Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Kinsey' film opens to protest (in blue states); Neeson: character released 'genie from the bottle'
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, November 12, 2004

Posted on 11/12/2004 2:28:30 AM PST by JohnHuang2

Fox Searchlight's first-run feature film on the controversial "father of the sexual revolution" opens in select "blue state" theaters today to the protests of traditional-family defenders who regard the late Indiana University professor Alfred Kinsey as a fradulent scientist who, more than anyone else, bears responsibility for bringing acceptance of promiscuity into the mainstream.


Liam Neeson in "Kinsey" (Courtesy Fox Searchlight)

On the latter point, the star of "Kinsey: Let's Talk about Sex" agrees.

"Kinsey did release the genie from the bottle -- and you can't put the genie back in the bottle," Liam Neeson told Variety magazine.

The film debuts today on five screens in New York and Los Angeles, then widens to 15 cities on 35 screens next week, with a goal of 500 screens by Christmas.

The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University plans a special screening of the film Saturday, hosted by writer and director Bill Condon and co-star Laura Linney.

Critics are focused primarily on Kinsey's promotion of early childhood sexual activity, based on his solicitation of data from known pedophiles who conducted "experiments" on children.

Michael Craven, vice president for religious and cultural affairs for the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, points out Kinsey interpreted infant responses to sexual abuse to be indicative of "sexual satisfaction."

"Kinsey's impact on our culture has been nothing short of devastating and there has been little opportunity to challenge his ideas in the marketplace of ideas until now," said Craven. "Moviegoers and movie critics need to know the truth about the man and his so-called science."

A group called Catholic Outreach last week released "The Kinsey Corruption: An Exposé on the Most Influential 'Scientist' of Our Time," a 96-page book based on 20 years of research from leading Kinsey critic Dr. Judith Reisman.

Catholic Outreach says that the film leaves out critical facts about Kinsey's real life and portrays him as a sexual liberator and visionary who helped free popular culture from its repressed sexuality.

"The truth is that Alfred Kinsey was instrumental in bringing about the widespread acceptance of perversity and immorality that exists today," the group said.

Condon, who won an Oscar for "Gods and Monsters" in 1998, insisted, however, protesters were "confusing discussion with endorsement."

"Kinsey was a very complex man, in some ways damaged beyond repair," he told the BBC. "He affected everybody's life, and I hope the film gets a little breathing room for people to see it and think about it for themselves."

Robert Knight, director of Christian Women for America's Culture & Family Institute, says the film "paints Kinsey as a flawed but sincere cultural hero."

"It ignores the massive fraud, Kinsey's sadomasochistic practices, and barely touches on his use of data on children in sex experiments," Knight said.

"Alfred Kinsey encouraged pedophiles to molest children, all in the name of science,” Knight charged. "Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist."

Knight believes it's no exaggeration to say Kinsey was "the godfather of the homosexual activist movement, the campaign to mainstream pornography, and even the campaign to strike down abortion laws."

"He was a sexual revolutionary masquerading as an objective scientist," Knight said.

A pro-chastity youth organization, Generation Life, plans to protest the film at cinemas with the message that Kinsey's "pseudo-scientific defense of sexual perversions" should not be celebrated.

Morality in Media president Robert Peters, who reviewed the film at a private screening in New York City last week, called it "an effort to rehabilitate a 'father' of the hellish sexual revolution who has been discredited because of his debauched lifestyle and the misinformation he spread about sex."

"In Kinsey’s mind, religion and morality were the hated enemies that stand in the way of sexual freedom," Peters said. "Kinsey's father is the predominant religious figure in the film, and with the exception of one scene, he is stereotypically portrayed as overly strict, mean spirited and anti-sex."

Peters points out Kinsey saw man as merely and animal with a high degree of intelligence, noting that amid the credits at the end of the film, "we are treated to scene after scene of animals having sex."

"In Kinsey’s mind, apparently no sex was abnormal; and among the types of sex that Kinsey is shown engaging in or endorsing in the film are adultery, bisexuality, homosexuality, group sex, pornography, sadomasochism, and swinging," he said. "The impression is also conveyed in the film that sexual deviations of all kinds -- but especially homosexuality -- are widespread."

The film gives the impression Kinsey's data came from a cross section of Americans, leaving out the fact that much of it came from skewed populations that included prisoners and pedophiles, Peters says.

"Kinsey isn’t portrayed as without fault, but he is portrayed as someone who exerted a positive, rather than negative, influence on society. No mention is made in the film of the grievous harms that flowed from the sexual revolution Kinsey helped bring about."

Among the ultimate results of Kinsey's work, Peters says, are unwed teen pregnancies, abortions and single parent families; an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS; proliferation and 'mainstreaming' of softcore and hardcore pornography; marriages prevented, marriages damaged and marriages broken; and sexual abuse of children, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape

Researcher Reisman, author of "Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences," recently was prevented from seeing two private screenings of "Kinsey."

She has been critical of the film during its entire production process, warning Neeson and others more than one year ago that they are party to a whitewash of a man who has done incalculable damage to American society by providing "scientific" rationale for softening laws that protect women and children from molesters and giving institutional sanction to a libertine sexual morality that has ruined millions of lives.

As WorldNetDaily reported in February 2003, Condon was upset by a campaign by Reisman and radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger to expose Kinsey as a "man who produced and directed the rape and torture of hundreds of infants and children."

Reisman believes the film is part of a media blitz backed by the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey Institute and others that seeks to rehabilitate Kinsey as some of the explosive revelations about him gradually surface in the mainstream media.




TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 20thcenturyfox; ageofconsentlaws; alfredkinsey; americanzoetrope; antiabstinence; boycott; boycott20thcentfox; boycottfox; boycotthollywood; boycottzoetrope; celebrateperversity; childmolester; childmolestor; coppola; culturewar; defundtheleft; fascist; ford; fordfoundation; fox; foxsearchlight; francisfordcoppola; fraud; headshrink; hedonism; hedonists; hollywoodliberals; hollywweird; homosexualagenda; ifitfeelsgooddoit; illegalpornography; illegalpornstash; indiana; indianauniversity; indoctrination; itsjustsex; junkscience; kinsey; kinseyinstitute; kinseythemovie; libertines; mastersandjohnson; masturbatedchildren; moviereview; movies; pervert; porn; pornoholocaust; promiscuity; pseudoscience; psychologist; quack; queer; revisionisthistory; rockefeller; rockefellers; seduction; sexcrimes; sexeducation; sexlaws; sexpositiveagenda; sexualassault; sexualcriminals; sexualizingchildren; sexualmolestation; taxdollarsatwork; youpayforthis; zoetrope

1 posted on 11/12/2004 2:28:31 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

I have "Kinsey - Crimes and Consequences" on my bookshelf, a textbook example of a pseudoscientist whose life's work was meant to justify his own perverse lifestyle. It is amazing that so many people ate up his books back in the fifties and sixties. I have little difficulty believing that the money for this came from certain interested parties.


2 posted on 11/12/2004 2:39:11 AM PST by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

"Gods and Monsters"? I think Condons agenda is pretty obvious.


3 posted on 11/12/2004 2:42:11 AM PST by SirLurkedalot (I'm going to Jesusland!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Harry Knowles' reviews from aintitcoolnews.com already say that this film has footage of a penis touching a vagina in an R rated film (all ages with adult supervision).

After seeing Kill Bill get an R (with only minor edits and black & white editing of a bloodbath scene), the MPAA seems to be pushing the barriers again.


4 posted on 11/12/2004 2:54:12 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Wasn't this film already made about this sex criminal?


5 posted on 11/12/2004 2:59:37 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinanju
I have "Kinsey - Crimes and Consequences" on my bookshelf

Same here. The man was a monster and his own research notes prove it easily.

I spent years investigating pedophiles. They look upon Kinsey is their god.

6 posted on 11/12/2004 3:03:26 AM PST by Tamzee (The Odyssey... "By their own follies they perished, the fools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Perverts defending (and denying) child molestation in the IMDB forum:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362269/board/nest/13014211


7 posted on 11/12/2004 3:09:54 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

There has been clear-headed scientific debunking of Kinsey over the years. He massively faked his results, with only one example being the grotesque over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.


8 posted on 11/12/2004 3:15:48 AM PST by FormerACLUmember (Free Republic is 21st Century Samizdat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

Oversampled statistic (from prisoners) much as Zogby and the MSM did this year in election polls.


9 posted on 11/12/2004 3:27:05 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

I don't deny what you're saying about Kinsey, but it would be false to deny that sexual arousal/stimulation is part of even a child's experience, and this is WITHOUT perversion or corruption due to outside forces.

I'm sure any number of people on this site could give examples from their life of kids they've seen(or were) that somehow were sexual, even if it was a very innocent and experimental act--and NEVER with adults.

That is not to justify or defend Kinsey's research or conclusions, merely to point out that children are not sexual tabula rasa who activate at puberty. This is well-known, I would hope, by now.


10 posted on 11/12/2004 3:37:16 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Oversampled statistic (from prisoners) much as Zogby and the MSM did this year in election polls.

Kinsey faked this and many other studies.

11 posted on 11/12/2004 3:38:58 AM PST by FormerACLUmember (Free Republic is 21st Century Samizdat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

I think people are objecting to the idea of doing "experiments" to "prove" that notion.


12 posted on 11/12/2004 3:41:49 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...

{{{{insert retching sounds}}}}}......ping


13 posted on 11/12/2004 3:45:39 AM PST by narses (The fight to protect the unborn is THE civil rights battle of the 21st century. + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"I'm sure any number of people on this site could give examples from their life of kids they've seen(or were) that somehow were sexual, even if it was a very innocent and experimental act--and NEVER with adults."

Why? BECAUSE OUR CULTURE DEMONSTRATES AND ENCOURAGES such behavior. As the parent of multiple children kept deliberately away from 'pop' culture, I can tell you that such behavior does NOT form part of a 'normal' childhood. OTOH, I have seen such behavior in very, very young children of neighbor families, behavior clearly aping their upbringing.
14 posted on 11/12/2004 3:48:50 AM PST by narses (The fight to protect the unborn is THE civil rights battle of the 21st century. + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

And that is objectionable.

I just wanted to dispell the notion that many have, as an overreaction to discovery of this fact(for instance, kids playing "doctor" or the like) may lead to psychological problems down the road.

But yes, relying on "experiments" by pedophiles would be reprehensible. I just hope that this is fact and is well-documented by someone who isn't merely motivated to discredit Kinsey and his 'impact' on society. Truth always, even above politics or your beliefs.


15 posted on 11/12/2004 3:49:19 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: narses

Nonsense, this is a reality across cultural and temporal boundaries.

And as an aside, a child could easily walk in on their parents doing the "do" and "ape" that behavior and never see "pop culture."

You are making something quite innocent(in the minds of the children) into something sinister. Even my girlfriend knew of a girl who was less than 2 years old that incessantly touched herself. It's not from any "pop culture" but from some rudimentary sexuality or physical sensation.

And it doesn't mean that EVERY child experiences or knows of these things at that age or before puberty. But if some do, it need not be anything sinister or for you to overreact to.

I came up in an age long before heavy sexuality on TV or in movies and somehow experimented as a child in a basic sense.
I grew up to be fine and adults were never a factor in any of this.


16 posted on 11/12/2004 3:54:03 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

You want a sexualized youth and you reject my own, empirical eyewitness evidence. Fine. The modern world is yours.

For parents who want to avoid the damage you deny - but that is very real, shoot your TV and homeschool your children. Choose their friends carefully. Trust no one. Pray often.


17 posted on 11/12/2004 3:58:18 AM PST by narses (The fight to protect the unborn is THE civil rights battle of the 21st century. + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

baby, bathwater, what's the diff?


According to the Kinsey report
ev'ry average man you know
much prefers to play his favorite sport
when the temperature is low
but when the thermometer goes way up
and the weather is sizzling hot
Mister Adam for his madam is not
cause it's too too
it's too darn hot, it's too darn hot
It's too too too too darn hot


18 posted on 11/12/2004 4:00:56 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: narses

UH goofball, how could a child of less than 2 who watches Barney and the like be "sexualized" by pop culture?

Who wants a "sexualized youth?"

I'm not talking about 6 year olds wearing thongs or acting like Britney Spears, genius. I'm talking about much more primal and normal human sexuality that is present even at an early age.

You have empirical eyewitness evidence? Uh, what do you call my own personal experience and eyewitness evidence?

You're the kind who is not interested in truth and you'll invent your opponent's position because even a small concession to reality, one which you fear for irrational reasons, is too much to bear.

I never justified or defended Kinsey, his experiments, or the sexualization of our youth. I merely stated the facts and tried to inject some balance before the wingnuts like you joined in with your truth-deficient hysteria.


19 posted on 11/12/2004 4:04:28 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

Your name calling simply confirms your (lack of) position. You deny the impact society and culture have on sexualizing youth. I know of my own experience that it has a huge impact. I've seen youth raised in the modern culture engaging in sex acts at an age that is shocking. I've also seen my own children and others raised in familes that reject and restrict 'pop culture' and have NOT seen such acts.

As I said, you are welcome to your views and the modern world. I reject them. And I laugh at your silly name calling.

Do tell, are you a teacher?


20 posted on 11/12/2004 4:09:06 AM PST by narses (The fight to protect the unborn is THE civil rights battle of the 21st century. + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinanju
I have little difficulty believing that the money for this came from certain interested parties.

The Rockefeller Foundation originally. His later work was funded by the Playboy Foundation.

I'm hopeful that this film will backfire on its creators. I believe that Kinsey is still generally regarded as a benevolent revolutionary. The movie will serve to reinforce this image among Kinsey's true believers, but the controversy surrounding the film may open some people's eyes to the truth about this evil man, especially if the controversy motivates people to do some internet research.

21 posted on 11/12/2004 4:22:04 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses

Name-calling after you put words in my mouth is a KIND response. Being called goofball is far, far less offensive than what you have said about me. It's also a convenient method for you to ignore what's being said and to paint your opponent as some kind of deviant or "defender of modern world."

The only person lacking a position is you. You're the only one dumb enough to think that a toddler from a rather sheltered family is an example of "pop culture" corrupting the youth or that a 5 year old in 1982 is an example of the sexualization of our "youth."

Yours is a false dichotomy, where either children are angelic and utterly non-sexual creatures until puberty or they are mini-deviants twisted by popular culture.

I assert that the truth would find a home in neither extreme.




22 posted on 11/12/2004 4:32:48 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

Words from a namecalling denial blinded netizen have no weight. Reality is. You are welcome to your world. Parents who care about their children will shun your world and protect their children. Good luck should you ever have children. May you find Christ's True Light and may that Light guide you on your journey. Pax Vobiscum.


23 posted on 11/12/2004 4:38:25 AM PST by narses (The fight to protect the unborn is THE civil rights battle of the 21st century. + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Harry Knowles' reviews from aintitcoolnews.com already say that this film has footage of a penis touching a vagina in an R rated film (all ages with adult supervision).

Oh gosh! And I was planning on taking my kids to see it this weekend. Thanks for warning me. I thought the Kinsey movie would be appropriate for all ages.

24 posted on 11/12/2004 5:16:12 AM PST by pickemuphere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
He massively faked his results

Fake, fake, fake!

25 posted on 11/12/2004 5:36:25 AM PST by Angry Enough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I saw an ad in the local "alternative" paper in Atlanta offering free showings of the film when it opens here. Reminded me of how a few churches offered tickets to The Passion of the Christ. Wonder who's footing the bill for this one?
26 posted on 11/12/2004 5:58:25 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

"Harry Knowles' reviews from aintitcoolnews.com already say that this film has footage of a penis touching a vagina in an R rated film (all ages with adult supervision)."

Wow! Better warn all those parents that were planning to take their kids to this movie. Boy, will the kids be disappointed. I'm sure they were looking forward to seeing a biographical movie about some stupid grownup.


27 posted on 11/12/2004 6:11:23 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Let it not be forgotten that Kinsey's research was financed with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.
28 posted on 11/12/2004 6:51:16 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; scripter
Kinsey: Selling sex in the U.S.A.
29 posted on 11/12/2004 8:03:26 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; ...
"The truth is that Alfred Kinsey was instrumental in bringing about the widespread acceptance of perversity and immorality that exists today," the group said.

Thanks for the ping, ER.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)
Homosexual Keyword Search

30 posted on 11/12/2004 8:12:52 AM PST by scripter (Tens of thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter

He was a repulsive, satanist-serving bag of crap and America has suffered greatly. The only ones who worship at this creep's altar are pornographers, homosexuals and others that are condemned to hell as well!



31 posted on 11/12/2004 8:14:38 AM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
>>>>>>Let it not be forgotten that Kinsey's research was financed with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.<<<<


32 posted on 11/12/2004 9:16:19 AM PST by DTA (proud pajamista)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Yep.
33 posted on 11/12/2004 9:17:19 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

What goes in one R rated film is acceptable in all R rated films. It is a different standard than whether something is "obscene". The MPAA rates on content (and politics).

This will air on HBO/Skinimax next year. If it were NC-17, it likely would not.


34 posted on 11/12/2004 10:31:20 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pickemuphere

See my followup to this same response from another poster.


35 posted on 11/12/2004 10:33:09 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Who wants a "sexualized youth?"

I'm not talking about 6 year olds wearing thongs or acting like Britney Spears, genius. I'm talking about much more primal and normal human sexuality that is present even at an early age.

Those pushing the Sex Positive Agenda (of which the Homosexual Agenda is just a battering ram against society's laws and morals).

Check the links/text here (preserved for posterity):

www.allaboutsex.org

The All About Sex website is sad to announce that the site is now closed and the page you are looking for is no longer on this web server.

We apologize for any inconvenience or disappointment and are listing a number of excellent resources for teens and parents about sex and sexuality at the bottom of this page.   This was a difficult decision reached after months of contemplation and we realize that many people will be unhappy about it.   Many sites shut down across the Internet every day, usually due to poor response or not being able to turn a profit, but this is not the case with All About Sex.   On the contrary, the success and popularity of this site since 1997 has been nothing short of phenomenal and we appreciate all the positive sentiment - it should be clear to any sex educator or parent familiar with this site that kids want and need open, honest and non-judgmental answers to their sex and sexuality-related questions, and that if such a forum is provided to them, they will flourish with it and ask questions they wouldn't be comfortable asking anywhere else.   Rather than the days when talking about sex was only done in whispers and biology class, today's kids have so many more options for exploring the subject of sex, and, frankly, their own sexual interests.   When AAS started, there was only one other site that had anything positive to say to kids about sex, but now there are many, many sites with excellent, open and honest information about sex.

However, being so successful has a negative side as well, and keeping up with the popularity of the site and the work involved in maintaining the site and providing regular, fresh content, has become more than we can handle along with our obligations to our own families and employers.   Expense has been another factor, although our host, Advances.com, has always worked with us to bring bandwidth expenses down, and this site has never been a profit-making site, and has never even taken donations.   So, for a combinations of reasons, we are closing the site and hope everyone will understand.   It has been a fantastic 7 years and we have been touched by so many of the fantastic regulars and kids who have poured out their hearts and souls talking about their sexual dilemmas, their happy and exciting first experiences, and their traumas and disappointments.   Judging by the comments we frequently get, it seems that we've touched a few people's lives and been a positive force in general, and for that we are thankful.   Some additional factors for those interested... (see comments about Tom DeLay below...)

Below are links to many other excellent resources for parents and for teens.

Very Sincerely, The owners and volunteers of All About Sex.org


One further note is that we would like to say a big thank you to the people who host this site, Advances.com.   They have done so much to support this site and worked with us many times over the years to deal with increasing costs as we consumed more and more bandwidth.   They are very socially conscious and have always been our biggest fans, and we could not have been so successful without them.   Anyone looking for a place to host a site would do well to consider them.   Click the logo below to visit Advances.Com now.

RESOURCES FOR TEENS AND PARENTS :

Advocates For Youth - Calls for politicians to "Respect Young People's Right To Be Responsible".   Excellent site that has a section focusing on responsible sexual rights of adolescents, with excellent reading material about sex education elsewhere in the world and how it compares to the U.S.

gURL.com - A truly fantastic website created for girls that has an extensive area on sex and sexuality.   They give honest, factual answers to girl's questions without pushing any ideology.   They also have an excellent set of books for adolescent girls called the "Deal With It" series.

PFLAG Talk - Parents & Friends of Lesbian And Gay Youth - One of the most well-known and solid organizations available to gay, lesbian and bisexual youth - http://www.critpath.org/pflag-talk/

Being Girl.com - A really cool website created by the Tampax Corporation that talks about many sex-related issues (and has a sex-positive attitude), with a focus, of course, on the female body.

SexPedia - From the Discovery Channel's website, in the section focusing on sexual health, comes a 'encyclopedia' of sorts of sexual facts, from A to Z

The Coalition For Positive Sexuality ~ This site was the ONLY other site when we started that promoted a POSITIVE approach to adolescents and sex, and they helped make the AAS website so popular by being the first site to link to us!   They have excellent instructions on condoms and other safe sex practices.

Ask Alice! - Now one of the most established and well-known resources available to people of all ages dealing with health, in general, and more specifically, sexuality and sexual health.   It is run by Columbia University in New York and is very well done.

Like It Is! - The Brits Do Exactly That...   They Truly Tell It Like It Really Is!   No Political Agenda,   No Religious Dogma,   Just Honest And Open Conversation About Teen Sexuality, Discussed The Way It SHOULD Be In America (but isn't)

The Joys Of Teen Sex - Obviously, This Website Is Not In America...   But It Is No Parody...   It Is A Non-Politicized View On Teen Sex In The U.K., Where Adolescent Sexuality Is Considered...   NORMAL   (gasp!)

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Condoms!! - A Fantastic Resource From The People At CONDOMANIA!

SIECUS - The Sexuality Information Education Council of the United States - A resource geared toward sex educators and parents.

-------------------------------------------------

SOME ADDITIONAL FACTORS...

To be perfectly honest, there are other factors in our decision to shut down, and although those factors are a little embarrassing to admit, they are important enough that others need to know about them.   Speaking now just for myself as the creator of this site and primary owner, I have had other things to consider in keeping AAS open the last year or so including the fact that I now have a wife to consider and a family of my own to start, and negative opinions about this site (even though we rarely hear any) no longer affect me alone.   Also, sadly, the political climate in America has changed so dramatically since the Bush Administration and the Tom Delay Congress came to power that people no longer feel that they can speak out freely on controversial issues - especially if one is daring to disagree with the current political forces.   Free Speech in America has been chilled by the Bush Administration in ways I did not think was possible in this country.

Obviously I am not a fan of President Bush - no secret there - but my dislike is not based on anything personal; it is based on the sweeping policy changes related to sex education and reproduction issues in area after area of our government.  In order to push their religion-based idea that there should be no sexual activity outside of marriage (between a male and female only) they have issued Executive Orders and quietly issued new policies to department after department in the U.S. Government, and most recently has begun targeting for investigation organizations and websites speaking out against their "abstinence-only" programs and ideology.   As much as I hate to admit it, this is very intimidating, especially for a couple of individuals who could be ruined, financially, just attempting to defend themselves against such an investigation, even if no wrong-doing is ever found.   Below is a clip from a Salon.com article :

And that is just one small example of what the political climate has become...   SIECUS is now under further vicious attack by Republicans in Congress and a score of Religious Right groups.   Keep in mind that SIECUS has been writing the sex education curricula for public and private schools in America since 1964 and is hardly a "controversial" group.   To get a better idea of exactly what is going on, you can read the complete last article posted on the AAS site in December 2003.   You can also visit the SIECUS website for the latest news.

On the up-side, All About Sex has never taken grant money to operate and there was nothing illegal on this site.   However, neither of these organizations are anywhere close to being as controversial as some of the content on this website and we cannot afford the high-powered attorneys they can in defending themselves. 

In past rulings about Free Speech by the United States Supreme Court they have talked about situations like what the Congress and Bush Administration is doing and said that such intimidation and censorship "chills" the air for those speaking out against government policies.   This is what our elected officials are doing - and will keep doing until the American public decide's they've had enough.   Well, the way I see it, when it comes to talking honestly and openly about teens and sexuality in North America, it has gotten downright freezing, and is likely to remain that way until a new, less conservative Administration is voted in.   And American children will be the ones paying the price for years to come.

-----------------------------------------

Below is the full text of the final news article posted on the AAS site.   We believe it to be important enough to keep in circulation despite closing the site.

Oct. 28, 2003

Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, condoms: George W. Bush has a lot of enemies.

And the question is finally starting to be asked, just what steps is his administration willing to take in order to silence them? Network anchormen and coffee-break pundits alike were abuzz over the did-they-or-didn't-they CIA leak scandal. But the outing of Valerie Plame isn't the only instance where the federal government has been suspected of using its resources in direct, if somewhat sneaky, retaliation against its political opponents. Ruining the lives of CIA agents may make for dynamic headlines, but recent evidence shows that the Bush administration also has much smaller fish to fry.

Take Advocates for Youth, a national nonprofit organization that provides teens with accurate and informative sex education. In 18 years as a federal grantee, it has never been subjected to a government financial audit. That is, until it was suddenly hit with three in less than a year (one by the Centers for Disease Control back in October 2002, a second by the General Accounting Office in early 2003, and the third just two months ago, by a different arm of the CDC). The organization is crying conspiracy -- saying that it's being unfairly targeted because of its negative views toward the administration's abstinence-only education policies -- and the claims appear to be more than just paranoia.

In July 2001 the Washington Post published a leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services in which Advocates for Youth was described as "ardent critics of the Bush administration." This charge apparently came as the result of several Advocates for Youth press releases that railed against the president's backing of the "global gag rule" that prohibited any funding to foreign agencies that performed or facilitated abortions. In the leaked memo, it was also suggested that the Advocates for Youth programs did not go over well with the HHS because "the secretary [Tommy Thompson] is a devout Roman Catholic."

While Advocates for Youth may be near the top of Tommy Thompson's Most Wanted list, it is certainly not alone. After a group of activists booed Thompson at an international AIDS conference in Barcelona last year, a cadre of congressional Republicans called for investigations of the hecklers' various organizations. The CDC has conducted three reviews in the past 10 months of San Francisco's STOP AIDS program in an effort to make sure that none of its federal grant dollars have gone toward funding workshops that may promote sexual activity. And the New York-based Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) has been audited twice this year (its first audits ever, despite a decade of receiving federal grants), evidently because it created No New Money for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs, a Web site designed to educate the public about the possible dangers of abstinence-only education and to call for grassroots campaigns against the continued funding of these programs.

So far, Advocates for Youth, STOP AIDS and SIECUS have come through all of their audits with flying colors. But last year, as it turns out, a number of federal grantees were found guilty of misusing their government money. They were faith-based organizations.

Louisiana, a number of sex-education programs funded by Gov. Mike Foster's Program on Abstinence were found guilty in a federal court of openly violating the constitutional tenet of separation of church and state. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the governor's program after discovering numerous violations, including the use of grant money to teach abstinence through scripture, to perform skits with Christ as a character, to purchase Bibles, and to fund prayer vigils at abortion clinics. Though those Louisiana nonprofits are now required to turn in regular reports to the governor about their activities, none, to date, have been put before an HHS audit.

"Our complaint is not with getting audited," says Advocates' president James Wagoner. "Our complaint is with the selective and political nature of these audits. Ideology is invading -- if not subverting -- science within the Department of Health and Human Services [which houses the CDC], and we ended up on the audit table because we are one of the organizations pointing that out."

Advocates for Youth has continually stood behind its time-tested, research-backed policy of comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention, as opposed to adopting the Bush-backed method of abstinence-only education. Through its varied and numerous programs -- ranging from peer counseling and educator training to the creation of lesson plans and instructional videos -- Advocates for Youth has worked nationally and internationally to, as their mission statement reads, "help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their sexual and reproductive health." This includes providing them with information about contraceptives as well as abstinence and brings with it a sensitivity toward all forms of sexuality.

Comprehensive sex education has, for years, had the backing of the scientific community as an excellent preventive measure against teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Its proponents -- the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics among them -- will point to studies in publications such as the American Journal of Public Health, the Journal of Adolescent Health and the Journal of School Health, to back up their claims.

Support for the other side comes mostly from non-science sources, like Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation. In a much quoted April 2002 diatribe against comprehensive sex education, Rector cited a study from the Journal of the American Medical Association to back up his claims that abstinence-only programs work. He pointed out that the results of this study showed that teens who take "virginity pledges" exhibited a delay in their initiation of sexual activity. He failed to include, however, information from that same study that also reported that virginity pledges did not work for children under 14 or over 17; that they didn't work in communities where more than 30 percent of the teens took the pledge; and that teens who broke their pledges were far less likely to use contraception.

There is a clear lack of scientific data to back up the efficacy of abstinence-only programs, yet they have the full and complete support of the federal government. Hence James Wagoner's fears about ideology interfering with public health.

Wagoner is not the first one to charge the CDC with manipulating science for ideological purposes. In 1992, the CDC posted a page on its Web site listing sex-education "Programs That Work" from around the country that had curricula proven to be effective. All of the cited programs were comprehensive and included information about both abstinence and contraception; none were abstinence-only programs. Despite repeated outcries from proponents of abstinence-only, the list remained intact. That is, until George W. Bush came into office.

That Web page has vanished from the CDC's site, as have positive statements about condom use. Research results showing that abortions have no definitive link to breast cancer were taken off the National Cancer Institute's Web site, which is part of HHS. And now with these suspiciously motivated audits, it appears that HHS has graduated from simply hiding scientific information that offends the religious right, to retaliating against groups that disseminate that information.

There are three streams of revenue from which the federal government has chosen to award grant money to abstinence-only education programs: the Adolescent Family Life Act, started by President Reagan in 1981; the Welfare Reform Act of 1996; and the newly developed Special Programs of Regional and National Significance, which puts federal money directly into the hands of community-based organizations. All of these initiatives share a strictly delineated eight-point definition of "abstinence-only" that any program must meet to receive funding. Basically, this amounts to teens being taught that the only way to avoid pregnancy or STDs is to abstain from any and all sexual activity until marriage. For a program to comply with the eight-point definition, it must teach students that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity." Teachers in these programs are not allowed to endorse the use of condoms or other forms of contraception. However, they are apparently allowed to use instructional texts containing lines such as, "Is it fair to make a baby die because of a bad decision his or her parents made?" and "What if a girl came to school in a crop top, just barely covering her bra, and shorts starting three inches below her navel? What 'game' would she be playing?"

The abstinence-only drive was labeled a priority for HHS almost immediately after George W. Bush stepped into office. Starting in 2002, Congress has granted more than $100 million each year to organizations that sponsor abstinence-only programs; the average spending on these programs during the Clinton administration was about $60 million a year. Currently the only avenue through which organizations supporting comprehensive sex education can acquire federal grants is the Department of Adolescent Sexual Health, a division of the CDC that offers money strictly for HIV/AIDS prevention and gives out approximately $10 million a year divided among more than 40 organizations.

SIECUS' No New Money Web site urges people to contact their representatives and demand that funding to abstinence-only programs be stopped. That call to arms is what provided all the fodder the right wing needed to begin its retribution.

Only a few weeks after No New Money went live last August, 24 House Republicans, led by Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., jotted off a letter to HHS Secretary Thompson asking that both SIECUS and Advocates for Youth (which was listed on the site along with more than a hundred other "supporting organizations") be investigated. The letter pointed out that current law forbids the use of grant money for lobbying and explained that this group of congressional representatives just wanted to be absolutely sure no government dollars had gone into the construction or maintenance of No New Money. "I requested the audit of Advocates for Youth because I was concerned that the group was using taxpayer money to engage in political activities, not to help people," Pitts said in an e-mail to Salon. "And I intend to continue keeping an eye on how taxpayer money is spent, both here in Washington and by private groups."

Pitts has eagerly taken on a crusade against what he has called the "waste of taxpayer money." In a statement last month on his official Web site, he even called for an investigation into the spending practices of the NIH, suggesting that funding should perhaps be pulled from the venerable institution if it could not "provide a clear accounting and explanation for how it spends taxpayer money." He voiced his fears about "government agencies engaged in clearly useless activities" and illustrated this with examples from the NIH, such as research on female sexual arousal, gays and lesbians in the Native American community, and methods for better promotion of the morning-after pill. He insists that he is "not criticizing the objectives of these studies" but is "questioning the wisdom of using taxpayer resources to engage in research that has, at best, spurious benefits to our nation."

It isn't difficult to find a pattern in the type of programs that Pitts has targeted for possible defunding: The two specific Advocates for Youth programs that are funded by federal grant money -- and that are therefore at risk of being shut down by the findings of these audits -- are HIV prevention for young women of color and HIV prevention for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth.

Pitts happens to be an ardent supporter of providing federal funding to faith-based charities. ("Rather than preempt these organizations with a government program that would never be as effective, we want to partner with them," he said in a September press release.) It shouldn't be too hard to see why groups like Advocates are feeling singled out.

The letter about No New Money that Pitts and his colleagues sent to HHS was cited to both Advocates for Youth and SIECUS as the impetus for all of their audits thus far. Strangely, CDC itself seems somewhat confused about exactly what they've been doing to these nonprofits, both of which were given the disclaimer that the investigations they went through in September were not audits. "In this case, CDC does not have official audit authority," explained CDC spokesperson Kathryn Harben. "So what we're doing is referred to as a 'business and financial review evaluation.'"

However, Enrique Tessada, president of Tessada & Associates, the independent firm contracted by the CDC to perform its most recent "business and financial reviews," wrote in his company's Spring 2003 newsletter that his staff was "auditing community-based organizations... [that] receive grants to conduct HIV/AIDS prevention and training nationwide."

Semantics aside, no one can disguise the fact that, regardless of results, these audits can have a punitive effect on nonprofits. "Each one of these rounds costs our organization enormous amounts of time and money," says Wagoner. "In many ways it can grind you to a halt if you have to go back through every book, pull every piece of paper, and so on."

When asked why Advocates and SIECUS were being subjected to so many reviews in such a short period of time, Harben said she thinks "it was really more poor planning [on the government's part] than anything else." When asked if every grantee organization was equally subject to CDC review, Harben said that "the history of that is probably not consistent." She also indicated that the reviews "could take anywhere from a couple of days to four or five days," but the groups under investigation report a lengthier time commitment. Preparation included, Advocates for Youth says it lost almost four weeks to its last audit, and SIECUS about two weeks.

"If they can't bury our heads in the sand about abstinence-only," says Wagoner, "they're going to try to bury our organization in audits."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., fearing an abuse of federal audit power, has emerged as Advocates for Youth's greatest defender in this struggle. He and a contingent of 11 other congressional Democrats have voiced their concerns about the motivation behind these audits in letters to Tommy Thompson. In those letters they ask that HHS provide information about its auditing criteria in order "to determine whether there is sound scientific foundation for HHS' actions." Waxman's first letter received a response that was both delayed and abbreviated and left most of his questions unanswered. His follow-up letter, sent on Aug. 14 and requesting answers by Aug. 29, has yet to receive any response.

While attempting to get a response out of Tommy Thompson has become a Sisyphean task for Henry Waxman, it appears that all Joseph Pitts needs to do is mutter something under his breath and HHS will jump into action. On Oct. 2, Pitts and his Republican posse presented a list of 150 scientists whose work is funded by NIH grants, including some of those whose projects he questioned on his Web site. The NIH has already begun calling these blacklisted researchers, some of whom have contacted Waxman to tell him that they fear the loss of their funding. Waxman has picked up his pen once again, and on Monday demanded that Thompson take a stand and denounce this "scientific McCarthyism."

The true danger is, as Waxman says, "that some organizations will stop offering comprehensive education programs as a result of these audits, causing public health to suffer."   That is also the biggest fear of Advocates for Youth. "This is not about the left vs. the right," says Deb Mauser, Advocates' vice president. "It's about what works at keeping young people safe and healthy. It's a human right to have effective science-based strategies available to young people who are facing an [AIDS] epidemic. Ultimately, Advocates [which receives only a third of its total funding from government grants] will survive. Whether young people will get the service they deserve is questionable."

"On one level, we feel vindicated by the audit process," says Wagoner, "but on another, we can not deny the impact of this kind of tool being used on nonprofits, and not just the intimidation on a group like ours -- we're going to wake up in the morning, come to the office, do the work we're always going to do -- but there's the residual intimidation of other organizations in this field. There are lots of them that get government money, that don't have diversified funds. And they may look at Advocates and say, 'There but for the grace of God go I. And if it's because Advocates is raising concerns about the subverting of science and research, if it's because they're raising their heads up a little too high, well, that tells us we'd better keep ours down real low.'

"You cannot convince me that this campaign isn't aimed at making an example out of us for the rest of this field," he continues. "My only hope is that it backfires, that those who have committed their lives to this field and to young people or to any other group that needs good quality public health -- we will not take it lying down. We will go back to work. We will do what's right."


About the writer

Christopher Healy's writing has appeared in the Washington Post, Teen People, and "Out of the Ordinary: Essays on Growing Up With Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Parents."


NOTE: This article was reprinted here after being submitted to us by James Waggoner of Advocates For Youth.

They are against abstinence, because much as the homosexuals claim, to deny sexual desires is "unhealthy". They want children to be sexually active in whatever way they wish to express themselves. The Sex Positive Agenda makes no moral decisions, whether the question is homosexuality, incest, persons below the age of consent (with others their age, younger/older, even "adult"), beastiality. Only rape (non-consensual sex) seems to get their attention as something "bad" although rape fantasies are okay by them.
36 posted on 11/12/2004 10:55:08 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: narses

See post #36.


37 posted on 11/12/2004 10:57:26 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

You are seeing through your own lens. The propensity is there in all children, but all pre-pubescent children certainly aren't sexualized. It ususally happens early because of either having been molested, or seen others sexually acting, or been exposed to sex on TV or movies.

Pre-pubescent children are certainly curious and maybe play "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" but sexual acts? That is not normal for little children.


38 posted on 11/12/2004 12:07:23 PM PST by little jeremiah (Moral absolutes are what make humans human.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I don't deny what you're saying about Kinsey, but it would be false to deny that sexual arousal/stimulation is part of even a child's experience, and this is WITHOUT perversion or corruption due to outside forces.

You may be sincere, but you're at the very least showing poor judgment by choosing a thread about Kinsey to share with us that humans begin to experience sexual arousal before they are adults. And you're shocked, shocked to find this results in people calling you names.

What decent person would ever have the "sexuality" of 5-month-olds cross their mind, without Kinsey having perverted and corrupted, both directly and indirectly?

39 posted on 11/12/2004 1:00:34 PM PST by slowry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I just wanted to dispell the notion that many have, as an overreaction to discovery of this fact(for instance, kids playing "doctor" or the like) may lead to psychological problems down the road.

That argument sounds like one used by pedophiles. They say it is society's overreaction that causes the real harm in child sexual abuse cases.

40 posted on 11/12/2004 1:01:00 PM PST by tuesday afternoon (Everything happens for a reason. - 40 and 43)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

Explain to me how a child playing with herself and learning that it's not appropriate in public is "sexual abuse" and rationalizing it?

Oh wait, it isn't.


41 posted on 11/12/2004 5:26:14 PM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Sexual acts? I guess it depends on how you define it. I only refer to the capability for rudimentary sexual sensation, not to "oral sex" or other acts. I don't look at the capability as being "sexualized" only the acts, but if you catch your kid doing something that troubles you, it would be helpful if the reaction was proportional.

But you did mention seeing someone else do something of the sort. Well, surely there are many kids who've walked in on their parents, if only once. Even if they were never exposed before, certainly that could impact them. Then all that protection and sheltering would be for naught. Seems pretty fragile to me if all it takes is seeing something at a young age.

Perhaps the earlier poster was correct in that I chose the wrong thread. I kind of assumed people agreed on Kinsey so I wanted to have a more spirited conversation rather than an amen chorus. I apologize if anyone felt my remarks were not thread-appropriate. I really didn't mean for it to be "all about me" or for people to misinterpret what I meant.


42 posted on 11/12/2004 5:31:48 PM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Another article about this foul movie glorifying a sick monster:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1278761/posts?page=3


43 posted on 11/12/2004 5:51:18 PM PST by little jeremiah (Moral absolutes are what make humans human.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

I'm referring to kids who have been sexualized by exposure (generally repeated exposure) to sexually explicit stuff - TV, movies, or live people. Most of us on this thread I'm sure would not do that to kids - but there are, unfortunately, animal-like people who care nothing for their children's real well being. Or even think it's a good idea to "show" them how it's done, or include them.

It's a very unfortunate fact that many kids have their innocence ripped away from them at a young age, and Kinsey is their god, whether they know of him and his crimes or not.


44 posted on 11/12/2004 5:59:08 PM PST by little jeremiah (Moral absolutes are what make humans human.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

Go back to NAMBLA, you pervert.


45 posted on 11/12/2004 6:46:07 PM PST by Palladin (Proud to be a FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson