases, his press coverage could not have been more extensive or enthusiastic. Time magazine, Life, Look and most of the rest of the mainstream press reported that Kinsey – whom they portrayed as a conservative Republican academic and faithful family man – had conducted the most exhaustive and scientific survey ever of Americans’ sexual habits. The previously unknown zoologist – whose only prior claim to fame had been his exhaustive and painstaking research into the gall wasp – was catapulted overnight to the status of national hero, in keeping with Americans’ post-war near-worship of science.
The revolutionary “Kinsey Reports,” as they came to be known – including his companion volume released in 1953, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” – rocked the nation’s beliefs about itself. But perhaps most shocking of all were his “findings” on childhood sexuality: The Kinsey Reports came to the stunning conclusion that children are sexual from birth, and that youngsters as young as a few months of age have the capacity for a pleasurable and healthy sexual life.
Despite the radical nature of Kinsey’s findings, he was honored as a heroic scientific pioneer, pushing back the dark boundaries of ignorance and delivering new knowledge that would guide America in a brave, new world of sexual enlightenment.
That is, until 1981, when a sole researcher – a Ph.D. and scholar named Judith Reisman – came along and raised the question of “Table 34.”
Warning: The next section is extremely disturbing and involves graphic descriptions of child sexual abuse on which Kinsey admittedly relied in tabulating his “data” on childhood sexuality.
“Table 34″ in Kinsey’s first report purports to be a scientific record of “multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.”
Reisman wondered: How did Kinsey and his associates obtain this “research” that infants as young as five months of age enjoyed sex? Child sexual abuse is a felony – how could such research be conducted legally? Why had nobody raised this issue before?
Get ready for a shock. According to Reisman, whose heartbreaking findings were corroborated subsequently by other researchers:
Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.
For example, “Table 34″ on page 180 of Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” claims to be a “scientific” record of “multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.” Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for “orgasm” by Kinsey’s “technically trained” aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 “orgasms.” Sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates commonly quote these child “data” to prove children’s need for homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual satisfaction via “safe-sex” education. These data are also regularly used to “prove” children are sexual from birth.
Whoa! Wait a minute. This seems too horrible to be true. You’re got to be thinking, “Why haven’t I heard about this before? If this is true, Kinsey would have been arrested and locked up. This must be some hysterical anti-sex researcher jumping to conclusions.”
Sorry. For the sake of the children “experimented” upon, one wishes that were true. But Reisman is a world-renowned expert and scholar on this subject, has been a consultant to three U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and is sought worldwide to lecture, testify and counsel regarding fraudulent sex science. She is speaking the awful truth here.
Reisman reveals that in “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,”
Kinsey defined children’s torment (“screaming,” “writhing in pain,” “fainting,” “convulsions”) as “orgasms” for infants too young to speak. Who sexually tested these children? Where were the parents? Among thousands of international reviews of the Kinsey reports, no one asked these questions of the man who, as Gore Vidal declared, was “the most famous man for a decade,” and who is the one man the homosexual and pedophile movements today thank most for their advances.
Before we answer these questions, you need to know a little more about Kinsey.
As I said, Indiana University portrayed Kinsey as a conservative Republican and family man, and the press totally and uncritically bought into this image.
“An article in McCall’s,” writes Salon’s McLemee, “assured its readers that ‘Yes, There Is a Mrs. Kinsey.’”
The wife of the scientific pioneer had “a wholesome, girlish air.” Being married to “Prok” (as she affectionately called Prof. K) meant sacrifice, including quite a bit of loneliness, for her husband kept a busy schedule. He was determined to collect 100,000 interviews. Even so, they led a homey enough private life. Mrs. Kinsey made clothes for their children. There was a photograph of the professor’s daily bag lunch. Returning from the lab, he enjoyed “persimmon pudding, highly spiced and topped with whipped cream.” His research might be controversial, but Kinsey himself was an old-fashioned guy.
Well, not quite so old-fashioned.
First there were those rumors that Kinsey had interviewed a lot of prisoners and sex-offenders, casting doubt on the integrity of his population sample. And then there were whispers about his own unorthodox sexual practices and obsessions. But never do these untidy personal foibles seem sufficient to undermine the vaulted reputation of Kinsey’s research – or its radical conclusions.
Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Alfred C. Kinsey – the universally proclaimed “father of the sexual revolution,” the supposedly conservative family man, the objective scientific researcher and amiable academic – was a sexual psychopath.
To begin with, Kinsey was a bisexual who preferred homosexual sex. Summarizing “Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life,” the 1997 biography of the scientist by pro-Kinsey author James H. Jones, Salon’s McLemee writes:
He did date a woman, once, and very shortly thereafter asked her to marry him, which she did. Consummation was delayed for quite a while, because of their mutual ignorance of the mechanics involved. At some point in adolescence, Kinsey developed a taste for masochistic practices of a really cringe-inducing variety. (Two words here, and then I’m changing the subject: “urethral insertion.”) He also had some pronounced voyeuristic and exhibitionistic tendencies. On bug-hunting field trips in the 1930s, he liked to march around the camp in his birthday suit, and he interrogated his assistants about masturbation. That his career was not destroyed by such behavior is, in itself, pretty remarkable.
As Jones, Kinsey’s key biographer, tells it: “On one occasion when his inner demons plunged him to new depths of despair, Kinsey climbed into a bathtub, unfolded the blade of his pocketknife, and circumcised himself without the benefit of anesthesia.” But Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, who published another Kinsey biography, ”Sex, the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey” in 1998, said the scientist’s gruesome self-circumcision was part of his ongoing exploration of the relationship between pain and sexual pleasure. Ah, always the diligent scientist.
Reisman adds: “An early adherent and advocate of masturbation, Kinsey suffered an untimely death due, at least in part, to ‘orchitis,’ a lethal infection in his testicles that followed years of sadistic, orgiastic ‘self-abuse.’ Kinsey’s obsessive, brutally masochistic masturbation methods appear to have assisted in his early demise.”
And Caleb Crain, reviewing the new Hollywood film, “Kinsey” – created to whitewash and popularize the father of the sexual revolution – wrote in the New York Times:
Mr. Jones’s book revealed that Kinsey had had affairs with men, encouraged open marriages among his staff, stimulated himself with urethral insertion and ropes, and filmed sex in his attic. But Mr. Jones did not feel he was debunking Kinsey. ”What I told myself, and I still think this, was that I was writing a biography of a tragic hero,” he says. ”It shouldn’t surprise us that pleas for sexual tolerance would come from a person who couldn’t be himself in public.”
“Both of Kinsey’s most recent admiring biographers,” summarizes Reisman, somewhat less euphemistically, “confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and the staff’s wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, had ‘front’ marriages that concealed their strategies to supplant what they saw as a narrow procreational Judeo-Christian era with a promiscuous ‘anything goes’ bi/gay pedophile paradise.”
“OK,” you’re saying, “OK. So he was a sexual nutcase. But wasn’t his research still solid?”
Uh, no. Kinsey’s “research” team, reveals Reisman:
1) “forced” subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2) secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3) based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man “married,” reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as “Susie Homemaker.”
By now, you may have been wondering just how today’s vaunted “Kinsey Institute” at Indiana University explains things like Table 34 with its “data” derived from the criminal sexual abuse of hundreds of infants and children.
Here’s how the official Kinsey Institute website answers this seemingly unanswerable question:
Where did the childhood sexual data come from?
Reports of childhood sexual behavior were mostly from interviews of adults recalling their early experiences. Parents and teachers were also asked if they had noticed sexual reactions in their children, and some children were interviewed in the presence of a parent or teacher. Among more than 5,000 men interviewed for “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” there were 9 who reported having had sexual relations with children. One in particular, with an extensive sexual history, is the source of the childhood response tables in the Male book. Dr. Kinsey and his staff never conducted experiments with children.
Although Kinsey claimed the child-sexuality information came from multiple sources, in 1995 then-Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft insisted it all came from serial pedophile Rex King, speculating that Kinsey might have “invented” the other purported sources for his child sexual response data as a way of protecting King.
In fact, not only did Kinsey use data from Rex King – whom Kinsey encouraged, in writing, to continue with his “research” – but also from Nazi criminal Fritz von Balluseck, who was arrested and investigated for the murder of a 10-year-old girl, and ultimately convicted of sexual abuse of up to 200 children. As a Times of London story notes, Kinsey and von Balluseck corresponded, with Kinsey once warning the Nazi pedophile to “watch out” so as to avoid being caught.
Today, writes Crain in the New York Times, as a matter of policy “the institute will not – to the frustration of defenders and accusers alike – answer questions about King, Balluseck or anyone else who may have confided in Kinsey.”
Obligated to deal in some way with Kinsey’s cozy relationship with child molesters, the “Kinsey” feature film – starring Liam Neeson as Kinsey and Laura Linney as wife Clara – includes a brief scene depicting Kinsey’s June 1944 meeting with the 63-year-old King, whose diaries included meticulous recording of sexual encounters with boys.
What isn’t shown in the film, however, is the letter Kinsey sent King urging him to send the diaries. According to Kinsey biographer Jones, on Nov. 24, 1944, Kinsey wrote to King: “I rejoice at everything you send, for I am then assured that much more of your material is saved for scientific publication.”
Rejoice at the sexual torture of hundreds of innocent children?
To this day, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the world’s largest pedophile group, credits Kinsey as its scientific standard bearer. “Gay liberationists in general, and boy-lovers in particular, should know Kinsey’s work and hold it dear,” says one NAMBLA publication. “Implicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today.”
So the “heroic scientist” – whose “research” launched the sexual revolution and provides the “scientific” basis for it to this very day – was actually a sexually depraved human being who “rejoiced” at pedophiles’ conducting horrifying, Dr. Mengele-like sexual experiments on hundreds of children.
Why no mass outcry?
“But,” you say, “something still stinks here. If all this is really true, how come Kinsey hasn’t been more widely discredited? Why is Hollywood making a feature movie glorifying him?”
To be sure, after almost a quarter century of Reisman’s tireless whistleblowing research, her discoveries on Kinsey have been corroborated and augmented by others. In fact, in April 2004, with Reisman’s help as science adviser, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization of 2,400 state legislators, issued a “State Factor” report titled: “Restoring Legal Protections for Women and Children: A Historical Analysis of The States’ Criminal Codes.” The No. 1 focus of this in-depth report was the fraudulent “junk science” of Alfred Kinsey.
But when it comes to America’s culture, law, beliefs and attitudes regarding sex, Kinsey is still king – revered to this day by the vast majority of academics and “experts.” Why?
In his book “Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control,” Dr. E. Michael Jones sheds some light on why Reisman’s research – even that exposing mass sexual torture and experimentation on young children in the name of science – has met with such a tepid response. He writes:
On July 23, 1981, Reisman delivered a paper entitled, “The Scientist as a Contributing Agent to Child Sexual Abuse: A Preliminary Study,” in which she brought up for the first time in the 32 years since it had been published, the material on child sexuality in Tables 30-34 of the Kinsey Male volume and wondered how this data could have been obtained without involvement in criminal activity. Before giving her report, Reisman had written to Male volume co-author Paul Gebhard to ask about the data in Tables 30-34. Gebhard wrote back saying that the data had been obtained from parents, school teachers, and some male homosexuals, including “some of Kinsey’s men” who had used “manual and oral techniques” to catalogue the number of orgasms they said they could stimulate in infants and children. Virtually the entire sex industry/sex research establishment worldwide was in attendance at the meeting in Jerusalem, but the reaction to the talk was silence, stunned or sullen or otherwise, until a Swedish reporter wondered out loud why the assembled experts had nothing to say.
The silence was understandable. Just about everyone in attendance had cited Kinsey as their mentor, and some even knew about the criminal activity involved in Kinsey’s research. They all knew that Kinsey’s research was the basis of their “science,” which is to say, the legitimizing basis for everything they did. Kinsey was the foundation of that house of cards. If what he had done could be discredited, it threatened the sexual empire that had been built since his death and upon which they all depended for a livelihood.”
“Sexual empire” is right. Indeed, Reisman documents Kinsey as the inspiration and mentor for two men that carried forward the torch of sexual liberation: Hugh Hefner and Harry Hay.
In high school, Hefner had written an essay bemoaning the lack of explicit discussion of sex in 1950s “Ozzie and Harriet” America. A few years later, he read Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and praised it in his college newspaper. Fortified, liberated and turbo-charged by Kinsey’s newly discovered “scientific truth” about human sexuality, Hefner didn’t wait long before creating Playboy magazine, the clubs, and most of all, the “Playboy philosophy” that has so profoundly influenced the American psyche.
When Harry Hay, who was sexually molested as a 14-year-old boy, read Kinsey’s claim that 10 to 37 percent of men have had homosexual experiences, he left his wife and children and began the campaign to legitimize sodomy. He formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuals be regarded as a 10 percent minority class. Hay was the father of the modern “gay rights” revolution that began in the 1960s.
To this day, Kinsey is still the gold standard in sex research. In fact, in the more than two decades since she first exposed the Kinsey fraud in 1981, Reisman notes that the comprehensive Westlaw electronic legal database has cited Kinsey positively around 650 times – “on issues from hate crimes and homosexual marriage to child custody and rape.” And the Social Science and Science Citation Indices, she adds, “reference Kinsey roughly 6,000 times over this same period. On the evidence, Kinsey is far and away the most influential sex scientist in the law. Fully 100 percent of the sex science citations in the original 1955 American Law Institute’s ‘Model Penal Code’ cite Kinsey’s bogus data on ‘normal sexuality’ – alive today in courts and legislatures.”
Changing America’s sex laws was exactly what Kinsey had intended, as biographer Jones revealed in 1997:
The man I came to know bore no resemblance to the canonical Kinsey. Anything but disinterested, he approached his work with missionary fervor. … He wanted to undermine traditional morality, to soften the rules of restraint. … Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States. …
To sum it all up, today virtually everything having to do with sex – from attitudes toward extramarital sex and homosexuality, to the nation’s sex-education curricula, to the ways medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and even the criminal justice system define and deal with sex crimes – is rooted firmly in the ludicrously fraudulent “data” of Kinsey and his cult of criminally deviant sex “researchers.”
Time out. Take a breath. In fact, after reading about Kinsey, take a shower if you need one.
But now it’s time to pause and look deeper, beyond all the horror and depravity of Kinsey, even beyond the malignant “sexual revolution” that has metastasized throughout the West in the last half-century. It’s time to simply ask ourselves honestly why in the world we ever bought into the Big Lie of “sexual freedom.”
Could it be, when all is said and done, that we believed it because we wanted to believe it? That this fascinating new scientific “truth,” which seemed to bless and sanctify our deepest and darkest tendencies, was too much to resist?
Sex has always been a war zone. Sexual purity – living within certain behavioral confines deemed wholesome and moral, even if it means denying or delaying gratification of one’s own powerful drives – has always been a major dividing line between those attempting to obey God’s laws and those rebelling against them (or denying they exist).
This chasm between Judeo-Christian sexual morality and, basically, the rest of the world becomes stunningly clear in Dennis Prager’s award-winning essay, “Why Judaism rejected homosexuality”:
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world.
It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism, and later carried forward by Christianity.
The revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
By contrast, throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.
You see, the spiritual view – and particularly the Judeo-Christian view – of sex is radically different from the mechanistic, secular or pagan view of sex.
Kinsey epitomized the latter. Like the socialists, progressives, Darwinists, atheists, humanists and assorted other God-deniers that paved the way for him, Kinsey regarded man as an animal – and only an animal.
