Photography vs. Pornography 2

Please read my previous post Photography vs. Pornography for essential background to this story. I’ve already cited several examples of child nudity in the history of art and photography in another previous post Top Freedom, and in the interest of cultural literacy I should not neglect the sphere of fiction as it relates to child nudity and sexuality in my criminal case.

All pornography is fictional (i.e. staged and dramatized rather than realistic), but not all nude or sexual fiction is pornographic. It is an important distinction that the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged for many years, but a few hysterical individuals still have difficulty comprehending.

Ancient Roman literature that survives includes Petronius’ satire “Satyricon,” about a romantic pederast couple. In addition to describing orgies, the story contains a scene in which adults stage a mock wedding between two children, who are then encouraged to “consummate” their relationship. Much later Italy’s premiere poet, Dante, fell in love with Beatrice when she was eight years old. Although Dante was only nine, when I was nine growing up in the U.S. we boys fell in love with more mature girls who were sexually developed – not eight-year-olds.

In the distant past child prostitution existed rather openly in Europe, and there are famous cases of European teachers who married their former pupils. But feminists in Victorian times campaigned to raise the age of consent. One of the most famous writers of children’s literature is the Englishman Lewis Carroll, author of “Alice in Wonderland,” which has been translated into 174 languages. Not many people are aware that the author (real name: Prof. Reverend Charles Dodgson) was also a photographer, some of whose thousands of images of children (some nude) are currently in the collections of major university libraries. Multiple biographies have failed to find any evidence that his images might have been sexually motivated.

George Bernard Shaw’s story “Pygmalion,” set in London, has a father confront a professor who has established a live-in relationship with the man’s young daughter, so the dad asks the prof for five pounds in compensation. When the prof insists that his intentions are perfectly honorable, the father replies: “I’m sure your intentions are honorable. If I thought for a moment that your intentions weren’t honorable, I’d ask for ten pounds.”

A German author of fiction little-known outside Europe was Frank Wedekind, whose short story “Mine-Haha” (1903), praised by Leon Trotsky, was made into a film in French by Lucille Hadzihalilovic: “Innocence” (2004). It features numerous scenes of top-free little girls, as well as one scene where a girl about 13 is shown completely nude (front and rear) standing in a bathtub.

The most radical contribution to western culture that was related to child sexuality was by another European, the Russian-born author Vladimir Nabokov, who became an American citizen in middle age but actually spent the beginning and end of his life in Europe. His English novel “Lolita” was first published in France because the author had great difficulty finding an American publisher. At one point the frustrated writer threw his manuscript into the trash, but fortunately the ms was salvaged by his level-headed wife. The novel has now sold over 50 million copies, translated into 20 languages, and is the subject of two major movies so far (the first by Stanley Kubrick).

The story is about a very young French boy who lost his first love to typhus, and the trauma caused him to become fixated on very young girls for the rest of his life. It’s a tragic story in every way, but the work of a master story-teller that has been called one of the greatest love stories of the 20th Century. The scandalous plot was joked about on American TV when the novel was first published in the 1950s, and has since been studied by countless university scholars. The author was the subject of an exhaustive two-volume biography (which found no evidence that the happily married father might have been a pedophile in real life), and even Nabokov’s remarkable wife is the subject of a serious biography. The late Nabokov’s only son is an opera lover who chose to make his home in Venice.

I was surprised to discover that in Italy there is considerable interest in Nabokov’s work, as evidenced by the publication of an Italian translation of the author’s screenplay for the first movie version (certainly a marginal work even to most serious readers), as well as a spin-off novel by an Italian author: “Lo’s Diary.” The Italian authoress of that story retells the tragic tale from the young girl’s point of view, but it isn’t a politically correct version. Like the original, precocious Lolita who the old perv claims seduced him, “Lo” says openly she wants to seduce the older man. Unlike the Biblical story of Lot and his daughters in Genesis 19, the pathetic Frenchman wishes to seduce his unfortunate American step-daughter, and the Italian-style Lo conspires with the old perv.

Nowadays the original “Lolita” is considered one of the most politically incorrect stories to dare mention in public, at the risk of immediate personal attacks (usually by individuals who never even read the novel), as if no normal person would pronounce such a “disgusting” name except in the context of patting yourself on the back for hating the story and it’s author.

Louis Malle’s movie “Pretty Baby” (1977) portrays a child prostitute growing up in a bordello in New Orleans in 1917. Unlike the Lolita movies, the main character in this film is played by a real child, Brooke Shields, including some nude scenes. (She may have been wearing a body suit for the lower half of her body.) Brooke became a famous child model after posing nude in a bathtub for photographs by Gary Gross.

My own novel Revolt of the Children was rejected by numerous European publishers so after nearly 10 years of searching I published it myself. My story is an unflattering portrayal of Italy after World War Two, in which poor kids rebel against physical, sexual and emotional abuse by an Italian priest and other insensitive adults in the land of “close families.”

The creation of the Web spurred further hysteria about the supposed spread of kiddie porn, though never verifiable since the sites are always highly secret. In 1996 the so-called “Communications Decency Act” was passed by Congress to combat online porn but was soon struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unacceptably vague. Nonetheless a thriving bureaucracy developed to profit from porn hysteria, along with eager private interests selling products and services to prevent, investigate and punish all those invisible producers of kiddie porn. Legal definitions of child porn are still vague and give judges the opportunity to make arbitrary determinations. (Current federal statutes define child porn as “any visual depiction of sexually explicit or sexually suggestive conduct involving a minor.”)

Today there is so much hysteria that when a 16-year-old boy expresses interest in a 14-year-old girl he is called a “pedophile.” This is the cultural context of the West today, in which exorbitantly paid prosecutors sit in air-conditioned offices to carefully study photographs of children online or on private cell phones to see if “too much” skin is showing.

But every day countless highly-paid investigators are confronted with the virtual non-existence of real child porn, so they pretend to be doing useful work by investigating and arresting a few people occasionally for innocent child nudity (parents photographing their kids in the bathtub), which are then reported dramatically as “Huge Child Porn Bust.” After damaging or destroying the lives of the falsely accused, the media often don’t even bother to publish follow-up reports of all charges being eventually dismissed or the innocent being acquitted. No wonder governments don’t have the time or resources (or inclination) to investigate the massive corruption within government as well as between government and business lobbies.

A few more little jabs at popular Italian culture before I get back to my criminal case: a popular Italian children’s song is about a baby dinosaur with a green penis. It has never sparked any controversy here in Europe, nor should it, though it probably would in the U.S. A modern fashion in Italy is to stage ancient Greek plays in the original, crumbing theaters that spectators used 2,600 years ago. There are several such sites in Sicily and southern Italy, and during such performances the actors sometimes wear modern clothing and even insert modern humor. One actor in an ancient comedy recently shouted: “Do you know why it’s so important to use extra virgin olive oil? Because in Italy the oil is the only thing there is that’s virgin!”

The devil is in the details. Early in the morning of March 18, 2016, four Italian police officers showed up at my door unannounced, with an order to search me and the premises (as well as a home at another, irrelevant address) and break the doors down if necessary. In theory, the prosecutor’s office is an impersonal entity; individual prosecutors are interchangeable. But the search order was signed by an individual. Only later did I discover that the original prosecutor in charge of my investigation for almost three years hadn’t seen any reason to violate the privacy of my home. The original individual who had much more experience as a prosecutor no longer had my case because she was promoted to a more important position. I had nothing to hide and at the time I didn’t know that the search order signed by a new prosecutor was completely illegal under multiple criteria.

According to Italian law, violating the privacy of someone’s home must be “well-motivated by a particular and urgent necessity.” Although the new prosecutor asserted that there was a particular and urgent necessity for the sudden search, she never specified exactly what that particular and urgent necessity was – because there wasn’t any. The search of my home was a fishing expedition in the mistaken hope that the authorities would find something illegal. When they didn’t, the new prosecutor was obliged to claim the innocent material they did find was really “pornographic,” to protect herself from a charge of having ordered an illegal search.

Prosecutors are supposed to investigate reports of specific crimes that have been committed, to determine if the reports are true and then find out who the guilty parties are, NOT investigate some specific individuals to find out if maybe they might have committed some crime. But the prosecutor in this case decided to investigate me by invading my privacy without any report of any crime having been committed.

In addition, the secret investigation of me that began in May 2013 had already expired. The new prosecutor had recently requested permission from a judge to extend the term of the investigation, but the extension was not approved until after the search was long over. As it turned out, the only “particular and urgent necessity” is that the new prosecutor was desperate because despite three years of surveillance online and on-the-street, the term of the investigation expired without any evidence whatsoever of any criminal activity. There was no reasonable justification whatsoever for ordering the police to break somebody’s doors down.

The police who came to my house were polite to me, but one asked me an odd question: “You enjoy writing?” Yes, I do, but since I’ve never written anything illegal, and Article 21 of the Italian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression “to everyone,” why would a government employee be interested in my writing? I have repeatedly and incessantly criticized the mass hysteria over child porn and child sex abuse, such as in my book Real Child Safety specifically criticizing the special interests that profit from the hysteria and exploit government power to promote their political and financial agenda. So maybe the question the government employee really meant to ask was: “You enjoy criticizing the government?”

The police then took me and my data disks to a police station where a specialist opened my hard drive (as well as my portable memory cards they had confiscated), and spent several hours looking at every single image and video I had. By the way, my lawyer was present during the search and analysis of my media. My tiny hard disk was only 500gb, and my portable memory cards amounted to less than 100gb, so the four investigators in two rooms had ample time to see everything I had. After they saw everything I had and after consulting the prosecutor, they said “This material is no problem.”

However, since my residence permit was expired, they said “That’s a problem,” and brought me to the Foreigners’ Office. I explained that I had attempted to renew my residence permit when it first expired over 20 years ago, but at that time an official told me it wasn’t possible. (Nor did he say I had to leave the country.) At that time I then went to another government office and asked if it would be possible to obtain dual citizenship since my father was an Italian citizen. That second clerk told me “not possible” as well. In 1999 I had also requested an immigration visa from the Italian Consulate in NYC, which a clerk brushed off with blatant discourtesy. In March 2016 my explanation did not impress the Foreigners’ Office at all, and they promptly issued an expulsion order without explanation – as if my residence permit had expired 20 days ago.

I only recently discovered that the information the government employees gave me 20 years before was incorrect. According to Italian law, I am an Italian citizen by birth, by virtue of my father having been an Italian citizen. Nonetheless, I would soon be accused of never having attempted to take advantage of my status as eligible for a residence permit! I immediately retained a second lawyer who specializes in immigration and we appealed the expulsion order, which a judge suspended immediately. After I obtained all the official documents proving my father’s Italian citizenship, the judge annulled the expulsion order three months later. Unfortunately my immigration lawyer was still in high school twenty years ago. Far from being a reasonable candidate for expulsion, according to my calculations the Italian government now owes me compensation for 20 years of lost income.

At the time of the illegal search and attempted expulsion I was teaching three classes in two middle schools, and I was able to continue working normally, but the police advised me not to tell “them” (presumably my employers or students) about the search. I didn’t know that in the meantime the drama evolved when the prosecutor secretly asked a private computer consultant to perform an immediate deep search of my disk’s free space for deleted files.

About a week later that consultant gave the prosecutor a preliminary report, listing the same things that the police had already found during the initial search in my presence, upon which the prosecutor asked a preliminary judge to approve an urgent “precautionary arrest” to prevent me from leaving the country (!) or producing any more “child porn,” as well as avoid the danger that I might warn any possible accomplices by informing them that there was an attempted criminal prosecution.

At the same time that I was appealing an expulsion order which the police themselves solicited, the new prosecutor was telling a judge I might try to flee the country. The new prosecutor (or her impersonal office) also tried to mislead that judge by telling him a few other, shall we say, inaccurate factoids. The preliminary judge eventually rejected the prosecutor’s request to arrest me, since the supposed evidence found in the search is not pornographic. What “child porn” was the prosecutor claiming? (To be continued.)

Posted in censorship, nudity, photography, sex, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Photography vs. Pornography

I was born and raised in the New York City area, which is one of the most progressive parts of the U.S., or at least it used to be. In the 1970s movie theaters in midtown Manhattan openly advertised real pornographic movies (e.g. “A Hard Man is Good to Find”), with quotes from reviews by the late Al Goldstien, publisher of Screw Magazine, that featured images of one to five erections instead of star ratings.

There were also porn shops which specialized in pornographic films and magazines, despite the condemnation of pornography in traditional, mainstream society. Apparently a similar situation existed in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and probably many other cities. There were also a few magazines about naturism (nudism) openly sold at NYC newsstands that included images of nude families and children in everyday life, but I never saw any child pornography, i.e. images of children intended to sexually arouse viewers.

The Times Square area was also home to the library of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), founded by Dr. Mary S. Calderone, to promote accurate, balanced and comprehensive sex education from the earliest age (1). SIECUS published the Guidelines for Comprehensive Education: Kindergarten – 12th Grade, and eventually opened a public policy office in Washington, D.C. So there was good and bad in the NYC area. Having spent my youth in that relatively free and tolerant atmosphere, I developed an open mind unfettered by the more traditional culture more characteristic of some other places.

The grudging tolerance of real pornography was partly encouraged by the publication of Prof. Alfred Kinsey’s research in 1948 (2). Kinsey surveyed thousands of people throughout the U.S., scientifically, and found that 100-year-old laws and public etiquette were out of touch with what many Americans were actually doing in private. The founder of Playboy magazine, Hugh Hefner, was apparently inspired by that research. The Kinsey Institute for the Study of Sexuality still exists at Indiana University today.

But even before Kinsey and Hefner, a popular Shirley Temple movie featured the little actress top-free. Although that scene was cut from the final version of the film, the image was used in a poster to promote the movie. In her autobiography “Child Star,” Shirley Temple Black wrote that as a small child she wore nothing at all when sunbathing with her family.

After my divorce in the 1980s I moved to Europe where I discovered that although most Europeans tend to be very conservative in some ways, there are or were pockets of modern attitudes toward sex education and non-sexual naturism (nudism), especially in Scandinavia, France, Germany, Holland, and eastern Slavic countries. On the Black Sea coast there are even (or used to be) nude beaches for local families rather than for international tourists. The only real “child porn” I ever saw in my long life was one magazine openly on sale in a bookshop in Copenhagen.

In Germany there was a good book by a psychiatrist that featured images of nude children touching each other (German title: “Zeig Mal!”), and translated into English as: “Show Me!” (3). The content was not pornographic, but educational and constructive to combat the epidemic of toxic shame and help kids feel secure about their normal curiosity while growing up. A 13-year-old girl who reviewed the book said she’s too old for it.

The book was prosecuted as “pornographic” in a few states, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the publisher’s assertion that the book is not obscene, and the First Amendment protects non-obscene sexual depictions, even of children. The book sold over a million copies and was translated into seven languages, but continuing attacks forced the publisher to discontinue printing it in 1996 because they could not afford the expense of more and more legal challenges.

The German anthropologist Hans Peter Duerr published a series of books on the myth of the civilizing process, in which he offered massive evidence that there was more body shame in the distant past as well as in pre-industrial cultures. In contrast to the idea that traditional body shame proves that people today are more “civilized,” contemporary western countries actually exhibit considerably less body shame than in the primitive past (4). Hundreds of nude family resorts throughout Europe are evidence of that, and although I knew there were a few nude beaches in the U.S., the popularity of nude resorts in Europe was something new to me. Prostitution is currently legal in Germany, and although officially illegal in some other European countries, sex work is widespread and unofficially tolerated in some cities.

I’m not defending pornography or prostitution, but the hysteria against porn is the same hysteria that drives the movement against any and all nudity in childhood – even in art and innocent family naturism. Nor am I defending prostitution, but the hysteria against sex work is the same hysteria that drives the movement against accurate, balanced and comprehensive sex education – which is the best way to prevent disease and early pregnancy.

Even in Catholic Italy where there are many people who are ultra-conservative, I was surprised to see young girls top-free on the beach at Rimini, home of one of the 20th Century’s greatest movie directors, Federico Fellini, whose international masterpiece Amarcord portrays adolescents simulating sexual acts (5). On Palermo’s public beach at Mondello I even saw one local girl about age eight completely nude – something I never saw while growing up in the U.S. The mainstream clothing stores in Italy sell (or used to sell) top-free bathing suits for girls up to size (age) 10. A series of animated cartoons on sex education for children produced in France was dubbed into Italian and published on video cassettes by Italy’s major newspaper La Repubblica as “L’Albero della Vita” (the Tree of Life).

For decades prime-time TV programming in Italy has included reruns of the blockbuster movies (at least in Italy) about the escapades of “Pierino.” Little Peter is actually an adult actor who portrays a comical teenager in sexual situations in school and at home. Although there is no nudity, there are under-the-skirt shots, staring at teachers’ breasts, etc. Such entertainment is not rated X or even PG-13, and might be considered pornographic in some states, but not in Italy since the intention is apparently to make viewers laugh rather than sexually arouse viewers.

The culture shock of Europe inspired me to embark on my ambitious photo-documentary: Girl Becomes Woman, about a young girl going through puberty, to try to understand why there seemed to be less inhibition about child nudity and especially breasts in Europe than in the U.S. I photographed a girl for seven years, from age 8 to 15, in her daily life and even lived with her family during all those summers. There is no genital nudity in any of those images.

I was also inspired by the work of British photographer David Hamilton, whose nude portraits of minors at St. Tropez, France, I discovered in Italian bookshops (6), and American photographer Jock Sturges, who made most of his images of naturist families in Montelivet, France as well as northern California, some of whose books were printed in Italy (7).

Jock was not merely a serious photographer with a master’s degree in art, but a courageous victim who fought back against the federal government when the FBI raided his studio and confiscated his images and equipment. A judge eventually ruled his images of nude children are not “pornographic,” and ordered the FBI to return his property. Jock’s work has been carried on by his former assistant Camille Jackson-Barre.

Another American artist who inspired me was Sally Mann, whose books and public exhibitions feature photographs of her own children completely nude on their family farm in Virginia. I remember seeing one of her books vandalized in a Barnes and Noble bookstore, although she was never officially accused or prosecuted as a “child pornographer.” Her beautiful work was critically praised and her autobiography “Hold Still” is fascinating (8). Sally Mann’s work is being shown to children in Italy as part of photography courses.

There had always been some vicious criticism of David, Jock and Sally’s work, but it failed to get their work censored. Freedom of speech used to be considered more important than the current whims of political correctness. Evidently the atmosphere of public opinion had changed, as indicated by the government’s eventual “clean-up” of Times Square. In part the change in atmosphere was blamed on the discovery of AIDS around 1980 (9).

An indication of the hysterical nature of that change is that the frequency of sex crimes actually decreased significantly during the same period that popular concern has exploded. There is also some evidence that the availability of real porn is associated with a reduction in the frequency of sex crimes (10). Also noteworthy is that the majority of child deaths and serious injuries are due to physical abuse and neglect, but there is little public interest in protecting thousands of kids from being crushed to death in car crashes every year.

Recently the Beautiful Body Project and other groups and individuals have been fighting unreasonable censorship to protect public breastfeeding and nudity in art. Workshops are offered for photographers featuring mothers and children nude as models. But as I expected might happen, my own presence on the web was the eventual victim of American hysteria over child porn and child sex abuse, as described in my previous post, but one European was soon to attack me even more viciously. How is that possible, since my work is considerably less revealing than those who came before me?

Despite the public largely ignoring my photo-documentary, in 2014-2015 I produced another, more humble project: “Buddy Massage,” a video for kids which I likewise published myself and offered openly on my web sites and promoted on YouTube. The health benefits of child massage have been verified by numerous scientific studies, many of which were conducted by the Touch Research Institute of the University of Miami School of Medicine. Primary schools in several countries now offer “massage time” in the classroom, and there are at least 30 videos of child massage on YouTube originating from several English-speaking and other (mostly western) nations, so my video should not be viewed as radical in any way. My innocent video portraying normal massage doesn’t contain any genital nudity either.

My video project received little attention from the public as well. The introductory presentation on YT got about 4,000 views in three years, a few positive comments, and mostly Likes, but the full video was recently accused of being “child pornography” by a local prosecutor in Italy of all places, a country that features countless paintings, sculptures and statues of nude children as tourist attractions open to the public of all ages. I won’t post examples of the countless images of nude children on display in Italy today because some web censors are becoming more prudish than traditional museum curators and urban planners.

I had been criticizing the mass hysteria against child nudity in my publications like “Real Child Safety” for several years, ever since I read attorney Lawrence Stanley’s research in the Cardozo Law Review, describing the failure of the FBI, Interpol, and other highly sophisticated police agencies to find evidence of the supposedly “huge” market for kiddie porn, despite years of investigations and millions of dollars of public money wasted in the search.

Even though all of my published work was in English, unbeknownst to me at the time the Italian police had opened a secret investigation of me and my work in 2013. Only later did I discover that the investigation existed and went nowhere for three years due to the lack of concrete evidence. That is until a new prosecutor was hired and suddenly decided that despite no new information to support any suspicion of possible “criminal activity” on my part, conditions were ripe for an immediate witch hunt. That was only the beginning of the nightmare.


  2. Kinsey, Alfred. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Reprinted by Indiana University Press, 1998.
  3. Fleischhauer-Hardt, Helga (author), and McBride, Will (photographer). Show Me! A Picture Book of Sex for Children and Parents. St Martin’s Press, 1975.
  4. Duerr, Hans Peter. Italian translation of Volume One: Nudità e vergogna. Il mito del processo di civilizzazione. Marsilio, 1991.
  6. Hamilton, David. 25 Years of the Artist. Dorsett, 1992.
  7. Sturges, Jock. Notes. Aperture Foundation, 2004. Distributed in Europe by Thames and Hudson.
  8. Mann, Sally. Hold Still: A Memoir with Photographs. Little, Brown, 2015.
  9. Roiphe, Katie. Last Night in Paradise: Sex and Morals at Century’s End. Vntage, 1997.
  10. Chapman, Steve. Is Pornography a Catalyst of Sexual Violence? (, November 5, 2007). See also: Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

The Year in Review

Views in 2017: 33,534.  Total all-time views: 100,465. Thanks for your visits, views and comments!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Top Freedom

“One of the most memorable events of my childhood was the day that I (a girl who loved nothing more than running around in ragged jeans and nothing else) was told I had to start wearing a shirt.” – Katherine.


Anjeza at 9. Copyright © 2009 Frank Adamo

Why do women cover their breasts? Why are little girls told to cover their flat chest? Was there more shame in the distant past, or less? Does somebody profit from breast shame, or is body shame inevitable?

I’ve written about breast nudity for several years, but now there is a new force on the scene who merits some attention: Chelsea Covington. I re-blogged one of her articles “Why Some Parents are Afraid of Bare-chestedness” and also corresponded with her about my reply to a comment on her article. Our correspondence revealed the complexity of the issue of top freedom, and some differences in viewpoint that may exist between individual advocates.


In 2009 I first published some of my photographs of top-free little girls on European beaches on Yahoo’s photography site: Using the name “Girl Becomes Woman” my account quickly got over 300,000 views and hundreds of favorable comments defending my images as normal and constructive rather than “sexual” or “seductive” or “erotic” in any way. Nonetheless, some hysteric(s) succeeded in persuading Yahoo to delete my Flickr account, along with my associated Yahoo email account which was active for over 10 years.

In 2011 I published an eBook “Real Child Safety” which pointed out that the majority of child deaths and serious injuries are due to physical abuse and neglect, so why are some crusaders focusing on “too much” skin showing? Worse, some psychopathic individuals seem to be quite thrilled that responsible vigilance to protect children has deteriorated into widespread vigilantism. “Real Child Safety” criticized the mass hysteria over child nudity and child sex abuse  and offered as a free gift a photo-documentary “Girl Becomes Woman” I had been working on for the previous five years.

The photo-documentary of a little girl going through puberty is accompanied by over 100 pages of text describing my personal observations and research on the learning of breast shame in childhood. The eBook was also praised by many readers as normal and constructive, and received no open criticism, actually no attention at all in the establishment-owned mass media. In 2010 this blog also began discussing body shame and sex hysteria, as distorted cultural values learned in childhood. The hysteria over child nudity and child sexuality today is palpable: when people see an image of a top-free little girl they are almost shocked, as if little girls are not supposed to have nipples.

Paypal had been processing donations for my Breast Pride Education Foundation for a year, but in 2012 Paypal panicked and blocked my account “permanently.” The mass media (and the California Better Business Bureau) ignored my crucifixion. I have continued offering “Real Child Safety” to readers (now in a second, expanded edition), as well as “Girl Becomes Woman” and my new video for children “Buddy Massage” – as always on the condition that RCS readers fill out a questionnaire to show they don’t have prurient interests, through my sites: and

Images of top-free little girls in painting and photography are nothing new, and many historical images are in the collections of major museums and university libraries, most famously the early photographs of Oxford University Professor Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), author of Alice in Wonderland, as well as Paul Chabas’ “The First Bath” (1907) William Sergeant Kendall’s three daughters e.g. “A Statuette” (1914/1915) in the Brooklyn Museum: and the images of many other artists and photographers. Even Shirley Temple, the most gifted child actress of all time, was photographed top-free when she was nine to advertise her greatest film “Captain January” (1937): In her autobiography “Child Star,” Shirley Temple Black revealed that as a small child she occasionally wore nothing at all in the California sunshine.

Never before in American history has there been such hysteria over child nudity and even partial nudity as today. There is good reason to believe that there is method in the madness: Hysteria over breast nudity discourages mothers from breastfeeding, and thereby promotes sales of infant bottle formula – an industry with $30 billion in annual sales worldwide (1).

Chelsea Covington to the Rescue

Breast nudity is outlawed in many states while males may freely uncover their chest in public in most places. Chelsea Covington’s activism for legal equality of top nudity consists in casually walking around top-free on public streets, in public parks, and beaches while a friend videos her. The videos are posted on YouTube and promote her blog.

Ms. Covington focuses on the simple matter of legal equality, which I feel is not the best approach because that focus could just as easily justify forcing men to cover their chests in public – as men already are in many cultures around the world. As a man I have been told to put a shirt on in a public park. That is a form of “equality.” So I think focusing on legal equality is overly restrictive and could ultimately backfire.

Surprisingly, Ms. Covington has not been prosecuted on most of her top-free walks. If parents allowed their flat-chested young daughters to likewise bare their chests at parks and beaches in most states they probably wouldn’t be arrested either, but the modern police state has so terrorized parents with the threat of kidnapping their children (for “protection” from the supposed risk of abuse/neglect), that many parents are reluctant to challenge the hysteria.

Since body shame is learned in childhood, I believe that the mass hysteria over nudity and sex should be attacked at its source. Many mothers begin breastfeeding but then stop abruptly after a short time. Some women report pleasure and even orgasm during breastfeeding, which probably provokes guilt – a feeling that such pleasure and arousal are “abnormal.” Although some mothers claim various reasons for early weaning, I wonder if guilt over the natural pleasure of breastfeeding contributes to it.

In the past the genitalia were literally named shame organs: “pudenda” in Latin, and “shamhaft” in German. But mothers breastfed in public and even in church during mass. Nowadays the disease of genital shame has infected the breasts. Many parents (usually mothers) passively model breast shame and/or actively indoctrinate daughters to hide their flat chest. Media images of “perfect” mature breasts and complete censorship of normal breast development at puberty further make many growing girls feel especially ashamed of budding breasts, at a sensitive age when girls should be showered with compliments. I believe that children should also be taught buddy massage in school and at home rather than be neglected or ostracized for insufficient “modesty.”

Groups like FEMEN and also demonstrate in public for women’s top freedom, but nobody seems to care about the source of the problem: instilling breast shame in childhood. We need to realize that the deeper problem isn’t merely legal inequality, but the distorted fear of the human body and its natural functions in fostering healthy sexual desire and genital pleasure.

There is good reason to believe that far worse damage results from body shame than merely offending a moral need for equality. Like other body organs, especially those whose primary purpose is perception or sensation, the clitoris needs stimulation during early life while the relative brain area that controls clitoral function is developing. Otherwise, girls risk suffering reduced sensitivity or irreversible clitoral erectile dysfunction later, an uncomfortable subject that many women have trouble even putting into words.

The Internet is revolutionary because it provides everyone with access to quantities of information never available before in human history. Unfortunately, some individuals feel so insecure that they have a need to limit and censor information they don’t like. They try to control the conversation, and when they don’t succeed they withdraw from the conversation and even try to censor any input from other individuals. That is a very unscientific and highly political (i.e. cynical) view of communication, and expresses contempt for democratic ideals.

Even before Betty Freidan published her classic “The Feminine Mystique,” she fought against oppression and McCarthyism by claiming the value of individualism and nonconformity. How sad that unlike Chelsea Covington most women and even most feminists in America today confront the issue of mental castration of little girls with complete silence rather than challenging the mass censorship and hysteria over child nudity and child sexuality.


  1. Palmer, Gabrielle. The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business, 3rd ed. Pinter and Martin, 2009.
Posted in breastfeeding, censorship, child sexual abuse, children, Family, feminism, nudity, parenting, sex, Uncategorized, women | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Donald Trump on Lactation

I agree with Mr. Trump on some of the things he says, especially that we should cooperate with the Russians in Syria (and elsewhere) rather than antagonize them, and I think the mass media are very unfair in portraying him as an idiot – which he obviously isn’t. He has a sense of humor and the courage to be a politically incorrect non-conformist. Whatever happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave? But when Mr. Trump reportedly called a female attorney “disgusting” because she wanted to pump her breasts for her baby in his presence during a deposition, I have to object quite strongly.

Large and pendulous human breasts are virtually unique among mammals; they are beautiful organs of nourishment. Breast milk is the most miraculous food known to science, and it’s free. Considering that the criminal infant bottle formula industry does everything possible to sabotage breastfeeding from the moment of birth and even before – e.g. by making girls and women feel ashamed of their breasts – a woman who succeeds in breastfeeding her child anyway is a hero (1). If a savvy businessman like Mr. Trump says breasts or breast milk are disgusting, we must wonder if he is a ruthless stockholder in one or more of the largest bottle formula producers: Nestlè, Danone, etc. or one of the secondary profiteers of body shame: sellers of Vitamin D supplements, bra makers, and bathing suit tops for little girls!

Even if he isn’t a stockholder profiting directly from breast shame, Mr. Trump should know that once a woman has succeeded in overcoming the dishonest tricks of corrupted hospital staff who try their best to encourage mothers to buy inferior infant bottle formula, frequent suckling is essential to maintain the breasts’ production of precious human milk. For a working mother pumping the breasts as frequently as possible is not an arbitrary choice. There is no love lost between Mr. Trump and politically correct feminists, but his reported hostility to public breastfeeding is strangely consistent with the feminist crusade to legitimize and normalize dangerous feeding of inferior artificial formula, even if that’s at the risk of infant health.

In practical terms, expelling milk from the milk glands is accompanied by increased production of the pro-social hormone: oxytocin. If the attorney who reportedly wanted to pump her breasts was on the opposite side of the table, then that’s a perfect time for any opponent to be dealing with her. Calling a woman “disgusting” for pumping her breasts doesn’t mean Mr. Trump is against women, as some of his critics conveniently claim. A kinder explanation is that better education is needed about the human body in general, and in particular why breastfeeding and breast milk are things to cherish not shy away from.

Breastfeeding is one of the greatest experiences in life for both mother and child, but men can’t do it and naturally feel excluded. Men shouldn’t wallow in their envy; we can take positive steps to compensate for women’s superiority in that department. The skin contact of bathing, cuddling and nude massage can be just as important and rewarding as breastfeeding to both parent and child, and men can excel at that.

The mass hysteria over child sex abuse and pedophilia is fostered by body shame, so many men today are reluctant to even offer to bathe or massage their baby, for fear that his intentions might be considered “suspicious.” Mr. Trump appears to be a loving father who is close to his daughter. Such closeness can and should begin right after birth and continue throughout childhood, especially when a mother can benefit from time off from caring for a baby, but even long after weaning until children are old enough to massage each other.

Mr. Trump, we men need to become better informed about breastfeeding and childhood instead of unwittingly helping unscrupulous profiteers by promoting body shame. Your opponent, Hillary Clinton, has a long track record in promoting the interests of children. If you want to defeat your opponent (you say that you love winning), then you need to one-up Mrs. Clinton in promoting children’s welfare and well-being in an increasingly pedophobic world.


  • Palmer, Gabrielle. The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business, 3rd  ed. Pinter and Martin, 2009.
Posted in children, feminism, women | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Hillary Clinton and Child Sex Hysteria


The modern hysteria over child sex abuse is odd in that although feminists played a major role in raising awareness of sex crimes in the 1970s, there is clearly an anti-feminist element in the mass hysteria that terrorizes little girls against sex. This anti-feminist aspect could easily be blamed on the movement being co-opted by the religious right later (in the 1980s), but sadly there is evidence that a key assumption underlying the early activism against child sex abuse was clearly consistent with patriarchic ideals from the very beginning. Everybody makes mistakes, even feminists, but if we are mentally balanced and mature we learn from our mistakes and try to correct them. Hillary Clinton says she wants to expand rights and opportunities for women and girls, so does that include the right and opportunity for girls to grow up sexually functional? How can she do that unless we all confront and reverse the mass hysteria over child sex abuse?

The most thorough account of the movement against child sex abuse is Nancy Whittier’s detailed description of the rebirth of “child protection” after its original popularity in Victorian times (1). Along with the rediscovery of the sexual exploitation of children in the 1970s there were repeated if not constant references to women’s own feeling of guilt over their early victimization and hence the need to reassure survivors that early abuse was not their fault. But why is such propensity to feel guilty so prominent, if not because women never let go of the traditional ideal of the innocent (i.e. asexual) girl and woman? Worse, far from liberating women from patriarchy, Whittier notes the grassroots activist movement melded with the traditional state agenda to control citizens, with the result of increased law enforcement, expansion of the prison system, and now even post-sentence confinement or registration of sex offenders, and increased surveillance of suspects and anti-sex indoctrination of children – especially girls.

The pre-feminist, traditional view of professional psychologists and the broader society was that child sex abuse (CSA) is rare and not usually catastrophic. But feminist activists in the 1970s decided it was neither rare nor mild in effect. The simplicity and convenience of attributing all your complex problems to a single cause (and a single bad guy) were irresistible. That viewpoint was also attractive to some individual bigots who wanted to demonize men, since in the beginning amateur theorists thought CSA was exclusively men against girls and hence a sinister conspiracy of males to make females submissive. Even when feminists discovered that both women and men sexually abuse boys as well as girls, they believed the majority of cases were men against girls and hence good PR for the broader movement against patriarchy.

One of the many obstacles to logical reflection and rational political activism on CSA was that some “survivors” in the movement tended to have serious personal problems. Early self-help groups declared themselves experts on CSA and prescribed treatment, even though their numbers included some individuals who “seemed overwhelmed and out of control.” They were necessarily more focused on healing themselves than changing the world. Early theorists on CSA repeated the traditional assumption that good little girls are not interested in sex, so men abuse girls to “prepare” and “socialize” them for future submission to unwanted contact.

So there had to be some sinister explanation for so many girls not saying “No!” or “I don’t like this,” or at least “Let’s go to the amusement park instead.” While traditional psychologists claimed little girls naturally try out their seductive skills on older men, some feminists were unwilling to concede any ground on the supposed innocence of girlhood. Particularly thorny was that some women confided having experienced arousal and pleasure during their childhood victimization. How could something so wrong feel so right? Some women felt they needed to defend themselves from the “shameful” suspicion that they wanted to be touched and cooperated in the sexual contact for basic hedonistic motives. So they settled on the excuse: “that was your body, not you.”

Why did some women need to hide or deny that sexual experiences may be pleasurable under certain circumstances, even during childhood? At that time in America it was unthinkable for feminists just like everybody else: a little girl with a dirty mind? Certainly, victims wanted to avoid blame. But as Whittier points out, CSA was seen from an “often lesbian feminist perspective” and responses utilized a “lesbian feminist approach,” so at least some individuals may have had an additional need to justify their personal rejection of men. Some of those individual activists were so – shall we say – selective they couldn’t stand to be in the same room with a man. When self-help groups of former victims met and hugged each other, some individuals preferred that only females were present and hugging. Nobody denies that other political opportunists and profiteers brought their own priorities to the crusade against sexual desire and sexual pleasure in childhood.

Regardless of gender, the crusaders taught that each child’s body is her own, so she has a right not to be touched if she doesn’t want to. Ok, no problem with that. But it follows that each child also has a right to be touched if she wants to, otherwise what does your body being your own have to do with anything? Was it merely a coincidence that denying female sexual desire and pleasure in childhood was wholly consistent with the traditional patriarchic ideal of the asexual female? The traditional ideal of the “innocent” young girl uninterested in sex was hard to reject entirely. The result was surely the same: millions of little girls are being mentally castrated today no less than before they were rescued from the risk of early sex abuse. Mary E. Odem has documented that early laws against statutory rape were often exploited by parents in the courts to control rather than protect “wayward” daughters (2).

In 1970 the Australian Germaine Greer suggested the crux of the problem in the title of her bestseller “The Female Eunuch” (3), but in reality Greer’s book said very little about female sexual dysfunction and even blamed it on the absurd traditional explanation: women’s lack of desire or pleasure results from a failure to achieve true romance. Despite the title of her book and oddly consistent with patriarchy, Greer didn’t identify mental castration in childhood as the likely cause of female sexual dysfunction after puberty (discussed below).

The PR value of violence against women was exploited by Women Against Rape, which identified sex with assault, making no distinction between sex play and violent assault. A father who touches his daughter’s genital area is merely greasing the wheels of patriarchy. WAR declared that no adult should touch a child in an uncomfortable “or” sexual way. Huh? In other words, being touched in a sexual way is unacceptable no matter how comfortable that touch may feel.

Conveniently, the early feminist activists didn’t define sexual “abuse” specifically, let alone define it carefully, so sex abuse was construed so broadly that eventually any and all sexual contact in childhood was demonized, or at least any contact between individuals ≥5 years apart in age, a magic number similar to the sacred contemporary dictum that every female becomes competent to consent on midnight of her 18th birthday. The belief in magic numbers was wholly consistent with the original Victorian crusade to raise the age of consent in Britain from 12 to 16. For a comprehensive review of the 19th Century “purity” and “social hygiene” movements see R. Danielle Egan and Gail Hawkes (4).

There was clearly method in the madness. Rather than specifically acknowledging insensitivity and exploitation as the true crimes against children regardless of the age or gender of those involved, inconveniently widespread even in non-sexual interactions between different age groups, feminists promoted the traditional idea that sexual desire and sexual pleasure are evil in themselves, especially – by coincidence – when fathers and daughters or any other men and girls are involved.

When the movement against CSA was embraced by mainstream society in the 1980s, the original focus on incest and gender changed. Instead of reporting rampant incest within families the mass media focused on more palatable “stranger danger.” At one point the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect stopped reporting pesky data on the relationship of abuser to victim. The politically correct mass media advised “parents” on how to protect “children” from “ adult abusers,” instead of feminists advising women how to protect girls from men.

Was it hysteria? Eventually some people suspected that satanic cults were secretly organizing widespread CSA in order to destroy the civilized Christian world. The threat of Satanism became popular and was even given credence by an article published in Ms. Magazine, so a counter-movement began to defend the falsely accused (collateral damage). Greedy therapists tried to expand the market for treatment (never proven safe or effective by medical standards) by encouraging confused patients to “recover” forgotten memories of childhood abuse, but scientific research promoted by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation soon demonstrated the unreliability of memory and the suggestibility of children, resulting in retractions of accusations and even successful lawsuits against overeager therapists. But few questioned the traditional denial of children’s sexual desire and sexual pleasure.

Recently one activist against CSA, Sharon Lamb, had the courage to question the traditional myth that girls are naturally asexual – especially in childhood (5). She interviewed over 100 girls and women in over 20 states who described their early sexual experiences, mostly in neutral or positive terms. Typically the circumstances were far from ideal, since kids rarely have the benefit of accurate, balanced and comprehensive sex education from the earliest age, let alone models of healthy, sexually functional adults to imitate and be monitored by. But they clearly experienced desire and arousal, and somehow survived to report it.

What about all those pedophiles? Hysteria is a failure to carefully evaluate or even see the many aspects of something and instead focus on only one aspect: usually the worst aspect, what Lenore Skenazy calls worst-first thinking (6). One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject states that true pedophiles are probably rare, and dangerous pedophiles are probably even rarer (7). Most adults who victimize children (sexually or otherwise) are more accurately classified as psychopaths.

Even without actual sexual contact, a child may feel attracted to a particular adult such as a teacher. Some children are fatherless (or motherless) and suffer greatly because of it. One of my students recently suffered the tragedy of a parent who committed suicide. Every class has at least one student with serious problems at home. Some individuals naturally feel a need to replace a missing parent. It’s shortsighted to say a child should only love her own parents, or that adults should only love their own children. What about a parent who has lost her child, or an adult who has no children, or a grandparent whose own children are grown? Tough luck?

We may commonly observe non-parental care of offspring even across species. Adults of some species of animals sometimes show affectionate care of the young of a completely different species. Humans show affectionate care for the young of other species and nobody marvels at that. Isn’t it clearly hysterical to question and suspect human adults who exhibit affectionate care for someone else’s children? The current paranoia over supposedly widespread “pedophilia” probably hurts innocent children as much as innocent adults.

More concrete evidence of hysteria was the reception of the Rind Study (8), a meta-analysis of 59 unbiased studies that did not support the dogma that CSA is usually seriously harmful. Previous studies of CSA suffered from selection bias by focusing on women who were already in psychotherapy, but Rind et al. avoided such bias by analyzing studies of a group more representative of the general population: college students. Since by the 1990s the belief that CSA is usually seriously harmful had become a dogma, Rind et al. also avoided publication bias by including unpublished doctoral dissertations in their meta-analysis. Rind’s findings and conclusions were not really radical, and should have been welcomed as a relief. But they provoked a firestorm of popular criticism that led to an extraordinary Congressional Vote of Censure of the publisher (the American Psychological Association). More rationally, another study found that child cancer patients are remarkably well-adjusted, but nobody claimed that study should be censured as insensitive to child cancer victims.

The ultimate measure of hysteria is that so many people invest their time, effort and expense in preventing, investigating, or treating CSA while ignoring the causes of the vast majority of child deaths and serious injuries that have nothing to do with sex (9). By the 1980s state governments were targeting child sex abuse more than any other form of child abuse or neglect, and more funding was given to investigators of invisible kiddy porn and child sex abuse law enforcement than to prevention of the most deadly dangers facing children in everyday life. Perceptive observers are confronted almost daily with the spectacle of extremely cautious, supposedly protective adults keeping a sharp lookout for flashers while themselves exposing children to potentially fatal behavior: driving while sleep-deprived (just as deadly as drunk driving), allowing children to ride in vehicles without restraint, swimming in pools without supervision, etc.

There is still a strong incentive for feminists NOT to admit that sex play in childhood is normal (both statistically normative and healthy) rather than necessarily harmful. That admission would not only mean feminists have been wrong about denying and demonizing children’s sexual desire and sexual pleasure for over 30 years. Worse, the belief in a male conspiracy to shame girls and women was clearly paranoid. Was it a conscious conspiracy with fathers instructing their sons: “You have to molest girls so they’ll know their place,” or a compelling, unconscious instinct: it’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it?

There is also good reason to believe that the traditional taboo against sexual contact outside marriage (in this case in childhood) contributes to some girls becoming sexually dysfunctional (10). The evidence for widespread female sexual dysfunction is abundant. In addition to at least two separate surveys in which the majority of women reported some form of sexual dysfunction, Deborah Tolman’s study (11) makes sexual problems among young girls painfully clear, although Tolman prefers the euphemism that some girls today have “silent bodies.”

Rather than stating the obvious, that little girls are not at fault for insensitive and exploitative treatment by adults, we should say that young girls who rebel against sex taboos must be praised for their courage in participating in their own liberation from the traditional taboo against expressing female sexual desire and pleasure even outside patriarchic marriage – especially in childhood when the growing brain needs stimulation to develop healthy clitoral function.

To be perfectly clear: I’m not saying that children should be sexually abused, and I’m not saying that women really want to be raped. I’m not defending pedophiles or sex offenders, and I’m not trying to legitimize or normalize any kind of abuse whatsoever. It’s wrong for anybody to use coercion or threats or otherwise manipulate children to cooperate in sex, just as it’s wrong for the government to control citizens by “persuading” us to obey and support laws and policies that only serve special interest groups. We need to separate “sex” from the true crimes of coercion, deception, insensitivity and exploitation.

Many women today are unnecessarily defensive about female sexual dysfunction. I say “unnecessarily” because sexual dysfunction is not a woman’s fault. Such defensiveness is not going to solve the problem of dysfunction, nor prevent it from occurring again and again in future generations of growing girls. As illustrated beautifully in the classic story of Peter Pan and Wendy Darling, the boy says he doesn’t want to grow up and claims he doesn’t have feelings, but he is actually afraid to grow up and is afraid of his own feelings. Peter obviously does have feelings but he doesn’t understand his own feelings, and ignorance breeds fear.

Hillary Clinton advocates increasing the years of schooling that girls and women complete in order to earn higher incomes, but income inequality is not the reason why the majority of women in America today are sexually dysfunctional.  Feminists recognize internalized oppression, but anti-sex indoctrination goes farther than that in making girls feel that their natural desires are unacceptable and justification for thinking they are bad or sick and should probably hate their body. Instead of terrorizing children against politically incorrect sexual desire and sexual pleasure, what is needed is more comprehensive early education to help children accurately identify what they feel, rather than what adults claim kids are supposed to feel or not supposed to feel, to help kids not feel afraid or guilty.


  1. Whittier, Nancy. The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse: Emotion, Social Movements, and the State. Oxford University Press, 2009.
  2. Odem, Mary E. Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States 1885-1920. University of North Carolina Press, 1995.
  3. Greer, Germaine. The Female Eunuch. Harper Perennial, 2008 (1970).
  4. Egan, Danielle R. and Hawkes, Gail. Theorizing the Sexual Child in Modernity. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
  5. Lamb, Sharon. The Secret Lives of Girls: What Good Girls Really Do – Sex Play, Aggression, and Their Guilt. The Free Press, 2001.
  6. Skenazy, Lenore. Free Range Kids: How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children. Jossey-Bass, 2009.
  7. Seto, Michael J. Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. American Psychological Association, 2007.
  8. Rind, Bruce, et al.  A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples (Psychological Bulletin 1998, Vol. 124, No. 1, 22-53). See also Rind et al. The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001) (Psychological Bulletin 2001. Vol. 127. No. 6. 734-758). See also: Science versus orthodoxy: Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article and reflections on remedies for future ideological attacks. Applied & Preventive Psychology 9:211-225 (2000). Cambridge University Press.
  9. Adamo, Frank. Real Child Safety (2nd ed.) Foundation for Research and Education on Child Safety, 2014.
  10. Adamo, Frank. Clitoral Erection and Healthy Sexual Function.
  11. Tolman, Deborah L. Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk About Sexuality. Harvard University Press, 2002.




Posted in child sexual abuse, children, Family, feminism, sex, Uncategorized, women | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism

Senator Sanders is saying some interesting things about the U.S. government that other political candidates would rather not talk about. Wealthy corporations pay little or no taxes, while the poor and middle classes have to finance the cost of government, including foreign wars. Our tax money eventually ends up in the pockets of wealthy corporations that produce arms.

Conservative opponents are justified in objecting that the wealthy corporations are creating wealth as well as creating jobs for some more humble citizens, so the corporations should be entitled to keep and enjoy the wealth they create. That’s perfectly acceptable when we’re talking about adults, but what about the children of the poor? The government has a responsibility to help children obtain essential resources, not just by taxing poor and middle class citizens, but by taxing wealthy corporations as well.

One defender of the establishment recently claimed that the trillions of dollars spent to help the poor over the past 50 years have not reduced the number of people living below the poverty level. But despite those discouraging statistics money provided to poor families contributes to improving their quality of life. When you are poor, even a little help may have a great effect. Crime rates have declined significantly over the past decades, despite the increase in numbers of poor young people who commit the most crimes.

We must acknowledge that the private Rockefeller Foundation financed the research of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, which started the post-war sexual revolution (although that foundation eventually stopped contributing after public opinion turned against Kinsey). The wealthy can do a lot to improve society for everyone. The essential components of a nation are families, which are essentially “socialist.” The question is to what degree should the socialist policies of the family be extended to distant citizens you will probably never meet. As long as every citizen may contribute something to the nation, he should have access to essential resources.

Sen. Sanders says he was against the war in Iraq, but he should be consistent and also oppose any future wars in Syria or Iran, unless our allies in the region are threatened with imminent invasion. Despite the relatively isolated (i.e. safe) geographical position of North America, the U.S. federal government spends more money on defense than education, and gives more financial aid to some tiny allies than all the other countries of the world combined – including our major allies and international trading partners who are already being invaded by millions of single young men claiming to be refugees.

It’s true that government programs are often inefficient and wasteful, even in education. The Bush Administration spent US$6 billion on the misdirected “Reading First” program, which was a failure according to a 2008 study that concluded the program had no measurable effect on reading comprehension. It’s also possible that the Bush program actually had a negative effect on children’s internal motivation to learn, by spending excessive time drilling very young children on boring decoding skills, and maintaining the simplistic traditional concept of learning as merely content delivery: the Franken-School monster.

Socialism has a bad reputation because of the tragic communist experiments that failed in Russia, China, and other countries. But those countries continue to behave like totalitarian police states today despite embracing the free market economy, and the example of contemporary Western Europe indicates that some “socialist” economic policies (e.g. free health care and free education) were not the cause of such past failures. I think that if Sen. Sanders wants to appeal to as many voters as possible, he should emphasize how his administration would protect traditional American freedom and avoid making the same mistakes as the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Republic of Albania.

Posted in Family, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments