Home
Other Books Site Map
These life-hating, sadomasochistic, Christian attitudes permeate our entire culture.

Pope Billy says that "the smell of sex oozes from the very pores of our nation."
Maybe so, but the stench of Christian neurosis is much stronger. This fear and
hatred of sex is embodied in our laws, our customs, our education, our advertising,
entertainment, our very language. And even though we may consciously reject the
Christian syndrome, we
cannot escape its influence!

Here is a typical dictionary, the
Brockhaus Illustrated German-English
Dictionary
, published by McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1965. On page 430 there is a
drawing of a nude "man," with labels giving the German words for various parts of
the body. This is a complete and normal man, except for one thing: "It" has no
genitals. Here is a
Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia, 1946. In volume eleven, p.
205, under Physiology, there are complete charts of the human anatomy. But the
charts only go down to the top of the pelvis. And all the important organs are
described – except the reproductive ones. Surely, most readers recall from their
childhood the exasperation of trying to find out anything about sex. The diagrams
always ended just above the area you were most interested in! Until the mid
1960s, nudist magazines were required by law to air-brush out the genitals, making
it look as though they had no genitals. Ah, what a Christian Paradise that would
be! And even today some communities forbid the sale of un-retouched nude
photos. Here is a circular advertising sex books. Notice the adjectives our everyday
language uses to describe sexual activity: torrid.. explosive.. daring.. sizzling..
perverse.. shocking.. vice-riddled.. forbidden lusts.. corruption and sin.. wanton..
wallowed.. degradation.. depraved.. sordid.. agonizing.. tortured.. shameful..
vicious.. degenerate.. ugly.. brutal.. ruthless.. sex and violence... filthy.. weird..
twisted.. bizarre, etc. These are all
negatively loaded words which are supposed to
produce a
positive buying response! This clearly reflects the schizoid attitudes our
culture has toward sexuality. Note also how eroticism is confused and equated with
all that is ugly, sinful, horrible, and disgusting.

The legal definition of "obscenity" in the United States (punishable by a prison
sentence) is as follows:
Creations which appeal predominantly to prurient [meaning: erotic]
interests, stimulate libidinous impulses, and overstep the
community standard of what is decent. (James Paul and Murray
Schwartz,
Federal Censorship, 1961, p. 165)
Federal District Judge Thomsen has ruled that a picture is "obscene if any kind of
sexual activity is suggested or depicted." (
The Independent, Jan.,  1967)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Ralph Ginzburg, publisher of
Eros
Magazine
, under federal obscenity law. "Publishers who would make a business of
pandering to the widespread weakness for titillation by pornography" are liable to
imprisonment, said Justice William Brennan. "Evidence that a book was
commercially exploited for the sake of prurient [erotic] appeal ... might justify the
conclusion that the book was utterly without redeeming social importance."
Ginzburg was sentenced to five years and $28,000 dollars.

So there it is: the Supreme Law of the Land states that a work of art designed to
give other human beings erotic pleasure is a sin of such heinous magnitude that it
must be prohibited by federal law, lest the Republic collapse. The "Law" regarding
sex doesn't seem to have changed very much since it was handed down by Moses.
The city of Atlanta has passed a new ordinance which will
create a new test for nudist magazines. The law provides that
magazines containing photographs of nude males or females
could not legally be displayed where minors could or might leaf
through the pages and see the pictures. (
The Independent,
Aug, 1966)
In 1967 the California state assembly tried to pass an anti-nudism law which
provided prosecution of parents who permitted their children to "remain in a place
where human beings exposed the genitals or pubic hair, or women exposed their
breasts to view."

It seems that children must be protected at all costs from seeing a healthy human
body!

As a result of these anti-sexual laws, it is ludicrous to speak of America as always
having been a land where there is "absolute freedom of expression." We have
been "free" to follow the Christian party-line: We have been "free" to express
contempt for human sexuality, but we have not been free to express approval of
sexuality.

The Satyricon, by Petronius, a satire about Roman society, written in
65 C.E., was banned in the United States until 1965.  

