Sexual Revolutionary. Decriminalize your body! Ending bodyphobia and sexphobia.
Dr. Charles Moser and other sexologysts.

***RECOVERED FROM DEAD ARCHIVE (so it never dies from the internet, so SAVE YOUR COPY NOW!!!)***
***All material is SOURCED - Keep up to date yourself and keep seeking truth of human nature***
***Saved as text only***Copy-Paste as you wish***

Dr Charles Moser
Posted January 28, 2013

“The (current) DSM criteria for diagnosis of unusual sexual interests as pathological rests on a series of unproven and more importantly, untested assumptions.”

Sexual Revolutionary - Primary report data

Sexual Revolutionary

Decriminalize your body!

Ending bodyphobia and sexphobia

Familial and societal attitudes toward nudity and sexuality.

The ROOTS of a global mental/social disease:

Bodyphobia and sexphobia implanted as early as possible through a traumatized, misinformed, fearful society.

Links and books to study in depth as part of a healthy open discourse

Links, SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTATION:

Methods to healing through understanding and open discourse: (an end to "taboo" secrecy)

Daniel D. Ziegler - NUDISM AND SEXUAL REPRESSION - I realize now, some years after writing my book NAKED BEFORE GOD, that my claim that participating in organized nudism can increase body awareness and self-acceptance, may not as true as I once thought. While social nudity itself - that is being nude in the presence of others - can certainly increase body acceptance, organized nudism as we know it in this country has major flaws that I now think may actually have a negative effect on self-esteem.

By not permitting any open display or expression of sexuality, the nudism movement merely reinforces our society's already negative attitude toward our sexuality, and therefore toward our overall self-image. In this respect, the organized movement is actually counter-productive to its claims. They need to quit making that claim or change the rules. To permit nudity yet not allow ANY form of sexual expression, not even an erection, seems like an impossibility at best and a cruel tease at worst. Either way, it is a form or sexual repression.

The nudists' claim that nudism is not about sex, and that nudist parks are in no way sexual, is hypocritical. The very nature of nudity in an otherwise clothed society is certainly going to increase sexual awareness; and to not be able to express that in any way, not even in touching ourselves or getting aroused, is simply unrealistic AND cruel. And so, when we fail at this, even if just in our thoughts, we consciously or unconsciously feel increased guilt, shame and embarrassment over our sexuality, which merely adds to our already societally-induced poor self-image problem in general.

We are sexual beings and our sexual energy will manifest itself one way or another no matter how hard we try to discourage it. If we can't express it in an open and positive manner, it will cause us to act out in unhealthy ways, such as aggression or substance abuse. The nudists - the unsuspecting victims of this sexual repression - seem to have various ways displaying their behavior and of coping with the dilemma of being torn between the freedom that they know they could feel and the repression that they actually do feel. Many do what the rest of society does - they either numb themselves with substances such as nicotine and alcohol or they act on their sexual feelings and lie about it. Some, to the dismay of the owners of the so-called 'family nudist parks', no longer even lie about it. They are known as swingers and they are out there in numbers; but in spite of how we might characterize or judge their lifestyle, they are the honest ones. http://showthyself.blogspot.com/2006/01/nudism-and-sexual-repression.html

Dan Ziegler - SHOW THYSELF - IN OUR NAKEDNESS LIES OUR FREEDOM - I see a world in which we are no longer burdened by shame of our bodies nor by fear of our sexuality and thus we are free to seek the highest expression of our human experience. http://showthyself.blogspot.com/2006/01/gift-of-sex.html

Walter Last - HEALING SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS - Sexuality and spirituality are directly linked and it takes spiritual sex to heal mental (and sometimes physical) sexual issues.

In a wider sense we live in three different forms of relationships. These are our higher relationships with God and the spiritual dimension, our interpersonal relationships in human society, and our relationships with our planet and all of its life forms.

In a holistic way of living we move towards greater harmony on all three levels. Meditation and the spiritual path are our attempt to heal our relationship with our spiritual source, while an attitude of loving care towards our planet and its creatures will heal our relationship with our biological roots.

Our social relationships, in a way, are the most difficult to heal, for they are the testing ground for what we have learned, and how far we are spiritually advanced. With much effort and by using emotional release, reprogramming and meditation we may feel that we have made much progress in healing ourselves. But have we? We can only find out in our social interactions.

Sometimes we may wonder what it would be like to live in a genuinely loving and caring society. Surprisingly, such societies existed even in modern times. In 1929 the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski published an account of his two-year stay with the Trobriand Islanders near the East Coast of New Guinea. All the people there were happy and caring. They shared with each other and liked to work. Children were always good-natured and effortlessly conformed to the rules of their society, and they had one freedom that appears unbelievable to us: there was not the slightest restriction on their sexual activities. There was no emotional suppression at all... http://www.health-science-spirit.com/healrelations.html

Note: America's most trusted educator on love, sex and the family has taken a trip to the Trobriand Islands in October 1997 as a correspondent for Mungo Park (link not available) to discover why they are called the Islands of Love. Ruth Karola Westheimer, known to most people as Dr. Ruth, is famous for turning plain talk about sex into an industry. She has written numerous books, hosted a national radio call-in show, made scores of talk show appearances, and still maintains a private practice. At the same time, she takes an active role in academics and currently is a professor at New York University. "Trobriand society is fascinating. From what I've read, these people have a healthy appetite for sex," Dr. Ruth said. "This is a culture that has not changed over the centuries, unlike Western culture." - (In other words, uninfected by bodyphobia and sexphobia.)

More on this location's phobic-free natural lifestyle at the conclusion of this report.

Wilhelm Reich, M.D. - An organization dedicated to the science of orgonomy and the work of Wilhelm Reich - Scientific research into the connection between spiritual and sexual energy and healing the whole body with Orgone energy http://www.orgonomicscience.org/

--- The greatest taboo, openly discussed / The ROOT of bodyphobia and sexphobia, a scientific comparison on lifestyles ---

This is where it all begins, a perpetual loop of lies, fear and ignorance from society imposed upon the impressionable innocent minds of our own kind who shall repeat the cycle themselves one day.

The study of children's sexuality is similar to a trip through the desert in California: long stretches of nothing, interrupted by brief flurries of activity and interesting sights. Alayne Yates (1979) cites the sparse and confusing history of scholarly study of the general subject of children's sexuality, and specifically the lack of any concise reference materials for parents and educators. In the United States, as well as most other English-speaking countries, research of this nature has historically been seen as unnecessary (the mildest reaction), intrusive (a common belief among educators: children's sexuality is seen as the purview of the parents alone), or evil (especially among individuals and groups subscribing to certain religious codes and dogma). The impediments to research present a special problem for families and groups that do not share the prevalent views regarding sexuality in general, and nudity/modesty in particular. Smith and Sparks (1986) give numerous examples of families who are nudists, either "social" or "at home," who routinely hide that aspect of their lives for fear that others will find out and disapprove. They fear disapproval because they do not have any well-developed base of scholarly research to support their beliefs that the body is a normal and healthy entity, and that non-sexual nudity is not harmful for children (and is actually beneficial). [Nudists are generally classified as follows: "social nudists" participate in nude recreation and lifestyles in the company of others, such as at beaches, clubs, or other gatherings; "at home nudists" might not participate in group activities, but do not habitually wear clothes at home when circumstances do not require them, such as when sleeping, relaxing in the yard, or simply when in the home alone.]

Book: Yates, A. (1978). Sex Without Shame: Encouraging the Child's Healthy Sexual Development. New York: William Morrow and Company.

Current Research

Fortunately for nudist families, several researchers have taken an interest in the subject of nudity and children's development. Unfortunately, few others have chosen to replicate their research, possibly due to the reasons outlined previously (Yates, 1978). Following are four summaries of recent and relevant studies.

Parental attitudes

Aquilino and Ely (1985) studied the attitudes of parents toward the normal sexual development of preschool children. Eighty-one parents with children three to five years old were surveyed regarding the sexual activity and curiosity of preschool children. Subjects were parents whose children attended day-care centers in North Carolina towns. An author-designed questionnaire was used, containing questions relating to parental knowledge, responses to children's sexuality, and comfort with children's sexuality. Subjects also gave information about their age, sex, marital status, religious affiliation, and education, as these factors were seen as potential influences on response outcomes. After individually completing the questionnaires, the subjects were encouraged to participate in group and/or individual question-and-answer sessions. The authors did not state whether any of the subjects were nudists, and it is doubtful that they considered this a potential influence on responses [as it was not included].

Book: Aquilino, M.L., & Ely, J. (1985). Parents and the sexuality of preschool children. Pediatric Nursing. 11(4), 41-46.

Childhood influences on adult adjustment

The next study again queried adult subjects. Lewis and Janda (1988) examined the relationship between adult sexual adjustment and childhood exposure to nudity, sleeping in the parental bed, and parental attitudes toward sexuality. Two-hundred ten undergraduate university students were recruited as subjects. All subjects completed an extensive retrospective questionnaire measuring three basic experiences during childhood (operationally defined as the period from birth to eleven years): sleeping in bed with the parents; parental attitudes toward and comfort with sexuality; and viewing parents, siblings, and friends nude. Information on current sexual comfort and adjustment was also obtained using an extensive questionnaire.

Book: Lewis, R.J., & Janda, L.H. (1988). The relationship between adult sexual adjustment and childhood experiences regarding exposure to nudity, sleeping in the parental bed, and parental attitudes toward sexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 17(4), 349-362.

Children's perceptions of nudity

Goldman and Goldman (1981) chose children as their subjects, as opposed to the previous two studies. Research involving children can be problematic, but can also be quite revealing. The Goldmans interviewed 838 subjects from North America, England, Australia, and Sweden. Subjects' ages ranged from five to 15 years old. Each child was individually interviewed and asked questions designed to elicit responses indicating the child's understanding of wearing clothing, nudity (as viewed by society as a whole), and modesty. The responses were coded and scored according to the Kohlberg scale of moral thinking, in order to assess each subject's level of cognitive reasoning for the answers given. No references were made to the family nudity status, although this again may have been an influential factor.

Book: Goldman, R.J., & Goldman, J.D. (1981). Children's perceptions of clothes and nakedness: a cross-national study. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 104, 163-185.

Nudist and non-nudist perceptions

The last study may be the most useful resource for nudist families. Story (1979) interviewed 264 three- to five-year-old children and their parents. These subjects were chosen and matched based on family nudity status: "social nudist," "at-home- only nudist," or non-nudist. Subjects were all North Americans, with approximately equal numbers sampled from all geographic regions in the United States. The parents were given individually administered interviews to determine the children's ages, sexes, weights, and birth order. The children were interviewed separately; they were asked to tell whether they liked certain body parts, using as references line drawings of nude children of the same sex and race as the child being interviewed. The children were also asked to identify the most- and least-liked body parts, with an explanation for each.

Book: Story, M.D. (1979). Factors associated with more positive body self- concepts in preschool children. The Journal of Social Psychology. 108, 49-56.

Summary

The studies' summaries are presented in the order above.

Aquilino and Ely (1985) found that most parents were knowledgeable about the normal sexuality and curiosity of preschool children. Subjects reported that they would have mostly positive responses to children's sexual behaviors, although some behaviors were tolerated less depending on sex (self-stimulation of genitals more tolerated in females than males), and some were not tolerated at all (children of opposite sexes "playing doctor"). Most parents, in spite of their high degree of knowledge, were still uncomfortable as the sole arbiters of their children's sexual development. Most wanted reassurance and validation from both the researchers and the other parents that their attitudes were within the societal norms.

Lewis and Janda (1988) found a positive correlation between childhood exposure to nudity and adult sexual comfort. The authors point out, however, that some would see this as a reason to prevent childhood exposure to nudity, as their measures on comfort included acceptance of lifestyles that many would consider immoral or undesirable (such as premarital sex, or acceptance of homosexuality). The other factors (sleeping in the parental bed and parental comfort/acceptance of sexuality), while not germane to the narrow scope of this review, also demonstrate a positive correlation with childhood exposure and adult sexual adjustment and comfort.

Goldman and Goldman (1981) found that English-speaking children were the most adamant that clothes were necessary, even in hot climates; North American children were the most insistent. English-speakers were also less likely to advance to the highest level of moral thinking with regard to reasons for embarrassment when nude, and reasons for wearing or not wearing clothes. The Swedish children seemed to score consistently higher, and seem to be much less clothes-insistent, although they live in a colder climate and would have more reason to expect that clothing should be worn. The Goldmans point out that sex education in the schools is compulsory after age eight, and the northern European traditions of sauna and FKK ("freikorperkultur," or "free body culture") are well established in Sweden.

Last, Story (1979) found that while non-nudist children most often disliked their genitals, nudist children were the opposite, most often naming the genitals as the most-liked body part. In addition, nudist children did not identify any particular body parts they disliked (the only possible exception being the skin--not because of racial coloration or deformity, but because of sunburn or too little tan). Family nudism was found to have a higher correlation to body self-concept than did sex, race, or geographical area. Nudist children consistently scored higher than non-nudist children in all areas of body acceptance, self- concept, and self-image.

Conclusion

The results of the research presented would seem to speak clearly and with force: children's exposure to nudity is not only not harmful, it appears to be beneficial. Children who are thus raised grow up to be adults who are comfortable with their bodies and their sexuality. However, this seemingly clear relationship is not at all clear to most parents, nudist or non-nudist. Yates (1978) theorizes that most parents are unaware of these studies for two reasons. First, nudists are still widely (and erroneously) perceived in our society as sexual deviants: people who obtain sexual stimulation by engaging in nude recreation. Those who are not nudists generally have no direct personal experiences to disprove this fallacy, and many nudists are afraid to reveal their status for fear of being ridiculed, prosecuted, and persecuted. Second, the study of human sexuality has made amazing advances in the knowledge of adult sexuality in the last one- hundred years--this is seen as appropriate, as adults are clearly sexual beings. The same research with regard to children has advanced much more slowly, as researchers are loath to study in this area that is still seen by many as unnecessary, intrusive, or evil. The research that has been done has been sparse, and generally has not been replicated. This lack of replication has led to a general lack of credence by those who rely on the literature for their professional opinions, and these people are the ones who directly advise parents. Thus, we are left with the advice of Dr. Spock [warning us of dire consequences], who performed no research of his own and apparently bases his conclusions on children's exposure to nudity on one anecdotal incident involving his own son, and Dr. Joyce Brothers [warning us of "terrible guilts and frustrations"], who performed no research of her own and apparently bases her conclusions on normal children's exposure to nudity on her work with emotionally disturbed children (Smith and Sparks, 1986).

Book: Smith, D.C., & Sparks, W. (1986). The Naked Child: Growing Up Without Shame. Los Angeles: Elysium Growth Press.

We see from Aquilino and Ely that parents generally do not trust their own judgment regarding questions of children's sexuality. We see from Smith and Sparks that many widely published "experts" are not experts at all, but rather individuals with personal opinions who also happen to be widely read by naive and insecure parents. Last, we see from Yates, Story, Lewis and Janda, and the Goldmans that there is convincing evidence that children's exposure to nudity is actually beneficial in a social setting. It should therefore be quite clear that the answer to the question, "Is children's exposure to nudity harmful?" should be, "No," and the burden of proof is upon the so-called "experts" to perform and replicate the research already offered in support of their opinions to the contrary.

"These parents did not so much desire their children's bodies (as would be implied by a traditional conception of paedophilia); they desired their children's desires. They desired the prospect of "wholesome," uninhibited, pleasure-driven sexuality. Yet, they also feared it. They feared it in themselves and in their children. Those contradictions surface repeatedly as Spock and other writers seek to calm (and yet acknowledge) parental fears and to guide readers towards a more progressive approach." - THE SENSUOUS CHILD: DR. BENJAMIN SPOCK AND THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION by Henry Jenkins http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/pub/spock.html

WARNINGS (Protect your family from abuse from an ignorant and misinformed medical and legal system):

Children as young as 8 can be arrested, mandated to treatment, and placed on sex offender registries - even for non-aggressive behavior. Don't let this happen to your child. Know the facts. http://isaccorp.org/youthsex.asp

A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND PROPER RESEARCH.

No scientifically established norms. Common behaviors defined as "ABNORMAL"

In medicine and mental health, we hope that definitions of normality and illness are based on scientific research. But in the case of childhood sexual development, there is little knowledge to go on. - "The development and expression of the erotic response throughout the human lifespan is not a well studied phenomenon, and normative data have not been compiled for sexual behaviors of childhood and adolescence." - Researcher Loretta Haroian, Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.

Labeling children as abnormal anyway. One article about childhood sexual deviance says, “While norms do not presently exist for what is normal sexual behavior of children, the behaviors exhibited...led us to label the behaviors as being outside the normal range of sexual activity for their age group.” When asked at a professional meeting how to decide what is normal, the author replied, “There is no real way to say this. I mean, I'm saying it--I hope I'm correct.”

There is no level of sexual knowledge, feelings, or behavior among children that has been scientifically established as "normal", and above which it can be classified as "abnormal". Thus, when children's sexual interest or behavior is classified as "unusual," "excessive," "developmentally inappropriate," "precocious," or "beyond their developmental level," it is based on CULTURAL and moral standards, NOT medical, scientific, or psychological criteria. http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/lack.htm

The following common beliefs are UNSUPPORTED or contradicted by research:

1. That there is a certain amount of sexual knowledge, behavior, and thoughts that normal children exhibit.

2. That children who exceed this amount have been sexually abused and/or are psychologically disturbed.

3. That normal children do not interact sexually with other children who differ in age or size.

4. That indecent or socially inappropriate behavior is necessarily aggressive, abusive, and harmful.

5. That without treatment, children who engage in indecent or socially inappropriate sexual behavior will grow up to be violent sex criminals.

The use of the language of violence to describe the behavior of children due solely to its sexual nature is a form of DOUBLESPEAK that misleads one about the actual nature of these children and their acts, and encourages fear rather than understanding. The logical result is criminal prosecution of the innocent.

“A ten-year-old kid plays doctor with his kid sister. A senior in high school has consensual sex with his sophomore girlfriend. Dangerous sex offenders? Yes, say the nation's toughest sex laws. And some states' punishments include posting the juvenile offenders' pictures on websites for the rest of their lives.” - Journalist Seamus McGraw, runner-up for the 2002 Casey Medal.

In two separate incidents in Wisconsin, both young teenagers in sexual relationships were recently charged with sexually assaulting each other.

According to police, a 14-year-old city of Pewaukee boy and a 13-year-old village of Pewaukee girl allegedly engaged in sexual activity in a residence...Police are seeking to charge both with second-degree sexual assault. - Lake Country Reporter.

...authorities say their prosecution is meant to help... The boy is being held in secure detention on a charge of attempted second-degree sexual assault... The girl pleaded guilty to fourth degree sexual assault. - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Parents have a right to teach their children their moral values regarding sex, but police knowingly labeling non-violent mutually desired behavior as assault is dishonest and purposely misleading, and makes a mockery of true assault. Lying to the public about young people's behavior and treating them like criminals on the pretense of helping them can ruin lives, and has no place in a democracy!

Gorcyca had overreacted by bringing criminal charges for what amounted to consensual sex between promiscuous teenagers...all four defendants were notified they'd be registered as sex offenders...Justin Fawcett of West Bloomfield, was particularly devastated...Friday night, his parents found him dead of an apparent overdose...the criminalization of teenage promiscuity is destroying young lives. And if you're a parent, wake up. Because if you think this couldn't happen to your teenager, you've missed the whole point of Justin Fawcett's story. - Detroit Free Press.

See also: “In Memory of Justin M. Fawcett,” Citizens for Second Chances. http://www.geocities.com/citizens_secondchances/justins-corner.html

Both the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the Center for Sex Offender Management state that ONE-THIRD TO ONE-HALF OF ALL CHILD MOLESTATION IS COMMITTED BY CHILDREN THEMSELVES. (Does this mean child sexuality is no different than adult sexuality? If that's the case, why are adults not protected by law from children then?)

The U.S. Department of Justice finds that of all ages 7 - 60, “the single age with the greatest number of offenders from the perspective of law enforcement was age 14.”

A rational approach

All of this is not to imply that sexual aggression, indecency, or behavior among children of different ages is acceptable. However, labeling children as sexually deviant — essentially criminally ill — is not the best way to teach them proper behavior. (Quite the contrary. All this does is instill FEAR into children and teenagers, showing them how easy it is to screw up anyone's life of their chosing at their will and whim, highly influencing these future adults who will then pass this same bodyphobia and sexphobia on to the next generation, leaving their trust in government little if any.)

A better approach would seem to be for parents to teach their children proper sexual behavior in the same way they teach them proper non-sexual behavior — by conveying to them their (personal family) values, explaining why socially inappropriate behavior (often) offends others, and using appropriate discipline when necessary. Treatment should be sought only when behavior is truly violent or a sign of a scientifically established disorder. (...of which there is little true research into this subject to begin with)

Unfortunately, not only is this not the case, but an array of extreme, scientifically unsupported, and potentially damaging diagnostic and treatment methods are used that are disturbingly reminiscent of the approaches used with homosexuals 50 years ago. (The dark ages for homosexuals where it used to be thought of as a "disease" to be gay requiring electro-convulsive "therapy", wiping out their minds from all signs of "gayness"... and anything else that happened to be in the way at the time.)

How far does society go to "study" sexual nature and under what pretense do they use illegal materials to stimulate others sexually, including children? Be shocked and disgusted at what you are about to read. They have gone too far in attempting to stimulate young adults sexually with illegal pornography to attempt to force confessions from them about their partners and their mutually consensual contact:

FOCUSING ON NEGATIVITY and creating fear.

Plethysmographs:

The penile plethysmograph (PPG) is a device that was used in the early 1900s to diagnose homosexuality. It is still used today to measure sexual deviance among males. It is connected to a male's penis to directly measure his sexual arousal while he is exposed to sexually arousing photographs or audiotapes involving adults, adolescents, and children. This is referred to as "phollometric assessment."

The purpose of the phallometric assessment is to provide objective data regarding sexual arousal. Additionally, it can assist in monitoring changes in sexual arousal patterns which have been modified by treatment. If methods such as the use of Depo-Provera or Depo-Lupron, masturbatory satiation or olfactory conditioning are employed as an adjunct to treatment, then the multidisciplinary team shall use plethysmography to measure the efficacy of these interventions...For individuals under the age of 14, or for those who may not have attained the maturational level associated with puberty, clinicians should seek interdisciplinary or institutional review of the physiological procedures.

Placement of the gauge should be at midshaft of the penis. Recording of full penile tumescence should be obtained whenever possible. The examiner should ensure that sufficient arousal has been recorded to accurately interpret data. When data is to be interpreted as a percentage of full erection, it is important to request the client to achieve full erection.

The examiner will have available a range of sexual stimulus material depicting various Tanner Stages of development for both males and females, including culturally diverse subject material. Stimulus materials should also be available to differentiate between consenting, coercive, forcible, sadistic and aggressive themes with both adults and children. - Colorado Standards for the Treatment of Juvenile Sex Offenders

A survey conducted in 2000 found that 13% of programs for juvenile offenders ages 12 or over and 5% of programs for younger children used the plethysmograph. Although the authors of the survey believe the 5% figure was an error, there have been stories of children as young as 10 years old being tested with the device. Click the following link to see a TV news report about its use on children ages 12 and over in New York in 1993. http://www.youtube.com/user/ethicaltreatment

Not only are officers of the law using this penile device on male children, but they are showing them sexual photographs, some of which are illegal rape pornography in order to prosecute these teenagers further! THIS IS NOT RIGHT! THIS IS WORSE THAN GEORGE ORWELL'S SEX CRIMES TRIBUNAL IN THE BOOK "1984"! If it's illegal to possess images of non-consensual rape at any age then the same laws should also apply to officers of the law. Admittance to showing these photos to children under any pretense they conjure up to attempt to justify their "methods of prosecution" should not be tolerated if they are claiming "purity" and put others to trial based on the results of a device they are attaching to adolescent sex organs for measuring a "response". This whole situation is typical hypocritical behavior, the kind Freud warned us about... The kind that belongs back in Salem during the witchcraft holocaust known as "the inquisition". It would not be surprising to discover that their very OWN "officers of the law" and medical doctors would just as easily fail this very same "sex test" they use on teenagers and children. Something to test them on sometime... or would they chicken out?

Link: What you can do. Get involved! http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/action.htm

How far and deep does this mental disease go? Just how promoted is bodyphobia and sexphobia world wide?

Religion:

It might be a hard pill to swallow, but it was suggested today, by Pat Robertson, in a speech to a pharmaceutical conference addressing ethical considerations, that sexual reproduction should be completely outlawed. In a complete turn-around from his previous stands on cloning and stem cell research, Robertson suggested that pharmaceutical companies be given the go-ahead to begin cloning and using other non-sexual reproduction methods and procedures to propagate the human race.

“I have re-examined my position on cloning,” he said. “It would save the human race from complete moral degradation.” Robertson added, “Sex is the cause of immorality not only in this country but around the world. Just look at AIDS. We need to relieve ourselves of sex before God destroys us and we vanish from the planet. Asexual reproduction is the best way and I know God would approve.”

Robertson, thought to be a large stockholder of several drug firms, explained that pharmaceutical companies, with their large profits, can use their vast resources to “further line their pockets while contributing to the benefit of mankind.” He added, “We need large pharmas if the human race is to survive. Without all our pills, where would we be?”

Outlining such a program, the moral leader explained that although this method seems radical to some, it really lies in the best interest of all. “Children, particularly, would benefit,” Robertson told his audience, “since we know that children suffer irreparable harm from being exposed to the most seemingly insignificant acts of sex, such as seeing a mother breast feeding a child. Total abstinence and growing up in a sexless world would produce generations of morally and psychologically healthy children,” he added.

Written by Dan Zeigler, from: http://showthyself.blogspot.com/2006/01/robertson-sex-to-become-obsolete.html

INSANITY has taken over his mind and the minds of his sheep, clearly. His "solution" to help him deal with his own fears is to administer anti-sex drugs and medical procedures to the masses. No, that's a completely healthy and natural life affirming attitude to have towards one's own body and the world's populations, free-will and individuals.

All this evidence, research, documentations, public statements and so forth, demonstrates that natural sexuality has become completely destroyed by fear and ignorance and is now in a massive need for complete and total HEALING. It's gone too far, and it's time for a massive, WORLD-WIDE SEXUAL REVOLUTION! (See closing statement)

Examples of the uncorrupted:

What does a free society look and act like where there are no taboos regarding our own bodies and true sexual nature? What does it mean to live without fear of our own nature? A positive conclusion.

Growing Up Sexually: A World Atlas - Segment from "TROBRIANDERS (Papua New Guinea)":

Celebrated pioneer of participating observation Malinowski provides a uniquely detailed account of premarital sexual behaviour trajectories (1927:p33-73ff; 1929:p51-75). The classic description of Trobriand copulatory “playing house”, as quoted from Malinowski (1927:p55-6)[2], reads:

“At an early age children are initiated by each other, or sometimes by a slightly older companion, into the practices of sex. Naturally at this stage they are unable to carry out the act properly, but they content themselves with all sorts of games in which they are left quite at liberty by their elders, and thus they can satisfy their curiosity and their sensuality directly and without disguise. There can be no doubt that the dominating interest of such games is what Freud would call “genital”, that they are largely determined by the desire to imitate the acts and interests of elder children and elders, and that this period is one which is almost completely absent from the life of better-class children in Europe and which exists only to a small degree among peasants and proletarians. When speaking of these amusements of the children, the natives will frequently allude to them as “copulation amusement” (mwaygini kwayta). Or else it is said that they are playing at marriage. It must not be imagined that all games are sexual. Many do not lend themselves at all to it. But there are some particular pastimes of small children in which sex plays the predominant part. Melanesian children are fond of “playing husband and wife”. A boy and girl build a little shelter and call it their home; there they pretend to assume the functions of husband and wife, and amongst those of course the most important one of sexual intercourse. At other times, a group of children will go for a picnic where the entertainment consists of eating, fighting, and making love. Or they will carry out a mimic ceremonial trade exchange, ending up with sexual activities. Crude sensual pleasure alone does not seem to satisfy them; in such more elaborate games it must be blended with some imaginative and romantic interest”.

Thus, “[w]e cannot consider puberty as a conditio sine qua non of sexual interest or even of sexual activities, since non-nubile girls can copulate and immature boys are known to have erections and to practise immissio penis” (ibid., p59)[3]. Malinowski (1929:p57-8)[4]:

“The little ones sometimes play […] at house-building, and at family life. A small hut of sticks and boughs is constructed in a secluded part of the jungle, and a couple or more repair thither and play at husband and wife, prepare food and carry out or imitate as best they can the act of sex. Or else a band of them, in imitation of the amorous expeditions of their elders, carry food to some favourite spot on the sea-shore or in the coral ridge, cook and eat vegetables there, and “when they are full of food, the boys sometimes fight with each other, or sometimes kayta (copulate) with the girls”. When the fruit ripens on certain wild trees in the jungle they go in parties to pick it, to exchange presents, make kula (ceremonial exchange) of the fruit, and engage in erotic pastimes”.

The attitude of the grown-ups and even of the parents towards such infantile indulgence is

“either that of complete indifference or that of complacency - they find it natural, and do not see why they should scold or interfere. Usually they show a kind of tolerant and amused interest, and discuss the love affairs of their children with easy jocularity. I often heard some such benevolent gossip as this: “So-and-so (a little girl) has already had intercourse with So-and-so (a little boy)”. And if such were the case, it would be added that it was her first experience. An exchange of lovers, or some small love drama in the little world would be half-seriously, halfjokingly discussed. The infantile sexual act, or its substitute, is regarded as an innocent amusement. “It is their play to kayta (to have intercourse). They give each other a coconut, a small piece of betel-nut, a few beads or some fruits from the bush, and then they go and hide, and kayta”. But it is not considered proper for the children to carry on their affairs in the house. It has always to be done in the bush” (p56).

Malinowski is sure to document the transition to “adolescence”:

“As the boy or girl enters upon adolescence the nature of his or her sexual activity becomes more serious. It ceases to be mere child's play and assumes a prominent place among life's interests. What was before an unstable relation culminating in an exchange of erotic manipulation or an immature sexual act becomes now an absorbing passion, and a matter for serious endeavour”.

Link: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/TROBRIANDERS.HTM

From: Growing Up Sexually: A World Atlas http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/INDEXATLAS.HTM

These are the rarest if not only groups of people living a bodyphobic and sexphobic free life as a social community. They have no war, no sexual or physical abuse (as we see in North America), none of the great discomforts of the fully clothed, sheltered and fearful people elsewhere on the planet. They live a life pretty much like our own, yet they are completely self reliant under self-rule and non-interference towards others. However the primary difference for these people lies in their attitude towards their natural bodies and sexuality. There is not the slightest restriction on their sexual activities as a people at any age throughout natural curiosity and development. Obviously sex education regarding STDs and pregnancy should be the utmost importance for them, but if this is the true uninhibited natural lifestyle for human beings, where did we go so horribly wrong so long ago and why? These people are not the slightest bit infected by otherworldly (North American, European, etc) bodyphobic and sexphobic "standards" and thus would probably mock our disgruntled and confused backwards "culture" easily when compared to their own historical multi-generational bliss. It is a shock beyond comparison to consider the vast difference between lifestyles. If these peaceful natives lived or even visited North America they'd all be arrested as young as 8 years old on up to 65 years of age and sent to prison for 20 to 60 years. And if any of us went to their community some of us might not be able to remain calm and at peace while they laughed at our paranoid ranting about how terrible they all were. Our phobic attitudes screaming out to them like a raging fire... something they do not deserve.

Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo - “the (current) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria for diagnosis of unusual sexual interests as pathological rests on a series of unproven and more importantly, untested assumptions.” 2003.

By Lawrence Morahan - CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

In a step critics charge could result in decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as "paraphilias."

Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."

People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill, they argued.

Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias from so-called "normophilics", there is no reason to diagnose paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy, Moser and Kleinplatz stated.

"The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz wrote.

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

Richard Green, M.D., J.D. is a widely known writer specializing in homosexuality and gender-identity issues. Green argued in favor of removing pedophilia from the diagnostic manual (DSM).

Green was one of the clinicians who, in the 1973, took the side of gay activists to argue for removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual.

Many of the commentators in the Archives argued that children are usually too emotionally immature to offer valid consent for sex with an adult. But the issue of ability to give valid consent is not the point at all, another writer responded--for no parent asks his child for his "consent" before baptizing him into a church.

A number of the commentators indicated their disapproval of the moral influences exerted on society by its Judeo-Christian heritage, which has traditionally stigmatized child sexuality.

"Looking at the issue historically", argues psychologist Robert Prentky, "the age for sexual consent used to be age ten in England until about 100 years ago. So when is a child no longer a child? Certainly there are some 12-year-olds who are mature enough to give valid consent for sex." Prentky also observes that, "Some of our culture's most beloved heroes were clearly pedophiles - including the authors of the children's classics Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland."

Criteria for Mental Illness

Why should pedophilia not be considered a mental illness? Richard Green makes the case by considering several factors.

Distress. One of the criteria for mental illness is subjective distress - and, Green notes, many pedophiles are not distressed about their attractions at all--except, he notes, about being the possibility of being jailed. In fact, "some celebrate their interests, organize politically, and publish magazines or books."

Disability. Considering another marker of illness, "disability," Green says, psychiatry must not let itself be locked into the narrow definition of disability currently dictated by our culture. When we broaden our view to consider other cultures over time, Green explains, we see that many African tribes and even the ancient Greeks considered man-boy pedophilia to be a helpful rite-of-passage into manhood.

Animal Behavior. Looking at normality from the perspective of our animal relatives, Dr. Green looks at a close genetic relative, the pygmy chimp, or bonobo. Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own species. And that behavior isn't likely harmful to the babies, Green says, because it's the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play.

Frequency of Occurrence. Green says that contrary to popular myth, pedophile attractions aren't even especially unusual. Studies prove that many so-called "normal" men with conventional sexual interests can, in fact, be sexually aroused in a laboratory setting when they are shown erotic photos of little girls.

Is the pedophile a dysfunctional person? "No", Green says, "in truth, there appear to be quite a number of "highly skilled pedophiles" - in fact, even some beloved public figures - so a simple explanation of "social inadequacy" doesn't explain their psychological condition."

"Taken together", Green says, "these findings converge on the conclusion that pedophilia is not a mental disorder - at least not unless we declare a lot of people in many cultures and in much of the past to be mentally ill."

Others Say the Issue of "Consent" is Irrelevant

Among those writers who opted for retaining pedophilia in the DSM, the majority made their argument against adult-child sex on the grounds of the age and power discrepancy between the partners. But not all of the writers in the Archives agreed that a power imbalance renders a relationship psychologically harmful or even subjectively unsatisfying.

For example, psychiatrist Emil Ng, M.D. of the University of Hong Kong says that in ancient Chinese history, children are described as "natural sexual beings," and romances are portrayed with children as young as ten years old in sexual relationships with each other, or with adults - and "sex play is viewed as beneficial to their healthy development."

Is lack of "consent" a valid reason to call pedophilia harmful? "No", Dr. Ng notes, "the seemingly righteous and humanitarian debate on child self-determination is nothing more than another game adults play to impose their own values on children."

After all, Ng notes, "How often do the adults [in the West] try to ascertain 'valid consent' from their children before getting them to do most things?" For example, have parents "sought valid 'consent' from their children before baptizing them soon after birth?"

"Unequal Relationships Are Not Necessarily Unprincipled"

Dr. Paul Okami of UCLA agrees that a power imbalance should not be the deciding issue. History is full of examples, he notes, of unequal relationships that "work" for the individuals involved - for example, a professor and his student marry "and live happily ever after." An unequal relationship doesn't violate principles of justice or fairness in sexual relationships, Dr. Okami says, "unless one views sexual relationships as similar to hand-to-hand combat."

Actually, he says, the real problem in pedophilia traces back to Christianity. People "detest" pedophilia because Christianity has given our culture a restrictive attitude toward the "naturalistic" child and his sexual instincts.

"Christianity", Okami says, "regards children as sinful heathens who need the devil beat out of them. The end result is a powerful desire to save priceless, lovable, sacred innocents from something dangerous, dirty, disgusting and sinful."

Dr. Bruce Rind agrees with Dr. Ng and Dr. Okami that lack of consent from the child doesn't necessarily mean adult-child sexual relationships are harmful. (Dr. Rind was the lead author of the 1998 study that was attacked in the media by radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The Rind study concluded that there was little or no psychological harm in man-boy sexual relationships.)

Dr. Rind notes that many other societies, today and in the past, have endorsed sex between a man and a boy. The argument regarding "consent" is disproven.

"After all", Rind says, "some parents force their children to go to church! And couldn't religious indoctrination, for that matter, be harmful to the child?"

Even Man-Boy Incest May Be Remembered Positively, Says Rind

To back up his claim that pedophile relationships can be consensual, Rind describes several cases of men who say they benefited from - and even initiated - their childhood sexual experiences, including a "positive" recollection of father-son incest.

One boy had several relationships with men, starting when he was age 11, "all of which he viewed as very positive. He thinks the sex helped his sexual self-confidence; as he matured, he knew exactly what he wanted in sex, while his peers were still searching."

Another man saw the childhood intimacy he had with a man as the "highlight of his life."

Still another boy started having sex with his own father at age ten, and now (he is 33 years old) he looks back on their incestuous relationship as "beautiful, pure" and full of love. He said he "cherished the intimacy."

Dr. Charles Moser - the clinician who was invited to present a paper at the May 2003 American Psychiatric Conference on pedophilia - supported Rind's observations. "Psychiatry", he said, "is ethically obliged to help those people who have unusual sexual interests pursue their subjective ideal of personal fulfillment."

"Any sexual interest," concluded Moser, "can be healthy and life-enhancing."

References:

Moser, Charles and Peggy J. Kleinplatz, "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal," paper presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual conference, San Francisco, California, May 19, 2003.

"Special Section: Pedophilia: Concepts and Controversy," in Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 31, No. 6, December 2002, p. 465-510.

Updated: 8 February 2008

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

But if the DSM is a book of “hypotheses,” why the fuss? Does the DSM matter?

Yes. A lot. The first reason why is prosaic. If you want your insurance to reimburse your visit to a mental health professional, you are probably going to need a DSM code signifying a diagnosis.

But the more profound reason is that it shapes how doctors, even the rest of rest of society, view sexuality.

“A psychiatric diagnosis is more than shorthand to facilitate communication among professionals or to standardize research parameters,” wrote Dr. Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz in a 2005 paper published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. “Psychiatric diagnoses affect child custody decisions, self-esteem, whether individuals are hired or fired, receive security clearances, or have other rights and privileges curtailed. Criminals may find that their sentences are either mitigated or enhanced as a direct result of their diagnoses. The equating of unusual sexual interests with psychiatric diagnoses has been used to justify the oppression of sexual minorities and to serve political agendas. A review of this area is not only a scientific issue, but also a human rights issue.”

A problem for whom?

There is no shortage of opinion on what ought to be changed, deleted or included in the new DSM-V. Sandra Leiblum, formerly a professor at New Jersey’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and an expert in female sexual health who is now in private practice in Bridgewater, N.J., says she wants to see a revision of diagnoses of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, other female arousal disorders and sexual pain like dyspareunia. For example, she wants language that would separate arousal disorders into genital (more biological in origin) and subjective subtypes.

Carol Queen, a sexologist, sexual rights activist and co-founder of San Francisco’s Center for Sex and Culture, believes the new DSM should stress that sexual variances are only a problem “if they are problems in the life of the person showing up” in a psychiatrist’s office “so that when somebody is eroticizing something, or doing something in a consensual way, that’s not a problem” even if it may seem odd to most of us.

She also proposes an addition, a diagnosis of “absexual” (“ab” meaning “away from”). This would include those who appear to be “turned on by fulminating against it.” Examples could include state governors who crusade against prostitution even while paying hookers for sex, and religious leaders who wind up trying to explain engaging in the sex acts they preach against.

Moser, who is affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, and Kleinplatz, from the University of Ottawa, argue that all paraphilias, like sexual sadism, sexual masochism, transvestism, should be removed from the DSM, insisting that “the (current) DSM criteria for diagnosis of unusual sexual interests as pathological rests on a series of unproven and more importantly, untested assumptions.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24664654/from/ET/

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

Considering all the evidence: What kind of world are we continuing to create where those who are more comfortable with their own bodies and the bodies of others are oppressed by those who are supposed to protect their very freedoms and rights to self expression in the first place?

There seems to be only one solution to this problem. Educate each other fearlessly with the hidden truths and facts (formerly taboo subjects and research) about open, comfortable, natural human expression by dropping all secrecy, cover-ups and clothes-minded facade and begin to regain what was once lost... loving each other openly, freely, joyously, as nature intended.

I've heard it said, "If God wanted us to be naked and openly sexual we would have been born that way." We all started out pure and free to develop as nature intended and we were all happy that way until authority figures in our lives screwed us up with their projected and needless fears of our own developing bodies... beating us for touching ourselves or screaming at us for talking about sex when our mentors were clearly completely unable to deal with our natural curiosity. They failed to deal with their own bodies and sexuality, and then they started to mess with our own.

Society has changed - it has moved so very far from its roots a millennia ago. The invention of clothing led to "mystery" and shame, mystery led to curiosity and eventually obsession, fetish and uncontrolled lust... and sometimes even rape. Our "protectors" once had our best interests in mind, but their fears grew, their data corrupted through incomplete research, and biased personal opinion became the "norm". Fear is not "normal". Oppression of others is not "normal", especially our own children. Peace is normal, especially within our own families and society. Peace transpires when KNOWLEDGE and experience are free to grow. It is time for a new sexual revolution. Bodyphobia and sexphobia must end NOW! The old tower of confusion and anger must collapse to make way for freedom and nature to return. There is no other way than to start over from the beginning as we were born to be, and keep the fear at bay through active nudity and open sexuality so that bodyphobia and sexphobia NEVER RETURN to our consciousness ever again. It is up to you to do this yourselves starting with your own homes and families.

It is up to you to share this research, these facts with others who challenge your freedom. This page of facts is only meant to inspire further truthseeking and research into pre-existing fear free lifestyles regarding your own bodies and minds. What you do with this information is up to your own free will. However, now you know the facts you are far more self-empowered than ever before and have the tools in which to make change in the world. Start a discussion group, gather like minds together, continue education and open discourse of these facts. It all leads to the same place eventually... the end of bodyphobia and sexphobia... and as we have seen, it is a beautifully liberating and peaceful world in which to live.

Signed,
Sexual Revolutionary 3825968.