Colleagues,
the recent post of Reisman's pedophilia opinion piece (and Sue's great
dissection of Reisman) prompted me to surf Reisman's web page (referenced in an
earlier post). She is definitely NOT practicing any careful empirical research
to back up her moralistic agenda......as another example, check this article
she had on her page (my favorite example of her 'pseudo-scholarly' -- and that
is a generous characterization -- "analysis" is her ranting about homosexuals
and condoms. Pure moralistic rambling with no basis in fact)
--Todd Nelson,ph.d.
--------------------------------
THE U.S. TAXPAYER'S CONDOM
CAMPAIGN
... or ...
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO "WILL YOU MARRY ME?"
by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
[1]
BACKGROUND
In 1948 Dr. Alfred Kinsey (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male), claimed to have
survey data showing that, while
Americans appeared sexually repressed and puritanical, they were actually
hypocrites concealing their promiscuous
sexual behavior. Because law points the way, Kinsey and his "illuminated"
sexual elite campaigned the length and
breath of the nation to change America's antiquated "sex-negative" laws and
public policies to more accurately reflect
Kinsey's data. Kinsey's authority was used to bring educated Americans up to
date, swinging us all into a more
"honest" and "sex-positive" environment. [2]
Kinsey and his sex reformation missionaries claimed if we would follow their
philosophy and advice on "life and
loving," America would arrive at a sexual panacea, yielding reduced rates of
illegitimacy, divorce, venereal disease,
rape, crime and violence. We would instead enter a society marked by openness,
honesty, freedom, a veritable
paradise, awash in pure love, kindness and sharing, a flower-power, free-sex
collective. America, since 1948, has
hence been sexually shepherded by Kinsey's self-proclaimed illuminati.
Unfortunately, instead of a society
marked by the anticipated "sex-positive" yield, the yield is toxic levels of
violence, disease and
death, reflecting sociosexual disorder, and a level of moral decay
inconceivable to most pre-1948 Americans.
TARGETING THE TAXPAYERS' CHILDREN
Now, after nearly 50 years of Kinseyan sexuality, America's leadership thinks
money and latex will repair the deadly
fallout from a fantasy of sex without limits and responsibility. However, an
already over-burdened,
deficit-toting, American tax-payer is now purchasing (of all things!) condom
ads on national
commercial broadcast television. The agent representing the taxpayer, Health
and Human Services Secretary
Donna Shalala, hired the ad agency giant Olgivey & Mather to produce "AIDS
Prevention" television and radio ads.
These publicly-funded ads target heterosexual "young people," 18-25 years old
[3], the same taxpayer's children who
are now in their college and young adult years. The ad campaign, true to
Kinseyan sexual philosophy,
promotes sexual intercourse in a variety of ways to the target market, the
taxpayer's children; as
romantic, casual, recreational or just as a hot-n-fun activity. Conspicuously
absent in the CDC ad scripts are four sober
and profound words upon which western civilization was built, "Will you marry
me?" Also conspicuously, perhaps
deliberately missing in the script and visuals, are homosexuals. Yet, this is
the population at greatest risk of contracting
and spreading the dreaded AIDS virus. For the data clearly show homosexuals
continue to defiantly engage in
unprotected, promiscuous, "AIDS-efficient" coitus, despite the devastating
health costs. [4]
OTHER OPINIONS
Many professional savants have weighed in with cautionary remarks on the "U.S.
Taxpayer's Condom Campaign."
One commentator, John Leo, in U.S. News & World Report laments that while the
ads may be aimed at an older
group, preteens (and, this writer would add, younger children) are also exposed
to condom promotions. Hence, the
U. S. Taxpayer's Condom Campaign promotes preteen sex to our own children.
(Were he still alive,
this would be a proud moment indeed for Al Kinsey.) Leo sees condom ads as a
problem posing as the solution. [5]
Since not one ad in the Taxpayer's Campaign cites the danger of homosexual sex,
which even President Bill Clinton
said mainly triggered AIDS, what is the government selling? What is the
taxpayer paying for? And,
why?
CDC LIES ABOUT CONDOMS AND SEX
A bright "cautionary" yellow brochure accompanied the CDC's U.S. Taxpayer's
Condom Campaign broadcast ads.
One glossy page therein cited the racial category of "African-Americans and
Hispanics" as "disproportionately" dying
of AIDS. Citing race, why does the CDC brochure omit research findings on AIDS
infection and condom use rates
among San Francisco's massive homosexual population, which even The Washington
Post [6] admits is "a city with
the highest rate of HIV infection in the country, where the disease is
primarily in the gay community." Instead, they
note that only "6%" of heterosexual males with multiple sex partners, in San
Francisco "always use condoms." CDC
half truths misrepresent life and death realities to the polity.
That is, despite the HHS and CDC rhetoric, homosexual males actively copulate
without the latex barrier. [7] So, it is
material to tax-paying parents that homosexuals commonly use boys for sex --
sans condoms. The Advocate cover
story "Teen Sex" concedes that, "Gay men view these boys as recreational toys
to be used ...
HIV-positive men having unprotected sex with boys. They don't think it matters"
(March 1993, p.
41). It is inconceivable to most parents that men would seek sex with their
young boys. [8] However, the behavior of a
people is largely reflected in its language. Note below some of the entries in
the homosexual dictionary The Queen's
Vernacular which ranks words about boys (e.g., "chicken") as its third largest
word category. These include "pluck
some feathers", "rip off a drumstick", "skin some chicken", "queer pup",
"butchered chicken", and such. The
roughly 50% to 73% of homosexual males who self-reported sex with boys [9]
easily comport with
the one in six or seven boys identified as experiencing a child sexual assault,
most often by male
offenders. [10] While Kinsey's claims that 10-37% of the population is
homosexual were fraudulent [11], the current
induction of children into homosexuality under federal "AIDS prevention
programs" seems designed, as lesbian
author, Donna Minkowitz editorialized in her 1993 Advocate column, to "recruit,
recruit, recruit."
HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT CONDOM CONSUMERS
The extant data find homosexual males on record promoting condoms as a means of
desensitizing
youth to promiscuous sex and gay sodomies. [12] Yet homosexual males are
largely non-condom
users. A twenty-one year content analysis of The Advocate found dozens of
monthly ads for AIDS paraphernalia
(tapes, books, jewelry, T-shirts, etc.); how to convert life insurance benefits
while living to pay for AIDS related
medical costs; and activities such as traveling to Third World countries to
have sex with boys who are more available,
powerless and less likely to be diseased. [13] But The Advocate rarely
publishes a public service condom
advertisement and never publishes brand-name condom advertisements. This last
point, that condom manufacturers do
not advertise in the most powerful national homosexual magazine, is an
affirming economic factoid that upscale
homosexual males neither buy nor use condoms.
THE U.S. TAXPAYER HAS PAID FOR SEX & LIES
Politically correct scripting in the U.S. Taxpayer's Condom Campaign in hip-hop
cartoon latex condom ads soothe the
18-25 year old target market with the claim that condoms "used consistently and
correctly will prevent the spread of
HIV." Webster defines "prevent" as "to keep from happening." The agency
brochure [14] redefines "prevent" saying
"Latex Condoms Stop the Spread of HIV" except for a "2%" infection rate in one
study of those who "always used
condoms during sex" with an infected partner. The CDC says the latex of "about
33%" of condoms were
"penetrated" by the HIV virus in one study and 5% in another (p. 4). [15] So
the CDC invalidates its own
claim of "stopping" and "preventing" AIDS and suggests that condoms will be at
minimum 2% ineffective in the above
scenario. The scenario offers little comfort or consolation to the taxpayer
when, given the CDC's
odds, 2 out of every 100 taxpayer's children between the ages of 18-25 will
contract AIDS and
will die, if the ads hit their mark. More lives will be put at risk in this
death defying sexual act, however, if the
taxpayer's children fail as instructed in condom campaign materials to leave
"space" at the tip of the condom, so "no air
is trapped;" to remove the condom from the penis "soon" after the last sigh;
and (finally) to hang onto the used rubber
to "keep it from slipping!"
THE POWER OF IMAGES AND THE HYPOCRITICAL MEDIUM
Stepping back from the fray, it is instructive to examine how the
"sex-positive" message in the Taxpayer Condom
Campaign is processed in this "The Decade of The Brain." Neurologists describe
a working cortex as obeying "a law
of strength." A strong verbal message or visual image evokes a strong response.
A weak stimulus evokes a weak
response. [16] Therefore, strong "sex" messages and imagery will overpower
"cautionary condom" messages and
imagery. We are just beginning to understand that the didactic medium of
television, for better or worse, broadcasts its
worldview into the national brain. Understanding how the brain works,
broadcasters use powerful sex and violence
programming to cut through the clutter and maintain audiences for advertisers
and profits for themselves.
The power of television is alarming, and as long as TV commonly glamorizes
non-marital sex it models spiritual and
physical violence to self and society. Much like having the fox gather the
eggs, are viewers now to believe that this
medium, decried as the irresponsible purveyor of sex and violence, is suddenly
rehabilitated and capable of bringing us
a healthy protected view of sexuality? John Berger in his BBC special, Ways of
Seeing, notes that the "authority" of
the television medium "is distributed over the whole context in which it
appears." [17] Perhaps television is the
appropriate medium for condom commercials since it has fed America a steady
diet of toxic fare for decades.
Which of the governmental directors of the U.S. Taxpayers Condom Campaign will
take
responsibility for their role in the inevitable disease and death resulting
from sex-without-limits
portrayed in the condom commercials? Lawsuits will result from the millions of
vulnerable viewers in and
outside the target "18-25" year old market, youths who believed in the ads and
whose "protected" sex failed. The
highest rates of homicides and suicides still reflect betrayed, heartbroken and
jealous lovers. How do condoms cover
that? Kinsey was wrong. Sex outside marriage is hazardous and unprotected
conduct, especially for young women.
That fact still has not changed, nor has the age old law that matrimony offers
the only real protection to those who seek
sexual expression within their lives. Ms. Shalala, whatever happened to, "Will
you marry me?"
FOOTNOTES:
1. THE INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA EDUCATION, Arlington, Virginia
2. Judith Reisman & Ed Eichel. 1990. Kinsey, Sex & Fraud. Lafayette, La:
Huntington House.
3. HHS NEWS: Press Release. January 4, 1994. CDC Office of Public Affairs. p.
1.
4. Ronald D. Ray. 1993. Military Necessity & Homosexuality. Washington, D.C.:
Brassey's (US). pp. 41-54.
5. John Leo. January 17, 1994. "A latex lamentation". U. S. News & World
Report.
6. The Washington Post. March 12, 1994. "AIDS: Apples, Oranges..." p. 20.
7. See extensive discussion of research data on homosexual condom use in Judith
Reisman. 1992. A Content
Analysis of The Advocate, 1972-1992. Arlington, VA: The Institute For Media
Education.
8. The public needs to be made aware that although a rank order of 12,000
entries in The Queen's Vernacular (the
well cited homosexual lexicography which claims "language is culture") finds
"f--k," and "c--k" (a mature roaster) as
first and second cited entries. In third place of importance were words
describing adult sex with boys, called
"chicken." For the reader's edification , several of these cites follow:
"quail", "pluck some feathers", "rip off a
drumstick", "skin some chicken", "brunster", "queer pup", "baby," "beauty",
"precious", "punkie", "puppy fresh",
"rustler", " butchered chicken", "peach fuzz", "peeper", "fawn", "lifesaver",
"missy", "dinner", "young stuff", "sweet
thing", "fried chicken", "peep-peep", "tender", "babette", "fragile number",
"bud", "chit", "head and heels", "jail tail",
"token chicken" (p. 4). The Queen's Vernacular logo, "Straight Arrow Books,"
graces a small drawing of a young
Boy Scout in his uniform, both placed directly beneath an enormous penis and
testicle illustration.
9. Judith Reisman. 1992. A Content Analysis of The Advocate, 1972-1992.
Arlington, Va: The Institute For Media
Education.
10. Judith Reisman. 1991. "Soft Porn" Plays Hardball. Lafayette, La.:
Huntington House.
11. The number I suggested years ago was 1-2%. In 1993, Time and Newsweek
admitted it was 1-2%.
12. Judith Reisman. 1992. A Content Analysis of The Advocate, 1972-1992.
Arlington, VA: The Institute For Media
Education.
13. Roger Warren. 1990. Gay Baja. San Diego, Cal.: Roger Warren.
14. America Responds to AIDS. No date (released January 4, 1994). Center for
Disease Control and Prevention. pp.
2, 4.
15. In 1991 an "ALADAN" latex glove advertisement appeared in health
professional journals, displaying a black circle
the size of a large grapefruit. In the center of the circle appeared 10 white
words, "This is what a pinhole looks like to a
virus." While regulations allow "four out of every one hundred examination
gloves to have
pinholes," reads the text, "these requirements aren't good enough for Aladan."
The failure rate of condoms is legion,
estimates ranging from 15.7% to 54% ineffective--if and when used properly.
These rates are much lower than those
found by other researchers
16. A. R. Luria. "The Brain's Three Principles Functional Units".
Consciousness: Brain, States of Awareness and
Mysticism. p. 10.
17. John Berger. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin. p. 29.
For more information, to schedule Dr. Reisman for speaking engagements, to
order books and videos, phone First
Principles Press toll-free: 1-800-837-0544, or ...
Write: The Institute for Media Education Distribution Center
P.O. Box 1136
Crestwood, KY 40014
FAX: 502-241-1552
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------end of article---------------------
Todd D. Nelson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
California State University-Stanislaus
Turlock, California 95382
Office: (209) 667-3442
FAX: (209) 664-7067
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: Http://www.csustan.edu/psych/todd/todd.html