Remember, Kinsey was a zoologist. He liked to film the mating habits of animals. When he moved on to studying human beings, he regarded this new sex research as just a continuation of his previous work.
Think about it. If humans are just animals, without soul, spirit or afterlife, without accountability to God and His laws, without an obligation to wrestle with our own lower, fallen nature so our noble, higher, godly nature can bloom – if none of this is real, then there’s just not much problem with Kinsey and his data. In that case, we are just animals – and whatever comes “naturally” to animals, whatever impulses and drives they experience, even if they seem bizarre, cruel or predatory, are right for that animal.
But in reality, human beings are born with what amounts to a dual nature – a lower, prideful, selfish, hell-bent animal nature we inherit (rooted in what Christianity calls “original sin”), but also a higher, nobler, conscience-driven, Heaven-oriented nature. And these two parallel worlds “war” for ascendancy over the mind and body of each and every one of us. Thus, when it comes to sex, despite the unruly sexual urges we discover within, they need to be restrained, according to the Judeo-Christian spiritual worldview that has shaped Western society. Specifically, sex needs to be confined to an honorable, committed, life-long heterosexual marriage.
The problem is, because this sex drive is so powerful and compelling, it “has a mind of its own” and is known to impel us urgently toward sexual expression, rather than restraint. In fact, for most of us – and men in particular – regardless of whatever good character traits we may possess, there’s also a part of us that is vulnerable to some sufficiently persuasive rationale that would “set free” the sexual genie within us from any limitations.
This was exactly the demonic reassurance that Kinsey delivered. He provided scientific cover for the latent rebellion against God’s laws that is never too far from most of us. That’s why the ‘Ozzie and Harriet” generation could be taken in – because, just as in all con jobs offering wealth, riches, fame, love – part of them wanted to believe it.
The implicit message regarding sexuality coming from the secular, mechanistic worldview – if we were to verbalize it – would be this: “Mankind, you have evolved powerful sexual desires. There is no need to suppress them. If your activity is consensual, why should you be compelled to refrain from indulging whatever your sexual desires are, whenever you wish, regardless of how abnormal or strange those desires may seem to others? As long as you don’t hurt little children, and confine your behavior to consenting adults, there is nothing immoral, unethical, wrong or forbidden in doing whatever you want with whomever you want.”
Do you agree with this view? Does part of you agree with it? Many people do.
Considering how widespread this view is today, it may be unnerving to realize this is also precisely the worldview and philosophy of the Church of Satan – including the part about not victimizing children.
Essentially, Satanist philosophy teaches that God is cruel and capricious – that although He created man with these powerful drives and lusts, He then unfairly denies his creatures their full and free expression without risking eternal damnation.
“It has become necessary for a new religion, based on man’s natural instincts, to come forth,” proclaims “The Satanic Bible” by Anton Szandor LaVey, “high priest” of the Church of Satan from its founding by LaVey in 1966 until his death in 1997.
“Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his ‘divine spiritual and intellectual development,’ has become the most vicious animal of all!”
Read what “The Satanic Bible” says about man and sex, and note how familiar and mainstream it sounds:
The basics of Satanism have always existed. The only thing that is new is the formal organization of a religion based on the universal traits of man. For centuries, magnificent structures of stone, concrete, mortar, and steel have been devoted to man’s abstinence. It is high time that human beings stopped fighting themselves, and devoted their time to building temples designed for man’s indulgences.
Even though times have changed, and always will, man remains basically the same. For two thousand years man has done penance for something he never should have had to feel guilty about in the first place. We are tired of denying ourselves the pleasures of life which we deserve. … Why not have a religion based on indulgence? Certainly, it is consistent with the nature of the beast. We are no longer supplicating weaklings trembling before an unmerciful “God” who cares not whether we live or die. We are self-respecting, prideful people – we are Satanists!” (“The Satanic Bible,” Book of Lucifer 3:para 37-38)
“Gosh!” you might be thinking. “Satan? I mean, what does a little ‘free sex’ have to do with the devil and hell and all that?”
You see, Satanism simply champions our prideful, lower nature – in rebellion against the Creator and His plan for mankind. But that’s exactly the same mode in which a great many of us are already operating, having bought into a phony notion of “freedom” that really delivers exactly the opposite – bondage, addiction and misery.
When all is said and done, what your grandmother told you is true: Sex outside of marriage is wrong. But how do we really know this for ourselves?
The Good Book says, “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Hebrews 8:10).
God’s truths are written in our hearts and minds. That’s why a 3-year-old knows it’s wrong to steal. Nobody told him – he just knew. He has within him a conscience, like a little drop of the great ocean of God. Conscience literally means “with knowing” – we all know when we’re wrong. In the same way, we know extramarital sex is wrong. Just the fact that sex leads to having children – who need the love and security that parents provide – makes it crystal clear to the uncorrupted mind that God intends for only married people to have sex.
“Sex,” as the brilliant 20th century writer G.K. Chesterton put it, “is an instinct that produces an institution; and it is positive and not negative, noble and not base, creative and not destructive, because it produces this institution. That institution is the family; a small state or commonwealth which has hundreds of aspects, when it is once started, that are not sexual at all. It includes worship, justice, festivity, decoration, instruction, comradeship, repose. Sex is the gate of that house; and romantic and imaginative people naturally like looking through a gateway. But the house is very much larger than the gate. There are indeed a certain number of people who like to hang about the gate and never get any further.”
Sex and love. The desire to have sex does not come from love, any more than the desire to eat comes from love. Both are basically animal functions. But the “love” part of sex has to do with everything else surrounding us in marriage – the commitment, caring, unselfishness, restraint, hard work, planning, sacrifice, affection and endless patience. These provide the virtue that infuses an animal act with love.
So, borrowing Chesterton’s metaphor, what happens if we get “hung up” about the gate and never enter the house? What happens if we go Kinsey’s way and indiscriminately indulge every appetite?
Let’s take it to the extreme and ask whether a king with his harem with dozens of concubines is happy and satisfied? No way. He’s guiltier, more sensitive to stress, more conflicted and easily disturbed, more haunted by his own demons than you can imagine.
You see, any illicit desire – even when fulfilled – is satisfied only temporarily. Before long, the appetite returns, but with a vengeance. This is the nature of addiction – the craving never ends, but the “fix” needed is always greater. That is, when we fulfill ourselves in a wrong way, the original “high” is no longer attainable just by having the same sexual experience, the same drug, the same “hit” as before.
To put it perhaps too plainly, men are born basically addicted to women. Men compulsively look at women in terms of gratification. Women, who quickly catch on to this terrible weakness men have for them – a weakness not only for physical gratification, but for the ego support and reassurance that usually come with it – in turn discover they have a terrible power over men they never asked for. If they’re not careful, they can easily become as addicted to men’s need for them as their men are to sex, and then they’ll compulsively promote their man’s weakness for the sake of power over him.
This basic sexual dynamic can easily become a serious problem. That’s why, without real virtue – not the phony kind, thank you, but real maturity on the part of married men and women – we just can’t relate to sex properly. The games that develop around this syndrome give rise to tremendous resentments, intrigues and conflicts – and ultimately hatreds – which in turn are a major reason half of today’s marriages, even among Christians, end in divorce.
We need to re-discover, or discover for the first time, unselfish love for each other. If we do, we will relate to sex properly. If we don’t, we are destined to drive each other into terrible conflict. Men don’t need to be addicts. And women don’t need to be liars. But these are the roles we tend to foster in each other when our relationship is based on anything other than true, godly caring for each other.
When all is said and done, Alfred Kinsey led the nation in the ultimate devaluation of something precious – love, marriage, children and the difficult but fantastically rewarding personal growth that couples experience when they walk down that road of love and fidelity together.
In truth, sex is a great mystery – a mysterium magnum. We constantly degrade sex into far less than it really is, but then we also build it up to be far more than it really is. To get it right, we just need to remember Whom we belong to.
Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2004/11/27505/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.