The Kama Sutra, by Vatsyayana, the oldest, most classic marriage manual in
history – referred to by nearly all psychologists and marriage counselors – written
in the third century – banned in the U.S. until 1962.

The Ananga Ranga, written about the same time – banned until 1962.

The Perfumed Garden, by Shaykh Nefzawi, an Arabian treatise on love, written in
the Middle Ages – banned until 1965.  

Fanny Hill, first published in 1749 – banned until 1963.  

Justine and Juliette, by the Marquis DeSade, written about the same time, and
known the world over by students of history, literature, and psychology – banned
in America until 1965.

Psychopathia Sexualis, by Dr. Kraft Ebing, written in the 19th century and one of
the milestones in psycho-sexual behavior – banned in English translation until
1965. Only the Latin version was permitted, in order to "exclude the lay reader."  

My Life and Loves, by Frank Harris, published in Europe, 1922 – banned in the U.
S. until 1963.

All of the works of Henry Miller which were published in Europe in the 1920s and
30s were banned in the U.S, until the mid 1960s.

Obviously, the legal concept of obscenity has relaxed considerably; but after
several hundred years of rigid censorship, the neuroses thereby engendered in a
culture don't quickly fade away.

Masters and Johnson began their laboratory investigation of
Human Sexual
Response
in 1954, but the investigation had to be kept top secret for fear that
Christian wrath would stop the investigation and throw them all in prison. When
the results were published in 1966, the howls of outrage and attempts at
prosecution were predictable.

Dr. Albert Ellis says, in
Sex Without Guilt,
It is my experience that today's author who writes an honest sex
book will, in the first place, have difficulty in finding any publisher for
his work. Then if he does find a publisher, he will usually have to
fight his way through censorship difficulties with the publisher and
his editors and lawyers.

To make matters still worse, he will often find that his book has
been deliberately overpriced just because it deals with sex. He may
be shocked to note that some of the finest bookstores refuse to
display it prominently .... Many libraries, he will discover, refuse to
purchase the book; or else, when they do purchase it, put it behind
locked doors and discourage reader interest in it. Finally, his book
may run into official or semi-official disapproval, and may be
banned from advertising columns, from the mails, from public sale
in certain communities, or, in extreme cases, from any further
printings.
He had written Sex Without Guilt nearly five years earlier, but no one dared to
publish it, until Lyle Stuart took it in 1959; because since the book doesn't pay
humble obeisance to the official Christian party line, the publishers were all
afraid they might go to prison, as well they might.

Ralph Ginzberg served five years for publishing
Eros: A Magazine Devoted to
the Joys of Love
. But since he had broken no existing law, the Supreme Court
had to write a
new law in order to convict him! It seems they didn't like the way
he
advertised the magazine!
The director of the Parents Aid Society of Hempstead, N.Y. was
jailed for displaying birth control devices in New Jersey, where
birth control information may not be uttered in public and birth
control devices may not be exposed. (
Civil Liberties Newspaper,
Feb., 1967)
Connor Everts, a California artist exhibited some of his paintings, which
included an abstract drawing of a womb. He was arrested and charged with
"outraging public decency." (
The Independent, May, 1965)
The principal law (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1461) stated
briefly, says that it is punishable by fine and imprisonment to
knowingly cause the mails to be used to transport obscenity. (
The
Smut Rakers
, National Observer Newsbook, p. 66)
This was written by Anthony Comstock in 1865. In 1966 there were 638
convictions and 746 arrests. (
The Independent, Sept. 1966, p. 4) Of these, a
large number were from "Pen Pal Clubs" – lonely-hearts clubs, which the postal
inspector would join, pretending to be a lonely female, and enticed unaware
victims to write more and more intimate letters, until they wrote
something he could take to court as pornography. Congress, however, ordered
the Post Office to stop this illegal "entrapment" procedure, and the Post Office
"promised" it would. (
Time Magazine, Mar 3, 1967, p. 80)
Somehow "... our culture considers that social interests are
involved when an individual departs from the Judeo-Christian
sex codes by engaging in such sexual activities as
masturbation, mouth-genital contacts, homosexual contacts,
animal contacts, and other types of behavior which do not
satisfy the procreative function of sex." (Kinsey, op. cit., 1953, p.
17)
Because of these religious codes, there is hardly any sexual activity which is not
prohibited in some state. In fact, ninety-nine percent of the entire U.S.
population would be in prison if they had been caught and convicted under the
laws of their state. (ibid., p. 18) Until the mid 1970s every state had a law
against homosexuality. And the penalties were as severe as those for the most
serious crimes of violence. (ibid., p. 483) Nearly every state had a law against
oral-genital contacts, even in marriage! And penalties ranged from one year to
life! (ibid., p. 262) Statutory rape is coitus with a consenting girl under a certain
age set by state law, and ranging from 14 to 21. Penalties for statutory rape are
only exceeded by those for murder. The death sentence is mandatory in six
states. Death is possible in ten other states. Life is possible in 19 others. And
remaining states require ten years to life. And all of these are possible even if
the boy is 21 and his girlfriend is 20! (ibid, p. 287) Nearly
every state prohibits
any sexual activities of any kind for any minor. Thirty-five states even had laws
against fornication between consenting, unmarried adults.
There is no aspect of American sex law which surprises visitors
from other countries as much as this legal attempt to penalize
pre-marital activity to which both of the parties have consented
and in which no force has been involved. There is practically no
other culture, anywhere in the world, in which all non-marital coitus,
is considered criminal. (ibid., p. 326)
These anti-sexual laws and attitudes are reflected in our total environment.

Every magazine rack groans with teen-age-girl magazines, which are all devoted
to the same theme: "Should I, or shouldn't I?" And of course the answer at the
end of each article is as predictable as a Billy Graham sermon: "Naturally, you
should not."

All of the Christian taboos mentioned are sanctified by the broadcast codes, and
any station which dared to defy them would quickly lose its license.
Until the Motion Picture Code was revised in the late 1960s, movies which
were advertised for their sexual content, were actually
anti-sexual. In DeMille's
biblical orgies, for example, the sex was only allowed in order to show that the
"wages of sin is death." In fact, the old Motion Picture Code prescribed that
"immorality" (meaning departure from Judeo-Christian sex codes) must never
be presented as attractive or desirable. And any theater operator which showed
a film having as a basic promise that "sex is fun" would have been liable to
imprisonment.

Even Dr. Joyce Brothers sometimes gets flustered when the subject of
premarital sex arises. Someone asked about the Pill for college girls. Dr.
Brothers' answer:
Your niece should be made to understand that sexual
promiscuity is detrimental to her leading a healthy physical
and emotional life. She should be made to understand that
early sexual relations are a false security builder and that
those who indulge in it use a very ineffective crutch to gain a
self-assurance that, though badly needed in youth, can only
lead to an ever deeper despair and feeling of insecurity ...
sexuality among youngsters is not so much a form of self
expression as it is a temporary pain killer and, to this degree,
can be equated with drugs or liquor in that it leaves boys and
girls with deep feelings of guilt. (
Houston Post, Jan., 1967)
Note that even intellectuals often assume that the only alternative to the Christian
code is "promiscuity," which has a negative connotation, and which means "un-
selective"... "indiscriminate." However, the more sexually sophisticated, the
more selective and discriminating one becomes. Note also that the word
"promiscuity" is usually interpreted to mean "any sex at all." And notice her use
of the word "youngsters" in relation to college girls. By  the time a girl reaches
college, she is biologically an adult; and in most cases, she is intellectually,
emotionally, and legally an adult. In fact, most historical cultures have
considered a 19 or 20-year-old woman to be middle aged. Finally, the statement
that infractions of the Christian code must necessarily create serious guilt feelings
is incorrect. Of course that would be the case if the girl had been raised in a
devoutly religious home. But according to Kinsey, 90 percent of the women who
had engaged in pre-marital coitus had no regrets whatever. (Kinsey, op. cit.,
1953, p. 316) I'm sure Dr. Brothers is aware of that; but she is also aware that if
she violates the "Code of the West," she will lose her newspaper column.

Even by speaking the English language, we tend subconsciously to assume, and
therefore perpetuate, these Christian doctrines. As Ray Russell pointed out in
Playboy, in proper English, there is no word for the act of love. There are plenty
of awkward, self-conscious, polysyllabic terms of medical jargon. And there are
oblique, poetic terms. There are also fairly common terms that require auxiliary
words – such as "they
had sex," or "he performed coitus with her," etc. But
there is no simple, short word, that can be used as noun, transitive verb, and
participle – like "kiss." "Give me a little kiss," noun. "I'd like to kiss you,"
transitive verb. "Kissing is fun," or "She got kissed," participle.  

Of course there is a word that fulfills all these functions perfectly – that is exactly
the same length as "kiss" – four letters, one syllable – that every English
speaking person knows, and whose lineage goes back to ancient Sanskrit. But it's
the most taboo word in the English language. Because that's just the problem: it's
too blunt; it gets straight to the point too quickly. And the nature of a taboo is
that it must always be approached indirectly. The totem must be kept hidden,
and its "true" name must never be spoken.

The same taboos apply to the genitals, erogenous zones, and all of their sexual
and excretory functions. These too have simple, short, utilitarian, Anglo-Saxon
names, which can be used as both nouns and transitive verbs. There are only
about a dozen of these words, and in actual practice, these are probably the most
frequently used words in the English language. We call them "dirty words."

Only a few years ago a publisher could go to prison for printing these words.
And even today, according to Post Office regulations, if a private individual
writes just one of these proscribed words in a private, first-class letter to a
friend, he is liable to a prison sentence.

In his book,
The Anatomy of Dirty Words, Edward Sagerin shows how our
sexual attitudes are conditioned by the ways in which we use "obscenity."
Intellectuals often feel that by using "obscene language" more freely, they are
helping to liberate the country from puritanism. But in fact the opposite may be
true, because the "real" meaning of any word is determined by the way it is
used. And if sexual words are used to express negative feelings, this manner of
usage gives a negative connotation to sexuality. As the dust jacket of his book
says,
... obscene words are today being used in two entirely
different ways. First there is the literal meaning: biological,
pertaining to sex, excretion, and the body; second, there are
the figurative meanings, that always carry a negative
connotation. How is it that the most common words to
describe sexual union also signify that a person has obtained
a raw deal? How is it that an individual is so clearly insulted if
he (or she) is equated with (their appropriate) sexual organ.
How is it that, in dirty words, to be filled with feces also means
to be a liar, or that an expletive of dismay is appropriated from
the synonym for testicles?
Parents often avoid acknowledging the existence of genitalia in their children,
except when necessity compels them to refer to the child's "thing."
Having been kept in deliberate ignorance, and having been
subjected to lies and evasions, the child learns at an early age
that the organs in question have names that are easy to say,
well understood, and highly forbidden.

The new words form what is called the vocabulary of the street,
the language of the gutter. The child learns that in each phrase
or word there is an emotionally-loaded characterization. [He
reasons that] the thing ... is filthy, because the word itself is
filthy.
But obviously, noises can't have any inherent dirtiness in them; they obtain this
characteristic by virtue of being taboo.

The child, however, may be
told that the organs are clean, it is only the words
that are dirty. But the child isn't so easily fooled by this kind of double-talk. He
intuitively knows that the parents do feel these organs are dirty, especially when
he sees that the names for them are used to express the strongest possible
negative feelings of hostility and contempt.

The assumption that the genitals are not to be seen or mentioned is clearly
expressed by calling them "privates." The assumption that sex is immoral is
expressed by calling any sex-offense charge a "morals charge," other crimes
apparently have nothing to do with "morality." Perhaps the "crime" was being
nude, which is called "indecent exposure." Masturbation is called "self-abuse."
Orgasm is called "pollution" (which comes right out of Leviticus.) Nude pictures
or literature about sex is called "dirty" and "obscene." The slang term for
orgasm is occasionally, "I got my revenge."
It would be difficult to imagine a linguistic device that would
express more accurately the aggressive and hostile attitude of
a man toward his partner.  (ibid. p. 155)
Even intellectuals say "screw you!" or its stronger equivalent, and mean it as an
insult. In a
pro-sexual society that would be wishing someone well!
In lower-economic groups, and among youngsters, particularly
in the urbanized areas of the eastern part of the U.S., semen is
called scum, and a condom is known as a scum bag.

The dictionary definition of scum is well known. Figuratively, it
is refuse, any waste, and particularly anything vile and
worthless. Scum is the epitome of all that is low, dirty, evil, and
vile ... the scum of the earth.

All that is repulsive and disgusting – to describe the life giving
fluid, the few drops of magical protoplasm in which are
contained the fertilizer that, upon reaching the egg, alone can
make another life.

How can children not be repelled by their vision of sex, how
can they not feel that they were begotten in sin, no matter how
much the adult world may seek to educate them to the contrary,
if the view of the world of reality is conditioned by a language
which states that semen is scum, and scum is all that is vile!

All that is vile and worthless – to describe the chemical
substances necessary and sufficient for the generation of life,
by which not only does man continue, but each man passes on,
through his genes and chromosomes his characteristics, so
that some of his individuality will continue in his child and in the
human race.

And this is scum! That is what our language calls these most
precious drops without which humanity could not continue. This
is more than simple irony. It is bitter tragedy. This is more than
a confession of [Christian] man's contempt for sex, his view of
sexuality as a generally dirty practice. It is a confession of his
contempt for life – particularly and specifically his own, the
human life.

And why not? Is this not the logic of his position? One starts
with contempt for the body and its functions, and where can
one end save with contempt for life contained in that body and
sustained by those functions? (op. cit.)
This is a perfect expression of Christianity's hatred of "mere earthly existence" –
their insistence that the only life which matters is the "one beyond the grave." Is it
any wonder then that Christianity has shed more blood than any other concept in
the history of the world? – two-thousand years of martyrs and ascetics, holy wars
and torture – crusades, inquisitions, purges, pogroms and witch burnings. Is it so
surprising that when most penologists would like to abolish capital punishment, the
single most powerful force for maintaining it is the Christian Church? Is It any
wonder that the Catholic Church is totally indifferent to the mass suffering,
starvation, and war caused by forbidding birth control? Is it so surprising that for
fifty years Hollywood frequently made two versions of each movie: one for
foreign audiences and one for Americans? For overseas consumption, extra loves
scenes were added; but for Americans, they cut the sex and added extra blood and
violence. Is It any wonder that the Ku Klux Klan, a club for organized sadism,
was spawned in the heart of the Bible Belt? Is It just an accident that their symbol
is fire and the cross?

The following is from an advertisement for a book by Dr. Frederick Wertham,
entitled
A Sign For Caine:
This time Dr. Wertham has set out to expose attitudes conscious
and otherwise, that act as breeding grounds for the callous
indifference to human suffering that has pervaded our lives so ...
insidiously ... whose results are blurted across the front page of
every newspaper in the world.

In his examination of television, Dr. Wertham found that in one week
of children's viewing time there were 334 completed or attempted
killings. A survey of toy manufacturers disclosed 'kill toys' for nursery
ages on up ....
"No, Junior, you can't play with yourself; that's sinful! Here now, be a good boy
and go play with your toy machine-gun. Pretend you're killing commies for
Christ."

So you see how our religion, our language, and our behavior all express an utter
contempt for the basic processes of life itself.

It's often argued that, on the contrary, our society is obsessed with sex. We're
assaulted by sexual enticements from every billboard, etc. Both of these
statements are true. But remember that we become obsessed with a desire only
when it remains unsatisfied. The satyr and nymphomaniac are extreme
examples. Because of deep-seated psychological inhibitions, no matter how hard,
or how often they try, they cannot attain complete release of sexual tension. The
"normal" American has the same problem, but to a lesser degree. And the first
law of rhetoric is that in order to manipulate an audience one must promise them
something they don't have, but want very badly. And what is the one biological
drive that remains chronically unsatisfied in America? Deep sexual satisfaction.
So of
course it's promised from every billboard. In more pro-sexual cultures,
other advertising techniques must be used.
* * * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED