You are on page 1of 27

“Obscenity Exemptions” for Educators Violate Children’s Civil Rights by

Triggering Traumatic Cultural Identity Conflicts in the Classroom
Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. and Mary E. McAlister, Esq.1

Executive Summary
Is there not charms
By which the property of youth and maidhood
May be abused? Have you not read, Roderigo, of
some such thing?
Shakespeare, Othello, the Moor of Venice Act I, Scene I

Initially, it is important to note that while we view Brown v. Board of Education,2 as a key
foundational case in our analysis, we are not seeking to draw comparisons between the struggles
endured by black children, their families, or their communities during segregation and the trauma
children experience when exposed to sexually explicit material packaged as sex
education. Instead, we focus and rely on Brown because of the Court’s clear finding that any
educational environment that demonstrably traumatizes children, regardless of the intent of the
school system and supposed justification to achieve some other politically desired outcome,
violates the Constitution’s protection.
The fact record of those advancing a sexually explicit sex-ed curriculum makes clear that almost
any treatment of sexuality is acceptable, a position this article and the Constitution rejects. As
will be discussed below, such efforts have included an attack on minority rights and an effort to
undermine traditional values among blacks. This article focuses on harms that are visited on
children of every race, creed, and religious tradition, not because of the topic— that could be
discussed in an age appropriate and careful way—but because a child or young person who
views sexually explicit images suffers real harm. Moreover, for those minors raised in homes
where traditional values are taught—which includes the vast majority of households in the
United States--being trained to see and accept sexual text/imagery that their upbringing rejects
undermines parental rights and creates conflicts between parents and their children. Such a
destructive pedagogy arguably violates long-recognized Constitutional protections.
As we will discuss below, studies by Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark established that exposure to
racially segregated environs, particularly classrooms, caused painful psychological trauma to
black children. That evidence was critical to the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial
segregation in schools in 1954 in the Brown decision. It is our contention that, just as empirical
evidence of emotional trauma ended racial segregation in Brown, so too should empirical
evidence of emotional trauma end sex education obscenity exemptions and thus eliminate the
eroticization of classrooms. For, indeed, childhood trauma has been well established as the
foundation for multiple psychological and physical lifelong difficulties.3
We will demonstrate that state-sanctioned educational4 “obscenity exceptions,” (see Minnesota
exception; Exhibits I and II) create Traumatic Cultural Identity Conflicts “due to the harmful
nature of the activity and the immature judgment of young people.”5 Exposure of children to

otherwise illegal material is made possible by “obscenity exemptions” granted to schools,
libraries and other organizations as well as to adults broadly and vaguely defined as people in
“parental relationships” with children.
Obscenity Exemptions Cause Traumatic Cultural Identity Conflicts
In 1914 Minnesota parents and the National Education Association were alarmed by the
hijacking of education by wealthy outside agencies with special agendas. An excerpt from the
conference follows:
We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—
agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the
policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and
to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions
which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of
democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal
schools, and universities.6
The alarming “menace” is clear in the reckless exposure of schoolchildren to obscenity. The
trauma of sexual stimuli for children is established by real science invalidating the make-believe
sexual fantasies originally spawned by Alfred Kinsey’s well-publicized Male and Female books
and promoted as sex education by “anti-repression” histrionics.7 Extant brain studies find
obscenity triggers an endogenous neurochemical cocktail of, “naturally occurring psychoactive
substance[s].”8 Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux’s observations below, apply to “obscenity
exception” effects--at home, schools, libraries--upon children and youth.
[LeDoux discovered]...something like a neural back alley—[that] allows the
amygdala to receive some direct inputs from the senses and start a response before
they are fully registered by the neocortex...The amygdala can have us spring to
action while the slightly slower…neocortex unfolds its more refined plan for
reaction…LeDoux overturned the prevailing wisdom about the pathways traveled
by emotions through his research on fear. 9
The brain’s functions explain why professionals who must view obscenity (police, the medical
community and others) operate under strict standards of care to mediate harm from exposure.10
However no standards of care are stipulated for educators, librarians or other adults, nor, more
importantly, for protection of children exposed to “obscenity” in the name of “sex education.”
Yet, the study of learning and memory reveals we acquire our ideas; “from experience and retain
these ideas over time in memory…”11 We will show brain science, social science, history and
literature demonstrate that ideas experienced via obscenity stress, shock, and thus interfere with
youthful12 learning and memory.13
Psychotropic fusion was identified more than 500 years ago by the Bard; “Murder's as near to
lust as flame to smoke…”14 “Love is all truth, Lust full of forged lies,”15 “Tears harden lust…. “ 16
And, “Th’ expense of spirit in a waste of shame; Is lust in action’ and till action, lust; Is perjur’d,
murd’rous, bloody, full of blame; Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust…17 Truly, the Bard


identified a psychotropic mix of “sexual” arousal with fear, meant to confuse and undermine
learning--and a child’s own identity.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s assessment in FCC. v. Fox is applicable to the effect of sexually explicit
material in classrooms. In FCC the Court rejected broadcasters’ arguments that the FCC could
allow an obscenity exemption for “fleeting expletives.” Judge Scalia said it was reasonable to
predict that exempting “fleeting” references to expletives would be harmful to children.18
[E]ven in the absence of evidence, the agency’s predictive judgment (which
merits deference) makes entire sense. To predict that complete immunity for
fleeting expletives, ardently desired by broadcasters, will lead to a substantial
increase in fleeting expletives seems to us an exercise in logic rather than
Justice Scalia suggested that gathering evidence of harm to children would be unconscionable.
“One cannot demand a multiyear controlled study, in which some children are intentionally
exposed to indecent broadcasts (and insulated from all other indecency), and others are shielded
from all indecency.”20
Here it suffices to know that children mimic the behavior they observe—or at
least the behavior that is presented to them as normal and appropriate.
Programming replete with one-word indecent expletives will tend to produce
children who use (at least) one-word indecent expletives. Congress has made the
determination that indecent material is harmful to children…21
If empirical evidence is not needed to prove that “fleeting expletives” are harmful to children,
then such evidence is not needed to prove that overt sexual text and images are harmful to
minors when filled with sex, sadism and, for example, 275 “F” words and their variations in
one 183 page book.22 Recommended as children’s “literature” by authorities such books,
lectures, films, are authoritatively delivered under color of “sex education,” health, reproductive
health, bullying prevention, diversity training and the like. As Justice Scalia said about fleeting
expletives in FCC, exposure to erotic pedagogy23 tends to produce children who mimic the
behavior observed. Indeed, the use of an obscenity exemption to deliberately expose children to
indecent text and images, under color of “education,” is precisely the kind of unconscionable
experimentation on children that the Supreme Court rejected in Fox.
There is no doubt that the Pre K - 12th grade school setting is being used as a laboratory for
imposing erotically stimulating, psychoactive substances on the immature brains, bodies and
memories of children. Neither the children nor their parents are capable of giving informed
consent to the unknown short- and long-term effects of premature exposure to sexual stimuli.24
(See Exhibits III-IV).
It can be argued that such premature sexual stimulation triggers Traumatic Cultural Identity
Conflicts for all children analogous to the psychological trauma imposed on segregated black
children prior to 1954. Just as black children finally exposed the ongoing harm inflicted on them
by departments of education’s racial experiment in Brown v. Board of Education, so too, child
victims of departments of education’s sexual experiment must finally expose the ongoing harm
inflicted on children by explicit sex education.

In Brown, the Court found that detrimental “psychological effects”25 of racially segregated
schools violated the civil rights of black children under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Correspondingly, the detrimental “psychological effects” of erotically
stimulating instruction violates the civil rights of all children so exposed under the Fourteenth
Amendment and under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1967.
Schools Seek to Reduce Trauma of Cultural Clashes Due to Cultural Diversity
As school integration prompted by Brown increased the cultural diversity of public schools, state
departments of education developed guidelines to reduce the potential for traumatic cultural
identity conflicts caused by clashes between children’s home, community and church cultures
and the school culture. In 1998 Minnesota’s department of education developed judicious,
sensible and precautionary guidelines for Reducing Bias in Special Education Assessment for
American Indian and African American Children A Vision For A Better Education. The
department cautioned school administrators and teachers to beware of “new expressions” that
challenged the cultural, emotional, spiritual and religious stability students bring with them to the
classroom from their families and communities. For example, the guidelines advised:
[B]e mindful that students as well as teachers are unique individuals who are also
members of groups….spiritual, emotional, and intellectual attributes, personal
history, and environmental experiences….Sattler (1998) defines acculturation as
“cultural change that….leads individuals to adopt elements of another culture,
such as values and social behaviors.” [Students may] “adopt the behavioral norms
and values of the dominant culture….This cultural dissonance often creates
conflict and stress within families…loss of a traditional way of life, religion, or
language may cause strong emotional responses lasting generations.”26
[Emphasis added].
On-going national challenges against “sex education” waged by parents, Judeo-Christian and
irreligious alike, who adhere to traditional American psychosexual morality, are evidence that
“sex educators” have not been and are not mindful of the cultural dissonance between the values
and behaviors taught in the classroom and the traditional cultural values taught in the home,
community and church. The “sex educators’” erotic pedagogy teaches conflicting normative
cultural values such as the normality of masturbation, multiple genders, sexual experimentation
and the safety of anal, oral and vaginal sex (if condoms are used correctly).27
As the department of education’s guidelines predicted, this cultural dissonance creates “conflict
and stress within families…loss of a traditional way of life….[which] may cause strong
emotional responses lasting generations.”28 As was true of the children in Brown, the conflict
between the school values and that of parents, religion, etc., “generates a feeling of inferiority as
to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to
be undone.” 29 For example, children whose school lessons on gender, sex, etc., violate their
families’ traditional way of life, are often isolated in special rooms during such class programs.
Naturally, this singles them out, often subjecting traditionalist youth to contemptuous ridicule
from peers as misfits who reflect outdated morality, uncool and unapproved. And,

heartbreakingly, leading the nonconforming youth to depression, anger and rebellion against
their family morality, and tragically, even to youthful suicide.30
Indeed, in its bias guidelines state education officials reiterated how the learning environment
can reshape students in ways that cause “dysfunctional and self-abusive behaviors…delayed
posttraumatic responses, generation gaps…”31 As a result:
Cultural stress and conflict can be an underlying cause of academic and/or
behavioral problems…Research has shown that single cultural responses to
acculturation can result in an increase in dysfunctional and self-abusive
behaviors…delayed posttraumatic responses, generation gaps….[and] may
include: Heightened anxiety, Confusion in locus of control, Withdrawal, Silence or
unresponsiveness, Response fatigue, Code-switching, Distractibility, Resistance to
change, Disorientation, Related behaviors … the student’s lack of success [can be]
related to a cultural difference or difficulty with acculturation.”32
The 1998 guidelines confirmed that educators are fully aware that some children silently suffer
trauma due to conflict between their home community and church cultures and the school
culture.33 That conflict will be even more pronounced due to the explicit sex talks and media
children undergo as a result of obscenity exemptions given to educational institutions. Indeed, as
discussed below, it is illegal to expose children to explicit sexual text and images outside of the
school environment. The distress caused by these conflicts will likely be more pronounced in the
minority communities as seen in a 1998 Minnesota Student Survey which asked participants
whether they experienced emotional distress. Students of minority race or cultural backgrounds
were more likely to report that they felt “stressed, sad, discouraged or hopeless, nervous or
worried all or most of the time.” For African American students the total was 19 percent; for
American Indian, 21 percent, for Asian/Pacific Islander, 22 percent, for Chicano/Latino, 22
percent, and for Whites, 14 percent.34
Notably, the guidelines for reducing bias address drug or alcohol use, but avoid questions about
the children’s exposure to “soft” or “hard” pornography or other inappropriately stimulating
obscenity, media, or sexual abuse. This is especially pronounced as the Internet and film also
pressure youth to sexually experiment. Still schools apparently ignore established research
findings that the classroom statistically includes roughly one in four girls and one in six boys
who are sexual abuse victims and who may experience suicidal ideation.35 “Sex education”
further traumatizes such anguished children by exposing them to sex talk technically cloaked as,
e.g., “diversity” and AIDS education or “bullying” prevention and the like.
The Obscenity Exemption Exploits the Developing Brain
Minnesota law prohibits young people from performing certain activities….due
to the harmful nature of the activity and the immature judgment of young
people, it is necessary to place stricter controls on youths than adults.36
Federal and state laws generally protect children from exposure to obscenity and indecency
through criminal and civil penalties. For example:


It is “illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or
possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as
drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in
sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene….The matter involving
minors can be deemed obscene if it (i) depicts an image that is, or appears to be
a minor engaged in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual
intercourse and (ii) if the image lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value….18 U.S.C. §1466A.37
Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity,
sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently
offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is
suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value for minors….38
While there is no doubt about the harm caused by (i) and (ii), even materials that do not fall
within those definitions, can be seen as harmful under (iii) in that they can be shown to amount
to “verbal shock treatment.” If the “emotive function” (not cognition) is the “overall message
sought to be communicated,” then the child’s processing of “obscenity” clearly serves the
emotive functions, creating shock and anxiety as the sensations cascade down from the
undeveloped brain39 to the targeted sexual organs to create premature sexual arousal. Despite
these harms, some states exempt certain adults from obscenity (or “harmful matter”) laws.
Educators, parents and pseudo-parents, etc., are legally exempt to some extent in Minnesota,
Alabama, California, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
From Damaging Racial Segregation to Damaging “Erotic Pedagogy”40
Brown and FCC showcased how children are mentally and emotionally impaired by
psychological assaults within learning environments. In Brown, children were harmed by the
formal educational environment of the classroom. In FCC children were harmed by the informal
educational environment of the media. The evidence shows that vulnerable children are
psychologically injured by Traumatic Cultural Identity Conflicts via erotic pedagogy in the
Just as racist laws opened African-American children to assaults on their minds, bodies and
memories in Brown, so, too, do obscenity and indecency exemptions potentially open all children
to libidinous assaults on their minds, bodies and memories. In both cases, children’s values,
therefore, their sense of identity, self-control and judgment are impeded, “lessening the security”
of their lives,42 liberty, and mental property. In the case of erotic pedagogy, the psychological
assault also exposes the child to the risk of becoming victims of predators or, in increasing cases,
child predators themselves.
As the Supreme Court said in Brown, the impact of psychological assaults on children’s minds,
bodies and memories “is greater when it has the sanction of the law….”43 The Brown Court
found that:
A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn[,]”44 “has a

tendency to (retard) the educational and mental development of Negro children and
to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated
school system.”45
It generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may
affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.46
We will show how brain science and social science confirms our premise that premature
exposure to sexual stimuli creates similar values conflicts causing problems of inferiority in
children’s “hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”47 In fact, African-American
children were the first “guinea pigs” for the social experimentation of educator “obscenity
exemptions” that would soon spread to all public school students.
Black Children: First Test Subjects for Educator Obscenity Exemptions
The brochure, “Public Schools of the District of Columbia, curriculum in health and family life
education, Kindergarten -- Grade 12, 1961-1962,” stated that:
[The family life education program was an] integral part of the curriculum of
eleven pilot schools since September 1958. In the fall of 1959 the number of pilot
schools was increased to forty-one. An additional thirty-one schools were added
in September of 1960.48
In 1954 the Supreme Court ended a decades’ long battle against racial segregation in schools led
primarily by African American parents. In 1957, Roth v. US, Justice William O. Douglas,
regarded as a giant intellectual contributor to education law, cited for “sexual authority” to the
Kinsey studies to claim the court was wrong to view obscenity as harmful. This opinion would
shortly have ramifications for black school children. Kinsey (a closet obscenity addict),49 had
demonstrated that obscene “literature” (Douglas strangely defined as “sex knowledge”) was a
minor “sexual stimulant.”
The Kinsey studies show the minor degree to which literature serves as a potent
sexual stimulant. And the studies demonstrating that sex knowledge seldom
results from reading indicates (sic) the relative unimportance of literature in sex
thoughts as compared with other factors in society.' Lockhart & McClure, op. cit.
supra, pp. 385—386.” Justice Douglass cited in turn to a 1954 article in the
Minnesota Law Review, Lockhart & McClure, Literature, The Law of Obscenity
and the Constitution, 38 Minn.L.Rev. 295, 387.50
Just four years post Brown and one year after Douglas’ education analysis, black children were
again subjected to traumatic cultural identity conflicts which challenged and ridiculed the morals
and values of black parents. In 1958 black children were chosen as the first experimental subjects
for school endorsed obscenity as sex knowledge. Absent informed consent from their parents or
children, graphic sex education was originally tested on black children in Washington D.C. Sex
researchers targeted the black community to pilot their erotic pedagogy. The first school based
clinics were set up in Washington, D.C., where the black population was near 80 percent.

A 1969 article in the old Washington D.C., Sunday Star headline reported "SEX EDUCATION
FILMS CANDID, EXPLICIT.” The largely black school board voted to censor talk about
contraception or sexual intercourse to the scorn of largely white administrators. Over parental
objections, children were shown “explicit” films with “frank and direct” narratives on “barnyard
animals mating” -- recommended for 3 to 10 year olds! The Star reported that school children
viewed: “…animated drawings, of the male ejaculation. The narrator says, ‘It is nature’s way of
passing the sperm into the female body during sexual intercourse.’”51 The Star stated that in the
late 1960s Washington D.C. school administrators purchased a torso model “with male and
female genital organs” for use in the sex “reeducation” process.
Again, the experiment on black children occurred over the clear objections of the largely black
elected school board and African-American parents. But, who were these trained sex
educators who claimed to be better qualified than black parents to instill normative and
healthy sexual values in their children? Sexology as a field did not exist prior to Alfred
Kinsey’s books on human sexuality in 1948 and 1953,52 so there was no teacher training
beyond traditional courses on health and hygiene—no explicit, stimulating sexual conduct
lessons for children.
Primary Sex Education Resource is SIECUS: “We Are Not Authorities”
Eight years after the launch of explicit sex education for black schoolchildren in 1966, at a
Princeton sex education seminar, Dr. Mary Calderone, SIECUS (Sex Information and
Education Council of the United States, 1964) head and former Planned Parenthood medical
director, complained about a dearth of non-traditional information that could be transformed
into a new paradigm that would be called “sex education.” SIECUS had “six professionals” on
its board she said, and “several representatives of the Kinsey group.”53 It is now known that
Kinsey and his co-authors were secretly engaged in promiscuous homosexual and bisexual
activities, etc.54 Calderone stated three times that there were, as yet, no “authorities” on sex.
There are no authorities—believe me—in this field….I have already mentioned that
there are no authorities in this field….We in SIECUS have published three
discussion guides: Sex Education, Homosexuality, and Masturbation….Yet we are
not authorities.55
Indeed, Calderone mused, the “masturbation pamphlet that we publish today”56 may be wrong
and shortly gutted.57 By 1979, SIECUS, now the US sex authority stated, “Calderone likened
this task to the spreading of a “new religion” … first to make its adults convert….[so] children
will flourish.”58 By 1980, "awareness of the vital importance of infant and childhood sexuality"
was the primary goal of SIECUS,59 and by 1983 a child's sexual capacities should “be
developed-in the same way as the child's inborn human capacity to talk or to walk.60
The Kinsey group would become the authorities and direct the new sexuality paradigm. So who
were these people that taught black children about sex, over the strong objections of black
parents and the school board? They were Playboy funded SIECUS and Kinsey “non-authorities”
who began in 1958 to gut the Judeo-Christian sexual morality that had been traditionally taught in
schools, reshaping law and then conduct. As we discussed above, the “non-authorities” replaced the

traditional model of chastity before marriage and fidelity within with explicit text and imagery
describing all manner of sexual conduct by humans and animals.
Therefore, since the 1950s Washington D.C.’s elected school board and black parents were
circumvented by sex educator “non-authorities” who were sure they understood “children’s
sexuality” scientifically. Consequently, they saw themselves as better qualified than the parents
to direct sex education. At the time they sold this “education” as a cure for teen pregnancy and
venereal disease.
How successful has the new sexology paradigm been for the largely working and middle class
black youth of Washington D.C.? Parallel to this new sex education, every measure of sexual
disease, despair and crime skyrocketed statistically as children mimicked what they were
taught.61 Elayne Bennett, writes, “Of all the major cities, Washington, D.C. leads the country
with out-of-wedlock teen births, soaring to a rate of 95 percent just three years ago.”62 So, the
black parents with “only” M.O.M and D.A.D. degrees63, who had trained their children with
strongly held morals and values and opposed the “professional” mostly white, liberal elite, sex
educators were proven correct.
Nationwide, the failure of those sex educators is seen in hard data seen in the tragically high rate
of abortion among young black women, “today the illegitimacy rate among African Americans is
nearly 70 percent, a figure far higher than had ever existed even in the days of Jim Crow
segregation or, before that, slavery.”64
This is exactly the scenario that the Brown Court sought to prevent. The Court found that
because of the racially segregated educational environment, black children had a well-developed
belief that black children were inferior to white children.65 Evidence of psychological damage
led to the Court’s decision to dismantle segregation. Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark, whose
research was instrumental in the Brown decision concluded:
These results seem most significant from the point of view of what is involved in
the development of a positive, constructive program for more wholesome
education the need for a definite mental hygiene and educational program that
would relieve children of the tremendous burden of feelings of inadequacy and
inferiority which seem to become integrated into the very structure of the
personality as it is developing.66
However, the wholesome educational environment sought in Brown failed to materialize. Within
four years, the eroticization of the children was launched, this time not merely discriminating
against black children but all public school children. John Stuart Mill warned:
A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly
like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the
predominant power in the government…it establishes a despotism over the mind,
leading by natural tendency to one over the body. 67
Beyond any despotism over mind and body envisioned by Mill, the state’s eroticized
environment discussed below, threatens wholesome education, metal hygiene, and feelings of
adequacy and self-identity in whole new ways. This time, not only black children, but all public

school students are exposed to obscene imagery. In 1958 this included films, drawings and
models of animal copulation and ejaculation “harmful to minors” under cover of sex education
(by “non-authorities” identified by Calderone).
This created unfamiliar, disturbing erotic fantasies to arouse and confuse children divorcing them
from “reality.” The images used in sex education predominately if not exclusively featured
Playboy-type idealized blonde, white females.68 Drs. Clark’s research on “Emotional Factors In
Racial Identification,” showed, in part, that black children preferred white dolls over black dolls.
These data helped shape the Brown decision on segregation.69 Now, while black children may no
longer compare themselves to white dolls, they are being trained via Erotic Pedagogy to compare
themselves with Playboy-type nude, white “paper dolls.”70
As we will show below, this erotic training has had appalling consequences for all public school
Misleading Social Science Sets the Stage for Erotic Pedagogy
Contrary to the government’s stated purpose of protecting the well-being of the nation’s youth, it
is now well established by brain researchers that exposing children to profanity and obscenity
threatens their physical and psychological well-being. While a recitation of innuendo-laden
literature such as Geoffrey Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale would hardly interest most children,71 its
sexualized dramatization would indeed spark their interest. Unlike Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale,
today’s sex education curriculum is designed to be understood and mimicked by even the
youngest elementary school student. Furthermore, with today’s youth widely exposed to
pornography, it is likely that children even under the age of 12 would understand sexual
innuendo, meaning recitation of even innuendo-laden literature, let alone explicit sex education
materials, would have a “negative effect.”72
Children now mimic obscenity worldwide based on deceptive education and legal decisions and
a misguided “understanding” of child “sexuality.” Building on Kinsey’s “data” on child
“sexuality” in his reports on human sexuality, which were based upon criminal sexual abuse of
children as young as two months (see Exhibit III), social scientists have advocated for lessening
of restrictions on children’s exposure to explicit sexuality. For example, in 1950, the Group for
the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) undermined a child’s civil rights. GAP claims by age 7 a
child can be responsible for his or her sex abuse.
With One Adult.…persons under 7 . . . . many are by endowment and training
fully capable of part or exceptionally even full responsibility for sexual
behavior….in the later age levels the legal concepts of rape and of contributing to
delinquency become increasingly untenable.73
GAP stated that “Kinsey’s data were the points by which we steered”74 when it made its
outrageous claims. The fallout from reliance upon Kinsey’s data is immeasurable. A recent story
from the United Kingdom illustrates what happens when children mimic what they see in explicit
sex education “lessons.”


A 13-year-old boy confessed in court that he raped a girl of the same age after
they both had attended the mandatory sex education lessons…. [A] large majority
of both boys and girls complained that sex education often presents promiscuity
as normal, putting additional pressure on them to become sexually active before
they might otherwise do so. [Said one 18-year-old girl] “I always felt pressured by
teachers, like, ‘sex is normal, just be safe OK’ when actually I wasn’t interested in
having sex at the time and was happy to wait for the right person.”75
This sexual violence tragically is but one illustration of the psychological and even physical
harm children experience resulting from the Traumatic Cultural Identity Conflicts caused by the
unmonitored explicit “sex education” experiment.
These effects of explicit sex education, while tragic, are not entirely unexpected in light of the
fact that sex education regularly points children to pornography for information.76 Therefore, it is
appropriate to view pornography as “informal” sex education that has become increasingly a part
of the lives of children. Its harmful effects on family life, particularly in the black community,77
is a cause of grave concern:
As Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler have a sizeable black male readership, and as
these materials undeniably suggest a “perfect” or “ideal” beauty (white, generally
blonde, young), it is reasonable to speculate about the ramifications on black
wives and girlfriends of black men and boys reading such magazines or viewing
similar films and videos. [that] essentially engaged in a marketing or advertising
activity for the white female as both “ideal” and as the ultimate object of
sexual/genital arousal and gratification. The impact of such pictorial stimuli on
black adults and juvenile male and female perspectives of beauty and desirability
is a crucial area of needed speculation and research….Current concerns raised by
the black community regarding disintegrating heterosexual harmony and the
vanishing black family focuses on a crisis in personal identity. Certainly there is a
need for research in this area.78
The Teenage Brain Cannot Defend Itself From Adult-Centric Stimuli
The adverse effects of pornography demonstrate that doctrine of “erotic pedagogy” has no place
in the field of public education. Congress declared the 1980s “the decade of the brain,” and the
resulting years of research, such as the images from Dr. Jay Geidd, chief of Brain Imaging, Child
Psychiatric Branch, National Institutes of Health (Exhibits) have documented the need for
protection due to youth. The development of functional magnetic imagery, allows us to examine
The Secrets of The Teenage Brain.
Here we see the time it takes for the average brain to develop cognitive abilities. Magnetic
imagery scans of a composite of typical brains demonstrate that cognitive maturity is not reached
until roughly age 20 or more, shown in color when there is a shift from red (least mature) to blue
(most mature). (Exhibit IV)


Perhaps the most useful Geidd scans for the educator considering erotic pedagogy is the
breakdown into school years; preschool, middle school, high school, and later, with
corresponding ages, 5years, 8½ years, 13years, 16½ years, and 20 years (Exhibit V):
The areas depicted in red, green, and yellow are very underdeveloped, the areas
depicted in blue have completed approximately half their basic development and
the area depicted in bright lavender are developmentally mature – these areas
have completed their developmental foundation. (Exhibit V).
Therefore, these scans demonstrate that “age appropriate” sex information must be something
reserved for mature years, as tradition and history have always said.
Finally, Dr. Geidd’s brain scans show in full color that powerful stimuli are inherently
subversive of children’s developing cognitive functions. In the brain illustration at Exhibit V, a
red arrow points to the frontal lobe, where personality resides and where emotions, problem
solving, reasoning, planning and other complex functions have to be managed. Our frontal lobe
is linked to the sensory and memory centers of the brain. When the brain reaches maturity, we
can think things through more rationally since our higher-level thinking is supported by our
frontal lobes. “Without fully functioning frontal lobes, you may have intelligence, but you
wouldn’t be able to put it to use.”79 Geidd states, with emphasis in the original:
The teenage brain’s “self-control” center is responsible for: risk-taking, impulse,
emotion, self-restraint and judgment. These are NOT yet developed! (Exhibit
The immature brain experiences trauma when children are prematurely forced to deal with
emotive, non-cognitive stimuli—which would include sexual stimuli. Therefore, sexual stimuli
in the form of language and imagery in an eroticized classroom creates Traumatic Cultural
Identity Conflicts. Introducing sexual stimuli is incompatible with the proper role of education,
which should be to permit youth to learn, to handle impulses and emotions and to make mature
judgments in a non-eroticized environment.
Sex Education As Denial of Equal Protection
Exposing public school students to sexual stimuli under the guise of “sex education” can be said
to violate their right to equal protection under the law. Children not enrolled in school are
protected from exposure to harmful sexual images by laws criminalizing such exposure.
However, children who attend school are denied that legal protection by obscenity exemptions
which permit educators to assault undeveloped brains with sexual imagery and language.80
Sex education was and is touted as the cure for sexual dysfunction. In fact, however, such
dysfunctions have increased exponentially, and wholly new ones have surfaced. Dr. Larry
Cuban,81 former Professor of Education at Stanford University, confirmed that while sex
education was sold to the public as a panacea for teen pregnancy and venereal disease, it has in
fact created the opposite result, i.e., increases in teenage pregnancy and massive rates of venereal
disease, including heretofore unknown strains. Looking at the brain data we can see why

premature exposure to sexual language and imagery would increase, not minimize dysfunction.
Immature brains incapable of processing erotic information are, by definition, shocked and
confused and lack the ability to utilize the information in a productive, age-appropriate manner.
The consequences of that trauma are readily apparent. Prior to the sexual revolution, most
children in black and white families were born to married couples. In 1940, with abortion still
criminal and contraception restricted to married couples, only 2 percent of white children and 14
percent of black children were born out of wedlock. Diana Elliott, Research Manager for Pew’s
Economic Mobility Project reported on unwed childbearing by race since 1930. “Race
differences are particularly interesting, as black women were more often married than white
women prior to World War II, (Exhibit VII). Yet since the 1980s black and white women have
been increasingly less likely to be married.”82
After the 1960s sexual revolution and the “War on Poverty,” black “illegitimacy” went from
14% in 1930 to 25% in 1964 to 50% in 1976 to 72% in 2008. White “illegitimacy” went from
2% in 1930 to 20% in 1960 to 29% in 2008.83
The largely white elitist-led sexual revolution, spurred on by sex education—for blacks begun in
1958—has overwhelmed black communities. Diminution of black marriage, the massive increase
in black abortion, pornography use and the high rate of black male imprisonment,84 are some of
the results of changes in cultural morals since the sexual revolution.85
The result of “obscenity exemptions” that permit the stirring of children’s sexual strata
neurochemically through school sex education is really erotic pedagogy. Since at least 1969 in
Minnesota such erotic pedagogy facilitated by obscenity exemptions for sex “education” has
sexually traumatized both black and white children.
Arguably, pornography has differentially penalized the black community. The main attractions in
“soft” pornography, recommended by sex education authorities, are white, blonde, slender, large
bosomed girls and very young women.86 This distorted view of female desirability will cause
additional identity and self-respect problems for adolescent black girls and women as well as
boys and men. Additional effects will be seen in the white population’s view of black women.87
Conclusion: Take Action to Eradicate The Exemptions
This modern day psychologically damaging experimental “educational” environment should be
eradicated starting with the repeal of obscenity exemptions except in the context of law
enforcement and medicine. This should be approached not only through grassroots activism by
parents, but also through legal challenges similar to that brought by the African-American
parents in Brown. As well as constitutional challenges based upon the Fourteenth Amendment,
parents should consider actions for civil rights violations under Title IX.
Similar efforts have already been launched both by the federal government and private attorneys
with regard to sexual assaults on college campuses. The Obama administration announced “Title
IX investigations” of schools “suspected of denying students…equal right to education by
inadequately handling sexual-violence complaints.”88 In addition, Attorney Wendy Murphy filed
“Title IX complaints and lawsuits against schools” for creating traumatic cultural identity

conflicts. “These schools love to pretend they protect the children as if they were their own, but
that’s not true: They’re interested in money,” Murphy says.89
Another avenue would be a legal challenge for civil rights violations and other damages against
departments of education based upon educational malpractice.90 Rena Lindevaldsen, interim
dean at Liberty University School of Law, summarized this approach:
[S]chool districts have an obligation to provide accurate information to the
students entrusted to their care. When they abdicate that responsibility, they
should be held liable in tort and for violating the fundamental liberty interest of
parents who expect schools to educate and not harm their children.91
Armed with the new empirical evidence regarding the psychological trauma imposed by the
eroticized classroom, those who want to protect children and begin the process of healing should
take action by seeking the repeal of all state laws that exempt schools, libraries, museums and
those in a undefined “parental relationship” with a child from exposing children to obscenity. In
addition, those interested in change should institute procedural actions to prevent surreptitious
introduction of eroticized material in schools. Distributors of materials used in schools must
assure the lawfulness and conditionality of their material. Before funding is approved all human
sexuality materials should be screened and approved by a panel of 12 parents, the same as a jury
in court, and children of the age group for which materials are designed. Such a panel should
review and approve not only “sex education” curriculum, but speakers, videos, and other
materials such as young adult literature which is made available via the classroom or library.
All of these approaches involve novel legal theories, but so too did Lawrence v. Texas, and Roe
v. Wade, which furthered Kinseyan worldview and which have been used to further the leftist
agenda. More notably, recent victories in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church &
School v. E.E.O.C.,92 and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,93 demonstrate how novel legal
theories can be used to help restore the Judeo-Christian worldview.
This discussion raises additional questions outside the parameters of our paper but certainly we
welcome other scholars to weigh into the conversation. History is made and positive change is
realized when novel legal theories are developed and boldly presented. Those who seek to
protect children must not shy away from being catalysts for such change. We argue that the
“obscenity exception” mislabeled sex education is a flagrant example of the charms by which the
property of youth and maidhood may indeed be abused.
Is there not charms
By which the property of youth and maidhood
May be abused? Have you not read, Roderigo, of
some such thing?
Shakespeare, Othello, the Moor of Venice Act I, Scene I.


Exhibit I



Exhibit II


Exhibit III
Page 180, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)
One of five tables depicting systematic sexual abuse of infants and boys in the
name of “science.” Kinsey’s description of child “orgasm” can be found on pages


Exhibit IV


Exhibit IV


Exhibit V


Exhibit VI















Judith Gelernter Reisman, PhD., Research Professor, Liberty University School of Law, Director, Liberty
Center for Child Protection with Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel with Liberty Counsel.
Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
See for example,,, , and
“Education: the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of
reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life….the
science or art of teaching; pedagogics.”
Psychological Bulletin, Vol 99(1), Jan 1986, 66-77.
Youth and the Law, A Guide for Legislators House Research Department at 75 (Revised: December 2012).

The Normal School Section of The National Education Association at its annual meeting in St.
Paul, Minnesota passed a Resolution relevant to the current case, In C.T. Iserbyt, Former Senior
Policy Advisor, U.S. Department of Education, the deliberate dumbing down of america at 10 (2011).
Led originally by Planned Parenthood and the Sex Information and Education Counsel of the United States
(SIECUS). See Judith Reisman, "Soft Porn" Plays Hardball, Kinsey, Sex & Fraud, Sexual Sabotage, Stolen
Honor, Stolen Innocence, and my various articles on the sex education “field,”,
Donald L. Hilton, Jr and Clark Watts, Pornography addiction: A neuroscience perspective, 2 Surg Neurol
Int. 19 (2011), Natural drugs that induce arousal
experience a burst of excitatory transmitters and an emotional cocktail mix of psychoactive drugs,
including but not limited to “testosterone, (a steroid) dopamine, nor-epinephrine (adrenalin), serotonin,
oxytocin, endorphins, (“endogenous morphines’”) Candace Pert, cited in Bill Moyers, Healing and the
Mind, Doubleday, New York, 1993, at 177.
Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York 1995, at 18.
Judith Reisman, Picture Poison: Viewing Pornography for a Living Can Be Deadly; SV10.pdf; Hazmats by Judith Reisman, Harmful to
Minors, Porn, Sex Ed & Their Accomplices;
Science, Vol. 294, November 2, 2001, at 1031.
Sex teachers, speakers and librarians recommend ‘young adult’ novels which carry these same stressful
messages often deliberately obscene, rated at UG, upper grade but also graded at reading levels as low as
third grade based on the Accelerated Reader index.

Sex images, demonstrations, and written material shock, stress and arouse the youthful adrenalin,
amygdala and limbic emotional reward system and trigger the stress hormone, cortisol. Elevated
cortisol levels interfere with learning and memory and are a “potential trigger for mental illness and
decreased resilience—especially in adolescence.” See documentation of the epidemic of child sex abuse in
all areas of life today, and especially educator abuse via S.E.S.A.M.E., Inc. “Stop Educator Sexual Abuse
Misconduct and Exploitation” by teachers and school staff,
Pericles, Prince of Tyre, Act 1, Scene I.
Venus and Adonis 799-804.
The Rape of Lucrece, 560, this is an excellent exposition of lust and its melding of hostility, shame, etc.
See Booth, Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Sonnet 129, Yale University Press, 1977.
F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 518-19 (2009).
Id. at 521. Moreover, the use of “anal sex” and “oral sex” in sex education texts, under the smokescreen of
the “context” of “AIDS and bullying prevention,” does not erase the fact that the “power to insult and
offend derives from its sexual meaning….the patent offensiveness of even isolated uses of sexual and
excretory words….,” would wire associations of shock, confusion, shame, and stimulating arousal for


vulnerable minors. See id. at 517.
Id. at 519.
Rachel Cohn and David Levithan, Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, a Borzoi Book, Alfred A. Knopf,
2006. Accelerated Reader description: UG, 5.6 “High school student Nick O’Leary, member of a rock
band, meets college-bound Norah Silverberg and asks her to be his girlfriend for five minutes in order to
avoid his ex-sweetheart.” Award Winners-YALSA Top Ten; Award Winners-Kirkus Editors Choice/Best
Book; Award Winrs-ALA Best Book for Young Adults; Community Life-School; People-Teenagers;
Recommended Reading-YALSA Quick Picks for Reluctant YA; Recommended Reading-IRA - Young
Adults' Choice; Recommended Reading-YALSA Popular Paperbacks; Recommended Reading-YALSA
Best Books for YA. Another of scores of similar “literature, ”Megan McCafferty. Sloppy firsts :
Accelerated Reading level (AR): UG 5.2 (Upper Grades 9 th-12th and written on a fifth grade, second
month reading level) Published by Three Rivers Press, New York, New York—a division of Random
House, Inc., 2001. Copies at West Warwick Jr/Sr High School (WWH),
“F—k! It’s just an IQ,” grunted Camel Toe when she saw me. “ “F—k! I just lit that cigarette,” griped
her friend. “What the f—k?” asked the third, murdering me with her black-lined eyes. “Why didn’t you
give the f—kin’ code?” I apologized for forgetting to say “It’s cool” as I walked in. The code. The f—kin’
code.” “You better be f—kin’ sorry,” said Camel Toe. “You made me waste a f—kin’ cigarette.” I wasn’t
sure where wasting a f—kin’ cigarette fell on the Hoochie brawling scale, but I wasn’t about to find out. “
(pp 88-89). The word, fuck is fully spelt out in the book. Accelerated Reader’s description: When her best
friend moves away, hyper-observant sixteen-year-old Jessica is devastated. A fish out of water at school
and a stranger at home, Jessica feels more lost than ever now that the only person with whom she could
really communicate has gone. Award Winners-YALSA Top Ten; Community Life-School; EmotionsLoneliness; Interpersonal Relationships-Friendship; Recommended Reading-YALSA Popular Paperbacks;
Recommended Reading-YALSA Quick Picks for Reluctant YA; Recommended Reading-NY Publ. Library
Best Books for the Teen Age.” Children’s literature.








Pedagogy: the art, science, or profession of teaching; especially: education., Men, Psychological, Relationships, Research, Sexual Violence, Societal,
Statistics See, e.g., your brain on porn, news reports of schoolgirl rapes.
Brown, 347 U.S. at 494-95 n11.
Minnesota Department of Education, Reducing Bias in Special Education Assessment for American Indian
and African American Children A Vision For A Better Education 15 (1998) available at http: This document recognized that many
youth were entering school in states of “depression and anxiety” and/or using prescription drugs or other
These “normative values” taught as objective truth are, in fact, harmful misrepresentations. For example,
nowhere are children or their parents informed that no condom was ever approved by the FDA for the
safety or effectiveness of anal or oral sex—even when used exactly as outlined and followed explicitly.
Reducing Bias, supra note 14, at 15.
Brown, 347 U.S. at 494, 1954. This would also be the outcome of experimenting on Minnesota children
with the passage of the “Safe and Supportive MN Schools Act – SF783.” That bill would create one
universal value system for everyone by rewiring the minds of all children. Anyone who opposes will be
silenced through remediation and re-education.
Transgender suicide:
See, Reducing Bias, supra note 14, at 15.
Minnesota Department of Education, The ELL Companion to Reducing Bias in Special Education












Evaluation at 125,
Browne, Angela Browne; David Finkelhor, Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol 99(1), Jan 1986, 66-77.
Youth and the Law, A Guide for Legislators House Research Department at 75 (Revised: December
See Citizen´s Guide to U.S. Federal Child Pornography Laws,
See id.
All brain images are from Dr. Jay Geidd, chief of Brain Imaging, Child Psychiatric Branch, National
Institutes of Health (USA) and reprinted in Secrets of the Teen Brain, TIME (May 2, 2003).
David Goicoecha, Erotic Pedagogy’s Noble Lie, 22 INTERCHANGE 57-65 (1991), Available at visited December 1, 2014)
Goicoecha recounts the history of “erotic pedagogy’s” roots in Socrates and Germany’s pre-Hitler youth
movement. See also, Cameron Fraser and Davida Garvin, Erotic pedagogy: a student’s and professor’s
perspectives (2011): “Defining erotic pedagogy… Learning and teaching are undeniably erotic—even the
expressions we use: touching young minds, shaping, molding, engaging, etc. And yet there is an undeniable
fear among educators, policy makers, and the public about embracing this eroticism as part of the
university experience.” See (last visited December 1, 2014) However, with the “obscenity
exception” and its extensions, this has become a practice at the youngest of years and the earliest of grades.
See also, Aimee Carrillo Rowe, Erotic Pedagogies, 59 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 1031-1056 (2012),
describing the “role of Audre Lorde's notion of the erotic as transformative pedagogical practices that can
empower teachers and students to passionate learning and community formation.” See (last visited December 1, 2014).
Brown, 347 U.S. at 495, citing the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
Id. at 492 n.5
Id. at 494.
Id. at 494.
Id. This would be the outcome of experimenting on Minnesota children with the passage of the “Safe and
Supportive MN Schools Act – SF783.” That bill would create one universal value system for everyone by
rewiring the minds of all children. Anyone who opposes will be silenced through remediation and reeducation.
Public Schools of the District of Columbia, curriculum in health and family life education, Kindergarten -Grade 12, 1961-1962.
Judith Reisman, STOLEN HONOR, STOLEN INNOCENCE (Orlando, New Revolution Publishers, 2013); See
also, James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, A PUBLIC/PRIVATE LIFE, (New York, W.W. Norton & Company,
1997); Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, SEX, THE MEASURE OF ALL THINGS, (London: Chatto & Windus, 1998). Douglas cited to research which
was, at the time, groundbreaking on juvenile criminality, saying the Gluecks showed that juvenile
delinquents don’t read, hence “literature” was not a cause of bad behavior. “The Gluecks have repudiated
the traditional preventives usually prescribed: the banning of comic books, radio and television shows,
which depict criminal episodes….”
Sex Education Films Candid, Explicit, THE SUNDAY STAR, June 29, 1969. The American Library
Association quotes Justice Douglas for its position on their right to the “obscenity exception”; "Restriction
of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that
could most easily defeat us."—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas," The One Un-American Act."
Nieman Reports , vol. 7, no. 1 (Jan. 1953): p. 20.






Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE (W. B. Saunders,
Philadelphia, 1948); Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN FEMALE
(W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1953).
Mary Calderone, et al, SEX EDUCATION AND THE SCHOOLS, at ix, 2-6 (Harper and Row, New York.
1967). See, Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines authority as; “ Legal power, or a right to command or to
act; as the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children.”.
Judith Reisman, STOLEN HONOR, STOLEN INNOCENCE (Orlando, New Revolution Publishers, 2013); See
also, James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, A PUBLIC/PRIVATE LIFE, (New York, W.W. Norton & Company,
1997); Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, SEX, THE MEASURE OF ALL THINGS, (London: Chatto & Windus, 1998).
Calderone, supra, note 38 (emphasis added).
SIECUS Report, November 1979, at 6.
Calderone, Ob.Gyn.News, December 1, 1980, at 10.

SIECUS Report, May-July 1983, at 9, see this list of zero to three “standards” by Barbara
Huberman, RN, Med, Director of Education and Outreach, October 2002, Advocates for Youth--Huberman is listed on the advisory committee for the National Sexuality Education Standards
[ Sexual Development]
“Most children aged zero to three will:
Be curious and explore their own body and others' bodies
Experience an erection or vaginal lubrication
Touch their genitals for pleasure
Talk openly about their bodies
Be able to say and understand, when taught, the appropriate names for body parts (head, nose,
stomach, penis, vulva, etc.)….”
“Advocates for Youth are part of the National Sexuality Education Standards----The Future of Sex
Education (FoSE) Initiative is a partnership between Advocates for Youth, Answer and the Sexuality
Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) that seeks to create a national dialogue about the
future of sex education and to promote the institutionalization of comprehensive sexuality education in
public schools. To learn more, please visit”








See Judith Reisman and Margaret Bocek, “Backgrounder on Marketing of Sexual Reeducation,” October
1989, in the author’s archive,
See also, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of STD Prevention Sexually Transmitted
Disease Surveillance 2013 (December 2014).
Collins, New York, 2014).
In other words, the only “education” that these parents had (or needed) was that they were “mom” and
“dad,” and therefore knew what was best for their children as opposed to the professionals with their Ph.D.
and M.S. degrees.
John Perazzo, Black Americans As Victims Of The Left, Discover the Networks June 2008,
Kenneth B. Clark, Some Principles Related to the Problem of Desegregation, 23 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO
EDUCATION, 339-47 (1954), discussing his testing of African-American children, which was used in Brown
to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson.
Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie P. Clark, Emotional Factors in Racial Identification and Preference in Negro
Children 19 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO EDUCATION, No. 3, The Negro Child in the American Social Order,
at 341-350; 350 (Summer, 1950).
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1869 Chapter V: Applications.

















See, John Parker, Sex, Lies & Pornography in Black America, DESTINY (August/September, 1993),
available at (last visited
December 1, 2014); see also, research on black readership and white performers, which showed that
pornography featured idealized nude white females and few black females, in, Judith Reisman, “Children,
Crime and Violence in the Pictorial Imagery of Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler" testimony before the
United States Attorney General's Commission on Pornography,, prepared under Grant No. 84-JN·AX·KOO7 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, US Dept. of Justice, 1987, 1990.
See Clark, Some Principles Related to the Problem of Desegregation, 23 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO
EDUCATION, 339-47.
John Parker, Sex, Lies, & Pornography in Black America, DESTINY MAGAZINE, (August/September, 1993), See also, Rocky Mountain
Planned Parenthood, You’ve Changed the Combination (1974) (Depicting buxomed woman dating a young
See, FCC, 566 U.S. at 520 (“Even a prime-time recitation of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale,” we have
explained, “would not be likely to command the attention of many children who are both old enough to
understand and young enough to be adversely affected.”)
See, This is contrary to Justice Breyer’s
statement in FCC that “[i]t is doubtful that children under the age of 12 understand sexual language and
innuendo; therefore it is unlikely that vulgarities have any negative effect.” FCC, 566 U.S at 564 (Breyer, J.
dissenting, citing Kaye & Sapolsky, Watch Your Mouth! An Analysis of Profanity Uttered by Children on
Prime–Time Television, 7 MASS COMMUNICATION & SOC’Y 429, 433 (2004)).
Manfred Guttmacher, Psychiatrically Deviated Sex Offenders, Report No. 9 (Comm. on Forensic
Psychiatry of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry 1950) (emphasis added).
David Allyn, Private Acts/Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the Privatization
of American Sexual Morality, 30 J. OF AMERICAN STUDIES, 405-28 (1996).
A poll of UK teenagers, the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR); Nov 27, 2014.
Reisman, STOLEN HONOR, STOLEN INNOCENCE at 21: “The SIECUS February/March 1996 “Position
Statement” on “Sexually Explicit Materials”: When sensitively used in a manner appropriate to the
viewer’s age and developmental level, sexually explicit visual, printed, or on-line materials can be valuable
educational or personal aids helping to reduce ignorance and confusion and contributing to a wholesome
concept of sexuality [p. 21].” It is still illegal to sell “sexually explicit materials” (pornography) to children
under the age of 18 years.
John Parker , Sex, Lies, & Pornography in Black America, DESTINY MAGAZINE, (August/September,
Parker, see in Reisman, OJJDP report, p. 114. Alice Walker's essays on erotica/ pornography in YOU CAN'T
KEEP A GOOD WOMAN DOWN (1981) are recommended for an insightful introduction to at least some Black
men and women's attitudes toward this material.
Frontal lobe functions,
Chyng Sun, Ana Bridges, Jennifer Johnson, Matt Ezzell, Pornography and the Male Sexual Script: An
Analysis of Consumption and Sexual Relations, ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, 12/03/2014.
Larry Cuban, 68 Phi Delta Kappan, 321 (1986)
U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Marriage Trends from 1890-2010: A Focus on Race Differences, SHED
Working Paper Number 2012-12 (emphasis added)
For a discussion on the effects of family background, see Sophia Kerby The Top 10 Most Startling Facts
About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States A Look at the Racial Disparities Inherent
in Our Nation’s Criminal-Justice System, Center for American Progress (March 13, 2012): “The prison




population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005,” outpacing crime and population growth 1 in every 15
African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106
white men…one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.” (last visited December 1, 2014).
Parker, Sex, Lies, & Pornography in Black America, (last visited December 1, 2014).
Id., see Reisman, 114.
Parker’s Destiny article addresses this issue.
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, Holding Schools Accountable For Their Sex-Ed Curricula 5 LIBERTY U. L. REV.
463 (Summer 2011).
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. E.E.O.C., 132 S. Ct. 694, 707 (2012).
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2775 (2014) In Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court,
for the first time, found that the “ministerial exception” for religious discrimination claims against religious
employers could be applied to a teacher in a denominational school when the denomination treated its
teachers as ministers on a par with pastors and other leaders. In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court, for the
first time, determined that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects for-profit closely held
corporations, not just nonprofits and individuals, from laws that substantially burden the free exercise of