Why Miley Should Be Left Alone

Miley
Miley Cyrus–the 20 year old Disney sensation who has millions of young impressionable teenage followers–“twerking,” repeatedly rubbing a fan’s foam finger up and down her privates, wearing a skin bikini, and slapping a woman on the buttocks. The internet lit up about it and everyone is shocked and offended. . . . but why? Why can Lady Gag-me get away with it but not Miley? After all, isn’t self-exploration of sexuality encouraged at every turn?

To understand the sexual revolution and how we got so “advanced” in our sexual education, you have got to become familiar with the famed Alfred Charles Kinsey. The bee keeper is dubbed the “Father of Sexology.” In 1948 he published a book titled Sexual Behavior In the Human Male. Kinsey was a known pedophile and was famed for his unorthodox practices. I’m learning a lot about Kinsey. In fact, I’m reading a few books on Kinsey and am learning more than I bargained for. Kinsey, a known pedophile, was convinced that humans are sexual from birth. Therefore, his “science” on sexuality consisted of his group of pedophiles (parents, nursery school owners, & homosexual males) stimulating the genitals of infant children, either manually or orally, until they reached what Kinsey redefined as “orgasm”–screaming, crying, convulsing, turning red, etc. Look up his famous “Table 34” if you dare. He records a young “sexually charged” child reaching 26 orgasms in a 24 hour period. This wild child was 4.

Why mention Kinsey? Because it is his direct disciples and associates who began the organizations Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth. These programs, including The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, receive millions of dollars of our hard earned tax money each year. They also have Kinsey’s fingerprints all over them. I’ve spent lots of time on their sites–you know, the ones responsible for teaching sexuality education to our youth. Surprise, surprise–they are all teaching that humans are sexual from birth, that we all should be free to express ourselves however we want, be gender benders (gender identity, they claim, is fluid and can change throughout our life), and very young people can engage in any number of sexually stimulating acts without “actually having sex.”

SIECUS and Advocates for Youth pave the way for sexuality education in our public schools, offering tons of free curricula for school teachers. And yes, I did just read SIECUS’ 111 page Guidelines For Comprehensive Sexuality Education, 3rd ed. in its entirety (I know, I have no life). In case anyone is interested in what your 5-8 year olds will learn from Kinsey SIECUS (I chose to select a handful of the guidelines for Level 1, which is what they teach children ages 5-8 and is by far the most mild teachings in Guidelines):

–Each body part has a correct name and a specific function.
–A person’s genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female.
–A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
–A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.

–Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body.
–Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
–Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce.
–Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join.

–Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
–Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
–Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender.
–Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.

–Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
–People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.
–Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.
–Everyone, including children, has rights.
–Telling trusted people about one’s feeling and needs is acceptable.

–Asking is often the first step to getting what one wants or needs.
–Children sometimes have to do things they do not want to do because their parents or other adults say so.
–Most children are curious about their bodies.
–Bodies can feel good when touched.
–All people, regardless of biological sex, gender, age, ability, and culture, are sexual beings.

–Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
–Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
–Masturbation should be done in a private place
–People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.
–Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched.
–Like other body parts, the genitals need care.

–Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by germs such as bacteria and viruses.
–There are many types of sexually transmitted diseases.
–People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.

In case you are worried that these guidelines your 5-8 year old learns at school might miss a “gap,” as SIECUS calls them, teachers are further instructed: “For example, the Guidelines suggest that students in early elementary school learn that “Each body part has a correct name and a specific function,” and that “A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.” (something taught at Level 1, or age 5-8) They do not, however, explain the specific function of each of these parts to students or educators. It is the responsibility of educators to fill in this information when necessary.”

If you would like to read all 111 pages, you can read it here.

God must have been way off base when He decided that sexuality was something pure–something to save for your one marriage partner for life. Paul addresses prostitution in the church at Corinth. He says, “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:18-20 ESV). Sounds so old fashioned, doesn’t it?

We have “advanced” so much since then. Hasn’t Paul received the memo? When Kinsey did his “research,” there were 2 known STDs but since he sparked this sex revolution there are over 24. The CDC website says that 110,000,000 Americans are infected with STIs today. 19,000,000 new teenagers get infected with STDs each year. We are a sex addicted culture with the full endorsement of the CDC, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth. So. . . . what in the world is the public’s problem with Miley? She is simply advancing us all up the evolutionary chain. We are only becoming smarter, more tolerant, and more expressive as a society.

I leave you with this video that was produced by teenagers on sex education. I found it along with glowing reviews from Advocates for Youth. They are so proud of our youth for stepping up to the plate and taking sex education into their own hands. The lyrics are hard to understand but they go, “I only have protected sex. I’ve got 20 condoms in my pocket. I get tested every month. It’s a freaking condom.” So come on, leave Miley alone.

10 thoughts on “Why Miley Should Be Left Alone”

  1. you’ve done it again! You’ve researched, dug deep into this mire of sexual mess, and have presented the facts to us. The question is, “What are we going to do now?” Our children are being exposed to all sorts of wrong teaching and they don’t know better. They’re being desensitized, demoralized, and dehumanized. Strong words, I know, but I believe it’s true. Thank you for speaking up, speaking out, and for working hard to help us see how we got where we are. It’s time to take big, powerful steps to climb out and away from this and get back to some godly living! (PS I don’t see how anyone can claim that today’s sexual revolution has made this a better, safer, healthier place in which to live!)

  2. Stating that Kinsey was a “known” pedophile is highly misleading. One could say “alleged”, as it has been alleged by various conservative religious types with very scant evidence to give the accusations any credibility.

    Kinsey’s Table 34 does not “record” a child having 24 orgasms, it reports the information given by a pedophile that Kinsey interviewed who made this claim. Kinsey was not present first-hand to report any such thing.

    Panned Parenthood started in 1916. Kinsey did not start his research until 1933, and published his first report until 1948. How is it accurate to say that Kinsey disciples started Planned Parenthood when it predates his first published work on sexuality by over 30 years?

    You seem to blame Kinsey for there now being more identified STDs than there were in 1948. Again this is misleading. Herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and other such diseases were known throughout history. Some of them were sometimes considered the same thing, and some of them were not understood to be transmitted by sexual contact.
    Medical and scientific technology and understanding advanced very significantly during the past 60 years. As we have learned more about them, we have been able to better understand their pathology, classify them, and in many cases treat them or learn how to help prevent them. You are just playing a numbers non-sequiter: before Kinsey, 2 known STDs; after Kinsey 24, therefore it must be Kinsey’s fault, right?

    Fear of sex education is one thing. Actively spreading misinformation is another. Unfortunately this article displays a little of both columns. I wait with interest to see if my comment gets approved or ignored.

    1. Kinsey was a known pedophile, even though his colleagues deny it. Broaden your horizons beyond Wikipedia and you will find that he had an obsession with young children and their sexuality. He also would ask his young colleagues to have homosexual sex with him and experiment with wife swapping. He cut off his foreskin with a pocket knife. The man was not right. At bare minimum, what he did was highly criminal. His staff admits that what they did was illegal and immoral. He encouraged and instructed known pedophiles how to stimulate and time their victims. You should read Dr. Judith Reisman’s book Stolen Honor: How America was Betrayed by the Lies and Sexual Crimes of a Mad “Scientist”. And I didn’t say that it was his disciples who started Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth. . . I said disciples and associates. While Planned Parenthood wasn’t named so until later, it does have roots back to 1916 with Margaret Sanger, who was an associate of Kinsey. They did not communicate much that we know of, but there was possibly more to their relationship than the public was led to believe.

      And who says I’m afraid of sex education? I’m not afraid of it at all. But it’s sad what passes as reputable “science” which is rooted in the studies of Kinsey. I don’t have a problem publishing an opposing argument, either. It’s ok to disagree and you were not nasty.

  3. I think it’s inappropriate to present this information as if it is actually being taught in schools. I can absolutely tell you that this information is NOT part of any public school curriculum for ages 5-8 in the state of Ohio. I cannot speak for other states but I think you need to find out that this is being taught before you say it is. Any group could write something and call it curriculum but that in no way means it is being taught.

    1. I think it’s inappropriate to deny that this information is being taught in schools. You should read Dr. Miriam Grossman’s book You’re Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child. She is from CA where they are teaching this stuff and beyond in the public schools. And it’s not just CA. It goes beyond the schools, too. Just because it’s not taught in certain states or districts doesn’t mean that kids are not being directed to these sites. Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth are just the parent sites. Check out http://www.positive.org and http://www.gURL.com, 2 of many sites where the parent sites send young children for advice from “experts.” All of the sites teach kids how to become activists for their pseudo sex ed. I never said that this is being taught in every state, but it is being taught in schools. There are 20 states plus D.C. that mandate sex education. Ohio is not one of those.

  4. First of all, thank you for approving my earlier comment and for your response.

    Next, don’t you think it a bit presumptuous to assume that my only source of information information was Wikipedia? You have no idea what sources I referenced, so your statement comes across as a bit of an ad hominem attack by implication. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean that my sources of information are limited. Even if, like many people, I happen to reference Wikipedia, I am smart enough to check the citations and references to further my knowledge of a topic from multiple viewpoints.

    Again you make the claim that Kinney was a “known” pedophile. Pedophilia has varied definitions, ranging from the common and colloquial one “An adult who has sex with children” to the more specific medical / psychological ones. The psychological definitions all tend to define it as an adult who has a sexual “preference” toward children, or as WebMD puts it: “a sustained sexual orientation toward children.” As most of the impetus from the claim of Kinsey being a pedophile comes from Judith Reisman, the onus would be on her to prove that allegation. Over the years she has failed to provide any real evidence that Kinsey was ever sexually involved with a child. And to meet the clinical definition of pedophilia, she would have to show that he had a *preference* for, or a *sustained orientation toward* children. Despite all of her claims, Reisman was never able to provide any proof of these claims whatsoever. Most scholarly sources familiar with Kinsey, including the man who wrote his biography, have roundly dismissed Reisman’s claims about him.

    In fact, some things you said in reply about Kinsey even refute the notion that he had a sustained orientation toward children. You mention that he was a “wife swapper.” It is recorded that Kinsey and his wife had an open marriage, and both of them were free to have sexual relations with other people. Kinsey was known to have have done so with both men and women. As you said, he reportedly propositioned some of his male colleagues. Presumably his colleagues were not pre-pubescent, and presumably other adult married women he slept with were also not pre-pubescent. That seems to run counter to the clinical definition of someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children.

    There are some things we do know about Judith Reisman that paint the picture of an someone who did poor research and made unfounded claims. hat we do know is that when Reisman published her book “Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud”, the Kinsey Institute responded to question her findings, methods and quality of research. Reisman filed suit against them for defamation and slander. Reisman’s own lawyer eventually withdrew from the suit, and the suit was dismissed with prejudice. Her claims of defamation and slander were unfounded, according to the courts, and the Kinsey Institute’s response against her accusations were allowed to stand.

    What else is known about Reisman? Her daughter was molested by a boy 3 years older, which may have helped spur her on the anti-pornography path as the boy’s father apparently had some Playboys in the house at the time (to which I should note that correlation does not equal causation.) As she progressed down the anti-pornography crusade, she bagan to feel that pornography caused pedophilia (completely ignoring the millions of people who view pornography and never dream of touching a child.) It was suggested to her by an unknown professor that “global child sex abuse epidemic” lay at the feet of Dr. Kinsey, and thus she then set her sights on him.

    It is also known that Reisman received a US Dept of Justice grant of nearly 3/4 of a million dollars to research pornography. When she turned in the findings two years later, the University she was associated with for the study refused to publish it due to its poor quality of research and unfounded conclusions. Even the man who authorized the grant for her later admitted that it was a mistake to havd done so.

    What else is known about Reisman? That she coined a phrase known as “erototoxins”, claiming that the release of naturally occurring hormones in the body (testosterone, oxytocin, dopamine and serotonin) is somehow toxic if it is released because one viewed pornography. The exact same hormones are produced when one views and is attracted to a real live person whether naked or not, so to suggest that somehow the combination is “toxic” because it was triggered by a picture, video or even written words, is laughable.

    In short, Judith Reisman has suggested a lot of things over her career. Many of them have been widely rejected by people with actual credentials and scholarly experience in the applicable field of study she was commenting on. Her attempt at scholarly research into pornography resulted in the university choosing not to support her findings and not publishing the study. Her allegations about Kinsey were rejected by those who knew him, those who worked with him, and those who studied his life and wrote about him. And never has she ever been able to produce any real evidence of her claims against Kinsey.

    So to summarize: it is not accurate to say that Kinsey was a pedophile based primarliy on Reisman’s unfounded claims, especially given her history of bad ideas and bad research.

    Moving on to the connection between Kinsey and Margaret Sanger, a series of papers and articles on Sanger’s life is available via the NYU website. One article discusses the influence that Sanger’s work had on Kinsey…not the other way around! The article goes on to say that “she did not know Kinsey well. Their correspondence amounts to one exchange in 1953.” It does point out that Kinsey and Sanger has some associates in common, which is hardly surprising as their work was in related fields, but there is no evidence of Kinsey and Sanger having close association. You say that “there was possibly more to their relationship than the public was led to believe.” That is merely speculation on your part, and hardly convincing evidence to support your original claim that Kinsey’s direct disciples and associates began Planned Parenthood. I’m not sure where “unfounded speculation” ranks on the “bearing false witness” scale, but surely you can see that it lacks intellectual honesty?

    As for why I said that your column displays some sense of fear of sex education, there seemed to be an undertone of it in your post, and your subsequent replies seem to bear that out somewhat. Perhaps not a fear of the subject as a whole, perhaps I overstated that. But people like Reisman and her contemporaries have been a part of the ongoing “abstinence-only” sex education movement, a movement that is well-known for outright lies and distortion to propagate their viewpoints. I don’t know where your views are on that, and certainly I agree that sex education should be age appropriate. However it seems that the various sides of the argument disagree on where those age lines should be drawn. Looking at your sections in bold on the original post, you seem to take issue with the SEICUS publishings on the subject of masturbation, and at what age kids should be told that touching themselves may feel good, but that they should do it in private. I do not disagree with anything they wrote that you posted, and would have no issue with children of that age group being told or readin some of those things in a safe and supervised fashion.

    I think we can agree to disagree on what age to teach our own children these things, personally I would like them to learn it before they figure it out for themselves, which they will whether we teach them that or not. I would also like them to know that it is normal, natural and not “bad” to do so. However, I would note that my kids are older than the age group you cited in that report, and to my knowledge they have not learned those topics at school. They have learned of it and other basic sexual matters through some carefully selected age-appropriate reading material we gave them and discussed with them afterward.

    I do want to challenge you on one other point though. You claim that the Kinsey Institute receives millions of dollars of tax money each year. Can you substantiate that claim? I see some research grants over the years, from the NIH for instance, but nothing that adds up to the millions per year that you are suggesting. Can you back that claim up with published figures somewhere?

    1. First, I’ll say that I don’t mind people having different views on these matters. You are entitled to your views and I am to mine. I did wrongly make an assumption about your sources. I’m not here to argue or convert you to my way of thinking, so I’ll finish with this reply. People who read this blog are entitled and free to read sources other than this blog and form their own opinion. The assumptions about Reisman are not founded. She had people do to her what you have done to me–twist our words and try to discredit our writings. The best thing to do is to listen to the voices of the very people who worked directly with Kinsey. There are great interviews done on the video Kinsey’s Paedophiles. His co-authors

      For example, you challenge me on my “claim that the Kinsey Institute receives millions of dollars of tax money each year.” That is not what I said, and you know it. I said verbatim, “These programs, including The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, receive millions of dollars of our hard earned tax money each year.” “These programs” points to the previous sentence, which mentions Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth. I never said that these programs each receive millions of dollars. Planned Parenthood alone received $542 million in 20111 The Kinsey Institute, according to a June 2009 article, received $423,500 in federal money for their study on why men don’t like condoms2. Indiana University confirms it3.

      Also, your WebMD definition of pedophilia and other claims show that you know very little about pedophilia. You said, “In fact, some things you said in reply about Kinsey even refute the notion that he had a sustained orientation toward children” and go on to show different paraphilias that I mentioned with Kinsey. Most diagnosed pedophiles have normal heterosexual relationships, are married, and have children. My own father is serving a 30-60 year sentence for molestation and was married with 11 children. Does that mean he isn’t a pedophile? Here are some facts about pedophilia from Dr. Gene Gabel, The Stop Child Molestation Book: More than 70% of the men who molest boys rate themselves as heterosexual in their adult sexual preferences, more than 60% of pedophiles have other paraphilias (pg. 303), 77% of Abel’s sample of 4,007 pedophiles were married vs. 73% of the US population of males at the time of the study (pg. 310).

      At any rate, we certainly can agree to disagree. We could debate for months, but that’s not what this site is about. I wish you well in life.

      1. Hello Jim,

        I am not hoping to convert you either, and I hope you do not see it that way. I came across your blog via a Facebook link (from your mother) and my main purpose in replying was to challenge the statement that Dr. Kinsey was a “known” pedophile. I think we can agree that use of that word depends on one’s beliefs in the accusations made mostly by Dr. Reisman and her supporters. If one is pre-disposed for various reasons to take Reisman at her word, then one likely believes her accusations and believes that he or she “knows” the accusation is a fact. But to say “known” implies that something is *generally accepted* and can withstand serious factual and logical scrutiny. It is pretty clear that Reisman’s accusations are not generally accepted, and have a hard time withstanding serious unbiased scrutiny, especially as no victims have ever come forth. People who share Reisman’s point of view point to a few colleagues of Kinsey who state that they had moral and ethical concerns about not reporting the pedophiles that were interviewed. I cannot condone that either. But I suspect that many of those same people would not think twice about a priest or minister invoking confidentiality of the confessional to not notify the police if someone claims / admits to pedophilia. I know the argument would be that the priest or minister would try to help guide the man to do the right thing, but if he does not, the end result is the same. Regardless, I note that Reisman’s disciples are all too happy to believe the very small minority of former colleagues with negative things to say about Kinsey, and very quick to ignore the majority of colleagues, biographers, researchers, students and contemporaries of Kinsey who say that the accusations are unfounded. Bias very often helps shape one’s willingness to accept the evidence that supports the bias and reject anything that would test the bias.

        I consider myself fairly unbiased in this topic. I am not a Kinsey “devotee”; I do not work in a field that was influenced by his teachings. I am not a victim of or family member connected to sexual abuse. I have looked at the claims of both sides, weighed the merits, and found Reisman’s viewpoint to be lacking credibility. As you say, there is not much point going on with that topic, we will agree to disagree about whether the accusations are “known” as in generally accepted and withstanding of scrutiny, or “believed” by those who have disagreed with Kinsey’s work and conclusions for reasons that touch on personally held beliefs and moral views.

        Regarding the sentence “These programs, including The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, receive millions of dollars of our hard earned tax money each year.” I do not dispute that a large and far reaching organization like Planned Parenthood can and does receive millions of dollars in grants per year. I did not research SIECUS or Advocates for Youth, but as they are not very well know, I suspect they do not receive millions per year either. We can chalk this whole point up to a syntax issue. Had you said “these programs TOGETHER” or “these programs JOINTLY” or “these programs COMBINED”, your intended meaning would have been clearer. Without that type of qualifier, it came across to this reader as “these programs EACH.” So, no, I did not know that you meant “a *combined total* of millions of dollars per year.” Your sentence was not clear on that. I am not trying to “twist” your words. I can only respond to what I read, not what you may have intended to write. The onus is on the writer to make his or her meaning clear, not to take exception with the reader for not guessing correctly in the face of unrecognized ambiguity. It is unfortunate that you seem to imply that I did indeed understand and merely chose to twist your words for nefarious purpose. That is absolutely not the case.

        I do not pretend to be an expert in pedophilia. I have had some training in various abuse issues via my work with youth but I do not consider myself to be a counsellor or expert opinion on the matter. As I said, the definition of pedophilia ranges from the colloquial to the one used by clinical psychiatrists to make an actual diagnosis. Yes, I do know that many pedophiles do indeed cover their preferences by trying to fit in to society, marrying and raising families, etc. Neither I, nor the WebMD definition, disputed that. Pedophiles are rightly disavowed by society, so the pedophile often has to adopt normal-seeming behaviours to fit in. Relationships with adults, marriage, kids. But it has often been reported that many of those married relationships, as you may know from your own experience, are not “normal.” Kinsey did not have a “normal” marriage by many people’s definition. An open marriage where both members agreed to allow one another to pursue other heterosexual and homosexual relationships. My point was that here was a man free by his wife’s agreement to pursue and engage in extra-marital sex. It is well recorded that he did so. He spent time actively pursuing other ADULTS. Free time that he could have been spending grooming and cultivating abusive relationships, ingratiating himself to youth groups, large families, single parents, etc, all those things that known pedophiles have been reported to do. Yet there is no clear record of Kinsey having spent his time that way. He pursued extra-marital adult relationships. That was my point. I agree, being married does not mean that he was NOT a pedophile…but does it mean that he was? Without the evidence of a lasting, sustained interest in pre-pubescent children, can it be honestly said that he was a pedophile?
        I do thank you for a fair opportunity to respond, and I do commend your work in trying to bring awareness to the sad and sickening topic of pedophilia. We may not agree in all things but on that point we absolutely do. Good luck in your work.

Leave a Reply