Statutory “Obscenity Exemptions” Breed a School “Sexual Rights” Agenda And Child Sex Abuse Epidemic

Statutory “Obscenity Exemptions” Breed a

School “Sexual Rights” Agenda And Child Sex Abuse Epidemic

By Judith Gelernter Reisman, PhD, Mary McAlister, Esq.

 

Editor’s note: Judith Gelernter Reisman, PhD, Founder and Director, The Child Protection Institute, Liberty University School of Law. Mary McAlister , Legal Director, The Child Protection Institute

 

Abstract

The FBI says child sex abuse is at epidemic levels where tens of thousands of children are believed to be sexually exploited in the country each year. “The level of paedophilia is unprecedented right now,” the FBI’s Joseph Campbell told the BBC.

 

What has happened to so sexually transform our nation that “thousands of children” are being sexually violated, when just a few years ago we were sneeringly accused of “sexual puritanism” by the “freer,” less inhibited European nations (now facing a similar pandemic)?  And why is it that materials that cannot be sold to children can be checked out of the public library or school library and/or be presented as part of school assignments?

 

This report explores those questions by pointing to the root of the sexual rights agenda plaguing our society and most tragically our children, i.e., Alfred Kinsey’s “revolutionary research” that purported to establish that children are sexual from birth and that all manner of child sexual activity is normal and harmless. Kinsey’s “research” was in fact neither scientific nor statistically valid, but was instead based upon the serial abuse of infants as young as two months old by “trained observers” who were told to use stopwatches, record their “data” for Kinsey. These “data” were used by Kinsey and his “team” to launch a sexual revolution and to fundamentally transform society into a sex-saturated, sex-centric culture that could normalize Kinsey’s and his team’s deviant lifestyles. That fundamental transformation has included changing laws that had protected children from obscene, sexually stimulating media that rewires their undeveloped brains and creates lifelong trauma. Kinsey’s disciples in the elite cultural institutions have managed to carve out “exemptions” from the child-protective laws that insulate them from liability for presenting material harmful to minors under the guise of “education,” “science” or “art.”

 

These “obscenity exemptions” are statutorily recognized in at least 46 states and the District of Columbia and have given those seeking to sexually indoctrinate children, unimpeded by movie ratings or warning labels. Even the most diligent parent who forbids their child to attend an R-rated movie, purchase an M-rated video game or purchase music with a “parent advisory” warning lose the battle for their child’s mind when they drop them off at school where even more graphic materials are presented as part of the school curriculum.

 

America’s Historical Protection of Judeo Christian Values Regarding Sexuality

 

From its founding and through the 19th Century the United States was, by and large, sexually reserved, and discussions of human sexuality were private matters reserved for the bedroom. As has been true since the dawn of time, there were exceptions, such as some big cities like New York, a center of commercialized sex in the 1860s and early 1870s.  

 

Once sequestered in brothels….commercial sex in postbellum New York had gone public. Sex was easily viewed and consumed on streets and in hotels, shops, and saloons…. Prostitutes….posted pictures, window modeling, and even newspaper ads promoted their specialties and rates….pornographic books, pamphlets, drawings, and photographs. Stage shows [offered] heterosexual and homosexual pleasures. Alone or in groups, entertainers would dance, strip, gyrate suggestively, or insert accoutrements like rubber dildos or cigars into various orifices….contraceptives, abortion services, and erotica thrived.

 

Activists worked diligently to enact laws to protect the public from vice, including the Mann Act in 1910, which ended the White Slave Trade, and laws to prevent obscenity from being sent through the mail:

 

And be it further enacted, that no obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, other publication of a vulgar and indecent character, shall be admitted into the mails of the United States any person or persons who shall deposit or cause to be deposited, in any post-office or branch post-office of the United States, for mailing or for delivery, an obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication, knowing the same to be of a vulgar and indecent character, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being duly convicted thereof, shall for every such offense be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, according to the circumstances and aggravations of the offense.

 

Criminal laws reflected society’s disapproval of obscenity, commercialized and illicit sex with harsh penalties for rape, adultery, fornication and even seduction (a felony in California!). The legal definition of obscenity, which remained in effect until United States v. Roth, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), reflected society’s views of the dangers of sexually explicit material, particularly for young people:

 

OBSCENITY: Offensive to chastity of mind or to modesty, expressing or presenting to the mind or view something that delicacy, purity and decency forbids to be exposed; calculated to corrupt, deprave, and debauch the morals of the people, and promote violation of the law; licentious and libidinous and tending to excite feelings of an impure or unchaste character; tending to stir the sex impulses or to lead to sexually impure and lustful thoughts; tending to corrupt the morals of youth or lower the standards of right and wrong especially as to the sexual relation.

 

Kinsey’s “Scientific Studies” Transform the Culture

 

All of the societal protections against the harms of illicit sex, and in particular, the harms to women and children, began to unravel in 1948 when Alfred Kinsey, an Indiana University zoologist, published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, in which he purported to create “scientific data” to dispel the notion that Americans were sexually reserved, faithful and self-controlled. Kinsey’s books, including, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female published in 1953, were meant to and did change the world.

 

Kinsey’s 1948 study… played a critical role in the mid-century privatization of morality. In the post-WWII era, experts abandoned the concept of “public morals,” a concept which had underpinned the social control of American sexuality from the 1870’s onward. In the 1950’s and 60’s, however, sexual morality was privatized, and the state-controlled, highly regulated moral economy of the past gave way to a new, “deregulated” moral market.

 

As ACLU co-founder Morris Ernst said, Kinsey’s reports convinced mainstream America that obscenity and pornography were harmless:

 

He produced the proof that women are not really interested in reading or viewing the pornographic. All too long, courts dominated by males had argued: This is all right for us men—but we have to protect our women. Now it became clear that we need not thus save the women. They are not taken one step nearer to bed by any book.

In 1950, the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) picked up Kinsey’s “children are sexual from birth” baton and began advocating for lowering of the age of consent, even arguing that some children by the age of 7 could be responsible for “sexual behavior with an adult,” i.e., child rape. GAP stated that “Kinsey’s data were the points by which we steered.” Other experts claimed “The Kinsey Report has done for sex what Columbus did for geography,” adding “The Kinsey Report’s candor, unexpected findings, and enormous popularity ensured that it will be impossible to go back to the old folkway of reticence about sex”.

The World Adopts the Sex Behavior of a Sexual Psychopath

 

Kinsey’s “data” were used to fundamentally transform the law and usher in the sexual revolution. As noted, these data were fraudulent and based on the serial rape of two month old infants by “trained” observers (i.e., pedophiles and pederasts), apparently including Kinsey, who used stopwatches and logbooks to record children’s “orgasms”. Kinsey, a closet bi/homosexual pedophile, child rapist, obsessive masturbator, and sadomasochistic pornography addict, used his books to justify and normalize his own perversions. His sexual ideologies stand as the basis of modern “sex education” programs. His impact has been global, aggressively promoted in UN documents, meetings and reports as the solution to many world’s growing sexual problems through non-biological, erotic techniques, as training for children.

Kinsey claimed that his “data” revealed that 95 percent of American men were engaging in behavior that was against the law, pointing to the need for reform.  Therefore, he and his supporters in the legal establishment immediately began dismantling the laws and replacing them with the Model Penal Code (MPC) to better align the law with the “reality” painted by Kinsey. The sexual offense provisions of the MPC, which decriminalized most sex crimes and greatly reduced penalties on others such as rape, were finalized in 1955 and have since been adopted all or in-part by the 50 states. In 1957, the United States Supreme Court relied upon the MPC to revise the long-standing definition of obscenity to create a more subjective criterion based on “community standards.”

“In fact, he [Supreme Court Justice Harlan] pointed out”:

 

[T]there is a large school of thought, particularly in the scientific community, which denies any causal connection between the reading of pornography and immorality, crime, or delinquency.” Justice Douglas reached the same conclusion: “The absence of dependable information on the effect of obscene literature on human conduct should make us wary.” [Emphasis added]

 

The “scientific community” to whom the justices referred was Kinsey:

 

That the linchpin of modern obscenity law turned out to be scientific study of sexual behavior is ironic, given that this had once been understood as a species of obscenity in its own right…For sex reformers, the demystification of sex through scientific method had been both the animating vision and the missing link of their project, and with the publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male…their aspirations were finally realized.

 

The Kinsey Institute Gets Obscene Material Due to Their “Scientific” Worthiness

 

Capitalizing on the change in the law, the Kinsey team was first to gain permission to receive contraband–obscene materials–through the mail in 1957 on the grounds that its status as a “scientific” body gave it immunity from the “prurient interest” standard and therefore from the law prohibiting the sending of obscenity through the mail. The U.S. Customs office first allowed illegal sexual materials to be imported for the Kinsey Institute in 1960. Five years earlier Playboy was granted “second-class mailing privileges,” reserved for periodicals and educational materials, which enabled public, academic and prison libraries to obtain subscriptions. In 1970, similar special privileges were extended at the cost of millions to taxpayers for Playboy’s Library of Congress Braille editions.

 

By exempting the Kinsey Institute, Playboy and similar organizations from the law prohibiting the transmission of obscene materials through the mail, the U.S. Customs office established a legal fiction that sex stimuli if read/viewed as “education” or collected for “scientific research” suddenly loses its prurient interest and effect. This set the stage for the statutory obscenity exemptions that have allowed “educators” to circumvent laws against distributing materials that are harmful minors and to justify the distribution of “lewd” materials to schoolchildren under the umbrella of AIDS prevention, sex education, suicide and bullying prevention and similar agendas.

 

Legislatures across the country followed the U.S. Custom’s lead and enacted statutes that extended the legal fiction that obscenity loses its adverse effects if it is couched in scientific or educational contexts. Typically, “obscenity exceptions” were carved out for:

 
….a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose…[and] No employee, director, or trustee of a bona fide school, museum, or public library, acting within the scope of his or her regular employment, is liable to prosecution for a violation of this subchapter for disseminating a writing, film, slide, drawing, or other visual reproduction that is claimed to be obscene. [Emphasis added].

With these exemptions in place, schools could take “sex education” over from parents who trained “experts” opined were not doing an adequate job since, they claimed STDs and unwed pregnancies were on the rise—sex-education would reduce such problems. This was a further manifestation of something that concerned parents had been alarmed about since at least 1914, when Minnesota parents and the National Education Association issued the following statement:

 

We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.

 

“Obscenity exemptions” allowed sexually stimulating materials, otherwise defined as obscene and harmful to minors, to be peddled to children under the guise of “sex education.”

 

Who Trains the Sex Educators Who Train the Teachers, etc.?

 

This time the unaccountable agencies were not merely philanthropic foundations, but producers of pornography, including Playboy, and purveyors of abortion and birth control, including Planned Parenthood, who joined forces to create institutions such as the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS), to train “sex educators.”  However the institution that trains those who train the teachers, IASHS, has never been accredited by recognized accreditation agencies, which invalidates the degrees issued to the thousands of “experts” in SIECUS, Planned Parenthood and teaching at universities and colleges.

 

The Rev. Ted McIlvenna is president of the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality….has a large collection of erotic art and pornographic films, including child pornography, that is kept at the school….“This is where we keep the kiddie porn,” he said, pointing at a 10-foot-long locked cabinet. “You have to have a doctorate to open it.” McIlvenna, who has been in business since 1976, says he will never seek accreditation from an organization approved by the Department of Education. “Accreditation is a bunch of crap,” he said. “They would never let me keep my library.” (Emphasis added)

Thus while the U.S. Supreme Court determined that even “fleeting” obscenity was not protected “free speech” for broadcasters if children are in the audience, legislatures were signaling to educators that obscene words, images and other materials were perfectly acceptable in children’s classrooms and libraries. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in FCC v. Fox, said that “indecent language …expletives referring to sexual or excretory activity or organs” which “pander….a coarse sexual image….titillate…. vulgar…. shocking and gratuitous…” are illegal if children are exposed.  For, “children mimic the behavior they observe —or at least the behavior that is presented to them as normal and appropriate.” The Court ruled that “sexual or excretory activity or organs” are not protected speech if “presented to [children] as normal and appropriate” in the context of mass media. This complemented the Court’s unanimous decision that child pornography was not protected by the First Amendment.   

 

Obscenity Rewires Children’s Brains in The Classroom

What passes for “sex education” is in all other contexts obscenity, which brain studies have proven triggers an endogenous neurochemical cocktail of, “naturally occurring psychoactive substance[s].” Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux’s observations below, apply to “obscenity exception” effects–at home, schools, libraries–upon children and youth.

[LeDoux discovered]…something like a neural back alley—[that] allows the amygdala to receive some direct inputs from the senses and start a response before they are fully registered by the neocortex…The amygdala can have us spring to action while the slightly slower…neocortex unfolds its more refined plan for reaction…LeDoux overturned the prevailing wisdom about the pathways traveled by emotions through his research on fear.  

 

Notably, professionals who must view obscenity as part of their profession (police, the medical community and others) take account of these effects and operate under strict standards of care to mediate exposure. However, there are no such standards of care for educators–or children–exposed to “obscenity” in the name of “sex education” despite the fact that learning and memory research reveals we acquire our worldview; “from experience and retain these ideas over time in memory…” In this case, the children exposed to obscene content will experience stress, shock, and trauma learning and memory.

 

The traumatic condition occurs not only in “sex education” courses but throughout the school day as books, lectures, films, are authoritatively delivered under color of “health, reproductive health, bullying prevention, diversity training and even in language arts, history and other academic subjects. The Pre K-12th grade school setting is being used as a laboratory for imposing erotically stimulating, psychoactive substances on the immature brains, bodies, memories of children ultimately affecting their worldview. Neither the children nor their parents are capable of giving informed consent to unknown short-and long-term effects of premature exposure to sexual stimuli. More importantly, parents are not even given the opportunity to consent to the materials, since, unlike the entertainment industry, education does not have a “rating system” to inform parents of the objectionable, even dangerous, content to which their children are being exposed.

Commercial Rating of Entertainment for Minors–No Rating for Schools

In 1966, the English “erotic” film, Blow Up made its way into American ‘artsy’ theaters. A ratings system for movies “was established by the MPAA in 1968” following parental reaction to the slippery shift to sexual/violence themes in the “new” cinema. Activist parents advocated for information to permit control over the content of movies, video games, television programs and music that their children consumed.  Fearing government action, filmmakers agreed that, “parents know best their children’s individual sensitivities and sensibilities” and instituted a ratings system that would warn parents about the “violence, sex, language and drug use” in their productions. Other media, including record companies and video game manufacturers, followed suit.

 

Brain science and social science confirms the premise that premature exposure to sexual stimuli creates similar values conflicts causing problems of inferiority in children’s “hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

 

Contrary to the government’s stated purpose of protecting the well-being of the nation’s youth, it is now well established by brain researchers that exposing children to profanity and obscenity threatens their physical and psychological well-being. While a recitation of innuendo-laden literature such as Geoffrey Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale would hardly interest most children, its sexualized dramatization would indeed spark their interest. Unlike Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale, today’s sex education curriculum is designed to be understood and mimicked by even the youngest elementary school student. Furthermore, with today’s youth widely exposed to pornography, it is likely that children under the age of 12 understand sexual innuendo, meaning recitation of innuendo-laden literature, let alone explicit sex education stimuli, have a “negative effect.”

Children Mimic What They See—It’s How They Learn

Children now mimic obscenity worldwide based on deceptive education and legal decisions and a misguided “understanding” of child “sexuality.” Building on Kinsey’s “data” on child “sexuality” in his reports on human sexuality, based upon criminal sexual abuse of infants and children (see Exhibit III), social scientists, with personal agendas, advocate to lessen restrictions on children’s exposure to explicit sexuality.  

The fallout from reliance upon Kinsey’s data is immeasurable. A recent story from the United Kingdom illustrates what happens when children mimic what they see in explicit sex education “lessons.”

A 13-year-old boy confessed in court that he raped a girl of the same age after they both had attended the mandatory sex education lessons…. [A] large majority of both boys and girls complained that sex education often presents promiscuity as normal, putting additional pressure on them to become sexually active before they might otherwise do so. [Said one 18-year-old girl] “I always felt pressured by teachers, like, ‘sex is normal, just be safe OK’ when actually I wasn’t interested in having sex at the time and was happy to wait for the right person.”

This sexual violence tragically is but one illustration of the psychological and physical harm caused by the unmonitored explicit “sex education” experiment. These effects of explicit sex education, while tragic, are not entirely unexpected in light of the fact that sex education regularly points children to pornography for information. Therefore, it is appropriate to view pornography as “informal” sex education that has become increasingly a part of the lives of children. Its harmful effects on family life, particularly in the black community, is a cause of grave concern:

As Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler have a sizeable black male readership, and as these materials undeniably suggest a “perfect” or “ideal” beauty (white, generally blonde, young), it is reasonable to speculate about the ramifications on black wives and girlfriends of black men and boys reading such magazines or viewing similar films and videos. [that] essentially engaged in a marketing or advertising activity for the white female as both “ideal” and as the ultimate object of sexual/genital arousal and gratification. The impact of such pictorial stimuli on black adults and juvenile male and female perspectives of beauty and desirability is a crucial area of needed speculation and research….Current concerns raised by the black community regarding disintegrating heterosexual harmony and the vanishing black family focuses on a crisis in personal identity. Certainly there is a need for research in this area.

The Teenage Brain Cannot Defend Itself From Adult-Centric Stimuli

The adverse effects of pornography demonstrate that doctrine of “erotic pedagogy” has no place in the field of public education. Congress declared the 1980s “the decade of the brain,” and the resulting years of research, such as the images from Dr. Jay Geidd, chief of Brain Imaging, Child Psychiatric Branch, National Institutes of Health (Exhibits) have documented the need for protection due to youth. The development of functional magnetic imagery, allows us to examine The Secrets of The Teenage Brain. Magnetic imagery scans of a composite of typical brains demonstrate that cognitive maturity is not reached until roughly age 20 or more, shown in color when there is a shift from red (least mature) to blue (most mature). Perhaps the most useful Geidd scans for the educator considering erotic pedagogy is the breakdown into school years; preschool, middle school, high school, and later, with corresponding ages, 5years, 8½ years, 13years, 16½ years, and 20 years (Exhibit V):

The areas depicted in red, green, and yellow are very underdeveloped, the areas depicted in blue have completed approximately half their basic development and the area depicted in bright lavender are developmentally mature – these areas have completed their developmental foundation. (Exhibit V).

Therefore, these scans demonstrate that “age appropriate” sex information must be something reserved for mature years, as tradition and history have always said. Finally, Dr. Geidd’s brain scans show in full color that powerful stimuli are inherently subversive of children’s developing cognitive functions. In the brain illustration at Exhibit V, a red arrow points to the frontal lobe, where personality resides and where emotions, problem solving, reasoning, planning and other complex functions have to be managed.  Our frontal lobe is linked to the sensory and memory centers of the brain. When the brain reaches maturity, we can think things through more rationally since our higher-level thinking is supported by our frontal lobes. “Without fully functioning frontal lobes, you may have intelligence, but you wouldn’t be able to put it to use.” Geidd states, with emphasis in the original:

The teenage brain’s “self-control” center is responsible for: risk-taking, impulse, emotion, self-restraint and judgment. These are NOT yet developed!  (Exhibit VI).

The immature brain experiences trauma when children are prematurely forced to deal with emotive, non-cognitive stimuli—which would include sexual stimuli. Therefore, sexual stimuli in the form of language and imagery in an eroticized classroom creates Traumatic Cultural Identity Conflicts. Introducing sexual stimuli is incompatible with the proper role of education, which should be to permit youth to learn, to handle impulses and emotions and to make mature judgments in a non-eroticized environment.

The devastating effects of the social experimentation on our children is borne out by the fact that every measure of sexual disease, despair and crime skyrocketed statistically as children mimicked what they were taught. Elayne Bennett, writes, “Of all the major cities, Washington, D.C. leads the country with out-of-wedlock teenage births, soaring to a rate of 95 percent just three years ago.” So, parents with “only” M.O.M and D.A.D. degrees, who had trained their children with strongly held morals and values and opposed the “professional” liberal elite, sex educators have statistically been proven correct all along.

Conclusion: Take Action to Eradicate “Obscenity Exemptions”

This modern day psychologically damaging experimental “educational” environment should be eradicated starting with the repeal of obscenity exemptions except in the context of law enforcement and medicine.

 

Armed with the new empirical evidence regarding the psychological trauma imposed by the eroticized classroom, those who want to protect children and begin the process of healing should take action by seeking the repeal of all state laws that exempt schools, libraries, museums and those in a undefined “parental relationship” with a child from exposing children to obscenity. In addition, those interested in child welfare should institute procedural actions to prevent surreptitious introduction of eroticized material in schools. Distributors of materials used in schools must assure the harmlessness, lawfulness and constitutionality of their material.

 

Before funding is approved all human sexuality materials should be screened and approved by a panel of 12 parents, the same as a jury in court, and children of the age group for which materials are designed. Such a panel should review and approve or reject not only “sex education” curriculum, but any sexual information provided by speakers, videos and other materials such as young adult literature which is made available via the classroom or library.  

 

Exhibit I

Page 180, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

One of five tables depicting systematic sexual abuse of infants and boys in the name of “science.” Kinsey’s description of child “orgasm” can be found on pages 160-161.

 

Exhibit II

 

Exhibit III

 

Exhibit IV

 

Endnotes