American Culture

by Kurt Johmann

Written: June 2001 — Revisions: 2002, 2007

At the time I am writing this essay in mid-2001, I am 45 years old, and I have spent my entire life as an American. Thus, I am writing on the subject of American culture as an insider, as someone who has been on the receiving end of the American Way for 45 years.

This essay is not a comprehensive survey of American culture. Instead, after first discussing the primary influences on American culture, specific examples of American culture that result from these influences are given. To get a quick sense of the essay’s content, its sections are:

  1. What America Is
  2. The Three Legs on which the American Empire Stands
  3. The South
  4. Wearing the American Brand: Male Circumcision
  5. America Says: Bigger is Better
  6. America’s Unwashed Assholes
  7. Bread and Circuses
  8. The American Government’s Domestic Policy: Divide and Conquer

What America Is

In order to understand what motivates American culture, one must first understand what America is: America is an empire that holds much of the world in a tight grip of slavery. In the American system of slavery, the many must labor for the few.

Foreign nations that have been militarily attacked and occupied by America include, in Asia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and Korea; in Europe, Italy and Germany. Most recently, beginning in 2003, Iraq was militarily attacked and occupied by America. All these attacked and occupied nations were quickly given puppet governments as a part of the occupation process, and most of these puppet governments, or minor variations of them, are still in power today. In addition to the foreign lands just mentioned, many other foreign countries have simply given in without offering any serious military resistance, and have taken their appointed places on the global plantation created by America.[1]

The US militarily occupies over 30 countries. And it openly threatens many more countries with force if they do not do what the US demands, such as following the US economic system, and having acceptable puppet governments that favor subservience to Washington.

For many non-Americans, this talk of America as an evil entity is readily accepted (which is easy to do, because as outsiders they are not deeply immersed in a culture that propagandizes them, starting in childhood, to believe that America is good). However, to an average American, who is deeply immersed in a culture that propagandizes him to believe that America is good, this talk of America as an evil entity is nonsense. In answer to such nonsense, typically an objection is raised to the claim that America is an empire. However, it’s easy to see that America is an empire, once the American-culture blinders are removed.

The Three Legs on which the American Empire Stands

The American empire is like a three-legged stool: to remain standing it needs all three legs. These three legs are:

  1. concentration of wealth (the reason for slavery)

    This is the primary purpose of the American empire, and an important factor that shapes the details of American culture (several of the remaining sections in this essay give specific examples of American culture that can be seen as resulting from this prime directive to concentrate wealth into fewer hands).

  2. directed violence (capturing slaves and holding them physically)

    To achieve its primary purpose, violence (or a credible threat of violence) is needed to turn a given state into a plantation; then violence (or a credible threat of violence) is needed to keep that state’s population (the slaves) from changing anything.

    Given a choice, men want freedom, not slavery. The American empire knows this, and, as a result, carries a very big stick (the American military), with which to beat the slaves as needed.

  3. false propaganda (controlling what a slave thinks)

    As I have said elsewhere regarding empires:

    It is worth noting that, in general, an empire, being based on the enslavement of other nations, is especially likely to be hostile to anything that can give its slaves any insight into a bigger reality. And just as an empire wants to falsify the history of its enslaved peoples so that they cannot remember when they were free, so does an empire want to falsify reality so that its enslaved peoples cannot find their way to freedom.[2]

    The Americans have a saying: garbage in, garbage out. Once the American empire has physical control over a given population, it proceeds to control their minds by filling their minds with garbage, thru the schools and the media. A major part of that garbage is various fictional histories.

The South

As an example of one of these fictional histories, consider what I remember learning about the American Civil War (1861–1865) as taught to me in the government schools (and this same history is taught the same way in the American media): the war was fought by the North to end the slavery in the South. Thus, in this version of history, the North—which was then and is still today the nerve center of the American empire—was on the side of good, and the South was on the side of evil. Very simple. However, beyond this imperial history is a different history. For example, in the essay Was the South Right? by Frank Bohager:

The causes of the Civil War from the Southern point of view are very different from the currently accepted Northern version. One must dig hard and deep to get any other view but the establishment version so readily accepted and propagated by the mainstream Media-Education-Academia. Why are the reasons, so universally accepted by one section of our country, so hard to find? Maybe the victors of wars do rewrite history and suppress the rest. Perhaps it is in the views and opinions of the Southerners themselves, as written by the war time generation and the succeeding ones, that we can find the answers. If one reads the letters, newspaper articles and books of the period, or just after, the prevailing view of thought seems to be that it was not a civil war at all—but was considered to be either the War for Southern Independence, or, the second American war of independence. According to these views slavery was not a reason for the war but was merely a convenient excuse for anti-Southern forces in the North to impose their political agenda and dominate the South. The reasons given by the South for the differences that led to separation fall into three main categories: cultural, economic, and political. The subject of slavery will also be honestly dealt with.[3]

In a related essay by the same author, he describes how Southerners are depicted in the American media:

Southerners are almost always portrayed as either green-tooth, mindless rednecks, the Ku Klux Klan who, according to them, have nothing better to do then go around attacking people because of the color of their skin, or, mindless people who feel an inherent need to own someone. … I concluded that the South was vilified because it is an extension of these middle-American values: strong sense of family and community, retention of some spiritual beliefs; they still don’t believe what the media tells them to believe; and—this is worst of all—they still don’t like Big Government.[4]

That the American media consistently portrays Southerners in an unfavorable way is obvious to me, because I have seen many instances in the many movies and TV shows (including cartoons) that I have watched over the years. The most typical depiction, it seems to me, is that of a stupid, ignorant, low-class man, who is always identified (either directly in words or indirectly thru the story and/or imagery) as being the result of inbreeding (for example, the often-used image of physically repulsive hillbillies who marry their relatives and have names like Billy Bob). Here is the reason for this specific focus on inbreeding:

Real nations are self-segregating human populations that form over time primarily thru the process of rebirth. In effect, as the saying goes: birds of a feather flock together. Nations are dynamic, capable of both adding new members and losing old members, over time, thru rebirth.[5]

America in its own false propaganda, thru its schools and media, typically refers to itself as a nation. However, America is not a nation; instead, America is an evolving collection of many different nations that are held together by “bread and circuses,” false propaganda, and a very big stick.

What had happened back in the 1800s was that a distinct Southern nation—characterized, among other ways, by having its own distinct accent—had evolved to the point that its members recognized their national unity and difference from the other Americans, and they wanted freedom to live as a separate nation.

These two words, freedom and nation, are two words that the American empire does not accept, unless they are being said by itself in its own false propaganda as it extolls such things as “American freedom,” “our great nation,” and “the free world” (which just happens to be led by America). Thus, when the South tried to secede, the war against the South was the result, and, in the aftermath, all vestiges of Southern freedom were erased by force (and a false history was constructed so that everyone, including the Southerners, could learn just how evil the Southerners had been). For the American empire, the South was its first big conquest.

Given this background it should be easy to see why the American media likes to emphasize and denounce the alleged inbreeding of the South. Given that real nations develop primarily thru rebirth (one is born into a nation), and given that the South was an emerging nation when it was attacked by the North, it follows that the ongoing attack on the alleged inbreeding of the South is a disguised attack on the very basis of Southern nationhood, which is the process by which Southerners marry and have children.

Wearing the American Brand: Male Circumcision

Male circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin which covers the end of the penis. As an infant I was circumcised, as were the majority of American male infants at that time. Regarding circumcision I never gave circumcision any thought until I started reading on the subject recently. As the saying goes: you can’t miss what you never had. However, whether or not one realizes it, the effects of being circumcised are profoundly negative. Regarding the circumcision of male infants:

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the sleeve of skin and mucosal tissue that normally covers the glans (head) of the penis. This double layer, sometimes called the prepuce, is more commonly known as the foreskin.[6]

[Barichello:] Did you look at the different methods of circumcision and the different kinds of tissue that each method removed? Is there a difference in quantity between the different methods?

[Dr. Taylor:] No they all do the same thing, they all remove about the equivalent of the length of the penis from the baby. … They’re pretty brutal. And they don’t just remove the prepuce, the mucosa and skin but they remove a good slice of the shaft skin as well. So that the whole thing is shortened. You see what happens then, in an erection, is the whole thing becomes rather tight and smooth. In an uncircumcised person the shaft skin remains pretty wrinkly. Highly frictional, a grabby sort of surface. In a circumcised person, it’s pretty much smooth and [has] different mechanics.[7]

My only memory relevant to circumcision is when I was in the government school, in the 7th or 8th grade (this is the two-year period of so-called middle school, after the six years of grade school and before the four years of high school; roughly for ages 12 thru 13). I remember being in the shower room (a large open room in which many boys shower together at the same time after taking gym class), and one of the other boys started talking loudly and was pointing at another boy’s penis (the boy who was pointed at looked foreign; perhaps he was an immigrant from Latin America). The boy doing the pointing was saying something like, “what is wrong with you?”. All of us boys were circumcised, except for that one foreign-looking boy being pointed at. That was the first and last time I remember seeing a natural male. At the time I did not think much of it, and did not try to learn anything about it—which is understandable, since the whole subject of circumcision was unknown to me.

Regarding male circumcision as practiced in the world, Edward Wallerstein, in his 1985 article Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma, says:

The continuing practice of routine neonatal nonreligious circumcision represents an enigma, particularly in the United States. About 80 percent of the world’s population do not practice circumcision, nor have they ever done so. Among the non-circumcising nations are Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, the U.S.S.R., China, and Japan. People employing circumcision do so either for “health” reasons or as a religious ritual practiced by Muslims, Jews, most black Africans [the practice of circumcision in black Africa is probably a legacy from centuries of Islamic influence], non-white Australians, and others.

Table 1. Estimated Newborn Nonreligious Circumcision Rates in English-Speaking Countries.

Country Percent
Great Britain     1
New Zealand 10 (Personal Visit)
Australia upper 30
Canada upper 30
United States 80

Although there is no precise data on circumcision from any country, approximated rates for the English-speaking countries reveal that in Great Britain, the practice has virtually been abandoned; New Zealand follows closely behind. (In a 1982 visit, a number of physicians were apologetic for the “inordinately high” rate of 10 percent. Several physicians stated categorically that they refused to perform routine circumcisions.) The rates in Canada and Australia appear to be declining at about 10 percentage points per decade. The United States stands alone as the only country in the world in which the majority of newborn males are circumcised, purportedly for health reasons.[8]

Although male circumcision rates have declined in America, they are still very high:

Interest in the genital integrity issue continues to grow and trustworthy statistics are necessary for an informed debate. No United States health agency publishes the annual percentage rates that neonatal males are circumcised versus left intact. The American Academy of Pediatrics complains that statistics being cited are outdated and inaccurate. No extensive compilations have been published since 1979. The goal of this paper is to provide additional, recent, and accurate statistics for that discussion. This white paper addresses United States neonatal male circumcisions performed in hospitals.

Year Circumcisions % Change Live Births Male Births % Intact % Circumcised
1999 1,191,733 -1.1%        
1998 1,204,431 +5.0% N/A 2,106,205 42.8% 57.2%
1997 1,146,839 -12.9% 3,880,894 1,985,077 42.2% 57.8%
1996 1,317,422 +9.5% 3,891,494 1,990,499 33.8% 66.2%
1995 1,203,223 -3.0% 3,899,589 1,994,640 39.7% 60.3%
1994 1,240,572 -1.3% 3,952,767 2,021,840 38.6% 61.4%
1993 1,257,461 -5.8% 4,000,240 2,046,123 38.5% 61.5%
1992 1,334,742 +0.9% 4,065,014 2,079,255 35.8% 64.2%
1991 1,323,189 -2.6% 4,110,907 2,102,729 37.1% 62.9%
1990 1,358,218 N/A 4,158,212 2,126,925 36.1% 63.9%

The only historical compilation of circumcision rates is Edward Wallerstein’s Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. His statistics are estimates for the years 1870 (the year circumcision was introduced to the United States) through 1979. The lowest intact rate was 15% in 1979 when popularity of circumcision reached a record high in the United States. Overall, the intact rate has been increasing. In the United Kingdom, where non-therapeutic circumcisions rarely occur, the circumcision rate is 0.41% for one-year-olds.

U.S. Circumcision Rate

Neonatal circumcisions account for 99.3% of U.S. circumcisions.[9]

Before I learned otherwise, the little that I knew about male circumcision was that it was done for hygiene reasons (what I remember learning is that the foreskin serves no useful purpose and is unclean, requiring periodic cleaning, so its removal is a benefit).[10],[11] This is what the American establishment teaches thru its schools and media. However, like so much that the American establishment teaches, this explanation is false propaganda. To arrive at a correct explanation, one needs to review the functions of the foreskin:

The foreskin serves three functions: protective, sensory, and sexual.

In most cases, the foreskin is still fused to the glans at birth and will separate over a variable period of time over the first few years. During the diaper period, the foreskin protects against abrasion from diapers and feces. Throughout life, the foreskin keeps the glans soft and moist and protects it from trauma and injury.

Parts of the foreskin, such as the mucosa (inner foreskin) and frenulum, are particularly sensitive and contribute to sexual pleasure. Specialized nerve endings enhance sexual pleasure and control.

The foreskin provides ample loose skin for the penis to occupy when erect. It is a movable skin sheath for the penis during intercourse, reducing chafing and the need for artificial lubricants, and allowing the glans and foreskin to naturally stimulate each other.[12]

Among other things the foreskin both provides lubricant and reduces the need for lubricant, during intercourse and masturbation. The natural man has this built-in mechanism for free; it is a part of his body. For the circumcised man, who had this built-in mechanism forcibly removed from his body by a knife-wielding servant of the American empire, he can pay money for the various lubricants that are sold. Thus, circumcision serves the purpose of concentrating wealth into fewer hands: wealth is transferred from the many circumcised men to the few selling the lubricants. And there are other effects of male circumcision that concentrate wealth.[13]

America’s high rate of circumcision is just another way in which America does what it can to make sex expensive. Another example of this make-sex-expensive process is America’s criminalization of prostitution. As I have said elsewhere:

Similar to the American empire’s criminalization of certain drugs—in general, those drugs that affect the mind in a way that many people find desirable or enlightening—America has also criminalized prostitution. America claims to be an advocate of women’s rights, and free trade—but America denies women the right to trade sexual favors for money. Here is the underlying reason: the American empire strongly favors the owner class; and the owner class, as a rule, always favors policies that promote a concentration of wealth into its own hands. One of the ways to satisfy this general policy of concentrating wealth is to remove from the common man those pleasures that if legal and not overtly oppressed are cheap and plentiful. By criminalizing what is cheap and plentiful, the common man is driven to pay a higher price: either for the same goods which are now in shorter supply, or for alternative goods that come from fewer suppliers. And it is this higher price, flowing to fewer suppliers, which adds to the net transfer of wealth from the many to the few.[14]

When evaluating influences on American culture, sometimes there are multiple influences that work together in the same direction of supporting the American empire, and which are jointly responsible for establishing and/or preserving a given cultural practice. This is the case for America’s various attacks on sexuality, including America’s practice of genital mutilation (circumcision), America’s criminalization of prostitution, and America’s media campaign to make people feel inadequate sexually (described in the next section). Besides the concentration-of-wealth influence, the other important influence—and this is probably the most important influence—is that an attack on sexuality is an attack on nationalism. As I have said elsewhere:

The close association that monotheism has with genital mutilation is a consequence of monotheism being a psychological prop for imperialism. Genital mutilation weakens the family, which in turn weakens nations composed of families. In effect, genital mutilation attacks the enemy of imperialism, which is nationalism. In general, those who are mutilated are more open to imperialist thinking, because their own existence within their nation has been damaged and diminished.[15]

The anti-sex policies in America serve the imperial needs of America, because sex is at the root of families, and families are at the root of nations, and nations want freedom and independence to live their own lives. Thus, whatever harms nations rooted in families, serves the American empire. Male circumcision is just one of many ways that America attacks the family.[16]

America Says: Bigger is Better

Another way in which America strives to make sex more expensive is its constant promotion in its media of bigger female breasts and, to a lesser extent, bigger male penises. The American media—in its TV shows, movies, magazines, and other media outlets—consistently claims that women who have above-average-size breasts, and men who have above-average-size penises, are more attractive to the opposite sex.

So, is this claim true? Are above-average-size breasts and penises more attractive to the opposite sex? Arthur Schopenhauer, a 19th-century German philosopher, made the following observation regarding the basis of sexual attraction: Each person has within himself an inborn mental model of what an ideal person should look like. And the extent to which that person deviates from that internal model, that is the extent to which that person will find correcting or offsetting qualities attractive in the opposite sex.

For the size of any body part, I would assume that a person’s inborn mental model of what an ideal person should look like, specifies as the ideal size the average size for that person’s nation. Given this model of sexual attraction: It follows that only those men who would pass on to their children a below-average breast size would find above-average breast size in a woman attractive. And, likewise, it follows that only those men who would pass on to their children an above-average breast size would find below-average breast size in a woman attractive. And, because of the law of averages, and the very large population, it follows that the percentage of men who are specifically attracted by big-breasted women is very nearly the same as the percentage of men who are specifically attracted by small-breasted women (that some men strongly prefer women with small breasts I know for a fact, because that is my preference).

Given this analysis, it follows that the claim by the American media that above-average-size breasts and penises are more attractive to the opposite sex is just as true as the opposite claim that below-average-size breasts and penises are more attractive to the opposite sex. In general, for every man who wants a woman with above-average-size breasts, there is a man who wants a woman with below-average-size breasts; for every woman who wants a man with an above-average-size penis, there is a woman who wants a man with a below-average-size penis. Also, because of the law of averages, and the very large population, the majority of men want a woman with an average or nearly average breast size, and the majority of women want a man with an average or nearly average penis size.

Because of the long-running American-media campaign to instill in men and women a belief that they are physically inadequate in terms of their penis and breast size, the end result is a concentration of wealth as men and women spend money on products and procedures that they do not need.[17]

America’s Unwashed Assholes

Those who eat, also shit. Up until about ten months ago, I knew of only one way to shit: the American Way.

In the American Way of shitting, you sit on a toilet, defecate, and then wipe your ass clean with dry toilet paper. Very simple. However, there is one problem with this American Way: it does not work very well. Even after repeated wipings with fresh dry toilet paper, some of the fecal matter that passed thru the asshole remains sticking to the body. By following the American Way, one of the end results is dirty underwear.

Over the years, I had heard the phrase dirty underwear said by others and also used in the media. Although I had never heard anyone say exactly what they meant by dirty underwear, I always understood it to be a reference to underpants with shit smears, since, after all, my own underpants after a shit typically had shit smears by the next day, becoming dirty underwear in need of washing. Searching the Internet for the phrase dirty underwear, I came across confirming statements including the following:

… after 12 years of marriage one of my biggest challenges is getting the shit stains outta his underwear …[18]

With middle age comes changes: both the mind and the body decline in various ways. I entered middle age about a month after my 41st birthday, undergoing the various bodily changes—such as a decrease in how much the bladder can empty—that are described in the medical literature. Also, in my first month of middle age, my former ability to do mental work about 70 hours per week—in my case, programming work—rapidly declined to about 40 hours per week (after I had experienced this mental-work decline, which has remained unchanged since then, I understood where the 40-hour work-week came from).

Although for the most part the big middle-age changes that I experienced happened to me in that first month of middle age, there have been a few lesser changes that have happened in the last few years. One of these lesser changes was that I was apparently becoming intolerant to the leftover fecal matter that remained after wiping with dry toilet paper. In an effort to address this problem I searched the Internet and learned that the majority of the people in the world use water to clean their asses after shitting. In Europe, for example, the bidet is used for this purpose.

For my problem I concluded that I needed to wash with water, like the majority of the people in the world were already doing. The problem for me was how to do this, since my own bathroom, like most bathrooms in America, does not have a bidet or its equivalent. While pondering this problem roughly ten months ago, I was about to sit on the toilet and take a shit when I had an idea: use the toilet-bowl water (for those who don’t know, the standard American toilet bowl, which one sits over when shitting, has a lot of water in it, which is replaced with fresh water each time one flushes the toilet).

After briefly thinking about my idea I decided to try it: I shitted as usual, wiped off with toilet paper as usual, and flushed as usual; then I did something that I had never done before: I reached my hand down into the toilet-bowl water (I felt very strange doing this the first time), scooped water into my hand, raised it to my ass (specifically, the asshole and surrounding region), and used my fingers (primarily my middle finger) to rub the area clean (repeatedly scooping more water as needed while doing this). When done, I flushed the toilet again, and then went to the sink and washed my hands as usual. After that first time I quickly settled on the procedure that I have been following since, which is the same as already described except with an added cleaning around a wider area after that second flush (this second flush and cleaning follows the initial flush and cleaning that focused primarily on the asshole and its immediate surrounding area).[19] Also, after that first time, I realized that cleaning with water eliminated the need for toilet paper, but I was so habituated by my previous four-plus decades of using toilet paper that it took me a while before I finally stopped using toilet paper altogether in my above cleaning procedure.

The first time that I cleaned with water the result was so good and so immediate that there was no turning back. My problem was solved. And as a side-benefit I no longer had dirty underwear (it took me a few months before I realized that there was no reason to keep changing my underpants at the old rate).

So, how many Americans use water, at least to some extent, to clean themselves after shitting? A recent new-product announcement by a major manufacturer of toilet paper provides some numbers:

Research conducted by Kimberly-Clark shows that consumers agree that moist methods clean and freshen better than dry toilet paper alone. The results of a recent Kimberly-Clark survey showed that 63% of respondents have used a moist cleansing method after toileting and one out of four use a moist cleansing method on a daily basis. [An AP news article, New Toilet Paper To Be Introduced, by David Koenig, put it this way: The company surveyed 2,000 consumers and found that 63 percent of them occasionally used something wet—often a baby wipe or regular toilet paper sprinkled with water—after going to the toilet. About a quarter did it daily.] [20]

Thus, it seems that the majority of Americans typically do not use any water to clean themselves after shitting. Once again Americans are peculiar when compared to the rest of the world. And once again the explanation is the concentration of wealth: America’s unwashed assholes contribute to the concentration of wealth in many ways, including:

Both the government schools and the American media are completely silent on this subject of using water to clean oneself after shitting. Thus, the widespread ignorance, including my own recent ignorance, on this subject.

The reason that there is never any information about cleaning with water after shitting is because cleaning with water is free. In America, when something that is free and effective competes with alternative products that cost more, then either that free product is criminalized or it gets the silent treatment.[21]

Bread and Circuses

The phrase bread and circuses comes from the writings of Juvenal (circa AD 55–130), who wrote about life in the Roman empire. In his Satires he says that the Roman public “anxiously desires only two things: bread and circuses.”[22]

Many writers have commented on the parallels between ancient Rome and modern-day America. Such comments often include invoking the phrase bread and circuses and citing examples of American bread and circuses.


In America, food is super-abundant, of great variety, and inexpensive (as a percentage of average personal income) when compared to costs in other parts of the world. I did not appreciate how true this is until I had a number of vacations in Europe during my twenties, and I saw the more limited selections, the smaller portions, and the much higher costs (as a percentage of average personal income), that the Europeans had. About the food situation I believe it is a fair statement to say that someone earning only minimum-wage in America can eat like a king; and this is not true in Europe.

One consequence of having so much good food to eat is that a large fraction of the American population is noticeably overweight. In America fat people are everywhere—and that was one of the differences that struck me when I traveled in Europe: noticeably overweight people in Europe were uncommon (I saw very few).


A common theme in the public entertainments that Rome provided was the theme of violence. Thus, for example, gladiators fought each other to the death in the Roman arenas.

Just as Rome had many entertainments that were laced with violence, so does America have many entertainments that are laced with violence. American TV, it seems, always has both movies and episodic shows that one can watch, in which the heroes beat up and/or shoot their enemies. When I was young all the heroes on TV doing the violence were male. But starting roughly 20 years ago in the 1980s, with the increasing employment of women in positions of power within the American establishment, more and more of the violence-prone heroes became women. Nowadays on American TV, in its fictional content (in made-for-TV movies and in the episodes of TV series), women who punch and shoot their way to victory are commonplace.

Many writers have complained about all this TV violence, but nothing changes because the violence serves the needs of the American empire. Specifically, all this TV violence is a kind of false propaganda that creates an acceptance in the American population of the directed violence that the American empire employs on a regular basis. Thus, for example, when the American military is busy bombing a country somewhere, there are more than enough Americans ready to fill each and every role needed in that aggression, including: those who drop the bombs, those ordering the dropping of the bombs, and those cheering them on.

As a part of this make-its-violence-accepted process, America has its own sport: American football. In normal football as played in Europe and elsewhere, two teams compete with each other by playing on a rectangular field, kicking a ball (they cannot touch the ball with their hands) with the ultimate aim of scoring points by kicking that ball past any defenders and into the opposing team’s goal area which is at the opposite end of the field from their own goal area. In normal football, violence is against the rules: the players are not allowed to deliberately hit their opponents (any contact should be incidental, not deliberate).

In American football two teams compete with each other by playing on a rectangular field, carrying and/or throwing a ball with the ultimate aim of scoring points by either carrying, throwing, or kicking that ball past any defenders and into the opposing team’s goal area which is at the opposite end of the field from their own goal area. In American football, violence is the rule: the players are allowed to deliberately hit each other; the primary aim is to tackle whoever has the ball. The game is so violent that all the players wear helmets to protect their heads, and they also wear padding under their uniforms to protect their bodies.

In normal football having the better team is not the same as having the biggest, strongest, and most violent team. Thus, men of ordinary size are the typical players in normal football. In American football having the better team is the same as having the biggest, strongest, and most violent team. Thus, men of very large size are the typical players in American football.

The mentality of American football is a reflection of the mentality of the American empire: size, strength, and violence, combine to give victory.

The American Government’s Domestic Policy: Divide and Conquer

Sex is at the root of families, families are at the root of nations, and nations want freedom and independence to live their own lives. This is the danger that the American government’s domestic policy is designed to prevent. Specifically, if America had a homogeneous like-minded population rooted in families, that population would be more likely to moderate and lessen the rule of money and the current economic system that strongly favors the owner class over the worker class. Similarly, if a large geographic region of America had a homogeneous like-minded population rooted in families, that population would be more likely to agitate for independence from the Federal government (the threat of secession).

The chain of life for a naturally formed human nation is:

sex → families → nation

To prevent the danger that a naturally formed human nation poses, the American government has been actively attacking each link in this chain of life for more than a century. Many of the ways that America attacks the sex link are detailed elsewhere in this essay.

The primary way that America attacks the nation link is by constantly diluting the existing and/or evolving nations within its borders by having large-scale immigration. Also, large-scale movement and mixing within the domestic population is actively encouraged and promoted by the government, business, and media. The more divided a people are, the less they can change anything. Hence, divide and conquer. The old Roman empire did this, and likewise the new modern-day Roman empire, America.


[1] There are many reasons not to offer military resistance against the slavemaster. The most obvious reason is that resistance is futile and the punishment for such resistance is typically severe. However, another reason that is often the case is that the state’s government is already a puppet government subservient to Washington. In this case the only possible resistance to the American slavemaster is at the local level within the state by the people of that state.

A recent specific example of such local resistance is the rebellion in Ecuador, primarily by its Indian population, against the impoverishing effects of dollarization (Ecuador’s puppet government had already done America’s bidding and replaced its local currency with the American dollar, which enables America to suck substantially more blood from the already poor Ecuadorians). The following passages—from an anonymous post, dated February 4, 2001, at—give the flavor of the rebellion (I have made copy-edit changes to improve the readability of the text; all the bracketed [notes], except for the “CONAIE website” one, are mine):

There are at this very moment over 13,000 Indians on the verge of being erased from the face of this planet, sitting in the campus of the University of Ecuador in Quito [the capital of Ecuador]. That’s 13,000+ Indian men, women, children and elders. The police and army surrounding them have been sporadically firing thousands of rounds of bullets and tear gas at them for the past 8 days. To date (as I was told before the telephone went dead last night) over 30 have been killed and over 600 wounded. They have little food left, and only what water remains in the fountains to drink, since the water supply was shut off on Thursday. On Friday the government of Ecuador, under orders from Washington DC, declared an official State of Emergency. It is now illegal for more than 3 people to meet and converse together for any reason, and the army is fanning out across the country and arresting every single Indian leader, elder, and voice, and “disappearing them” for “security reasons” without any need for due process. Antonio Vargas, elected leader and spokesman for CONAIE [Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador], was arrested last week, secured his release via a writ of habeas corpus, but was “disappeared” again when the State of Emergency was declared.

The situation is desperate, and the government of Ecuador and their masters in Washington, capital of the greatest Whore State in the world today, does not want the world to know what is going on. The CONAIE website [] was hacked last night to remove all of the eleven (11) bulletins posted by CONAIE since 01 January 2001, describing the current crisis and pleading with good hearts (especially those of their North American relations) for attention and support.

As you may recall, the Indians of Ecuador marched in January, 2000. They marched on Quito in columns that swelled to well over one-and-a-half-MILLION Indians, to protest the privatization of the fresh water supply of their country, and the turning over of control of Ecuador’s economy to the Federal Reserve Bank of the USofA, conditions demanded by the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the World Bank [both the IMF and the World Bank are puppet entities created by the US in 1944 (they both began operations in 1946), and both are headquartered in Washington DC] for a loan to Ecuador.

The Quecheu Indian Nations in Ecuador, who are a ‘minority’ of 45%-65% of the country’s population, marched. They were then as they are now, UNARMED. The students and labor unions joined them, and when several army units joined their ranks (90% of the Ecuadorian army are Indians) the government of President Jamil Mahuad was toppled. After a few days, the Vice-President, Gustavo Noboa, was named President and made promises (signed accords 17 July, 2000) to the Indians that the fresh water of Ecuador would never be sold to the US and Italian-based multinational corporations that had “bought” it, small farmers would be forgiven their debts to the government, and fuel prices would be frozen for 2 years…

So the Indians went back to their villages and farms. The army was given a huge pay-raise (US “aid”). With the Indians in uniform bought off, all promises and signed accords were immediately forgotten. Now water for the sheep and small plots of maize in that DESERT climate costs 35 cents (USD) per gallon, when the average Indian farmer/shepherd makes LESS than $500 (USD) per year. And the sucre, the currency of Ecuador that constituted all of whatever meager funds and savings the Indians held, is now worthless paper, replaced by the US dollar which none but the ruling families of Latinos can afford, as dictated by the US Federal Reserve Bank and the IMF. Last week’s directions from the US government also resulted in the declaration that the labor unions in mines and oil fields (all 100% USA-owned) were now illegal, and the price of gasoline was raised by 200% (while exports of Ecuador’s huge oil reserves to the USA shot up from 65% of national production to 100%). As an added blow, bus fares were boosted by 75%. (That’s devastating, because 99% of the Indian farmers bring their produce to regional markets by bus. Their soil is so poor that they can carry their yields in a basket).

“Coincidentally”, the USA has also completed construction of their new naval base at Manta, and is building ten (10) more military bases in Ecuador (3 along the border with Colombia, and 7 ‘elsewhere’) under the usual PR cover of “fighting the war on drugs” (i.e., to crush the “subversive” Indians) — Can’t let the po’ folk (especially with skin-tones other than white) mess up the spread of “US democra$$y” by insisting that they exist and have rights now, can we?

So CONAIE, with the 100% support and direction of the thousands of Indian families they represent, organized another march on Quito beginning the first week in January, 2001. The Ecuadorian army, with US military “advisors” openly in full uniform whispering in the ears of the local army commanders, is now going on a rampage of arrests with no warrants; thousands have been “detained” with no indication of whether they are dead or alive, and CONAIE and labor-union offices are being trashed and padlocked. …

[2] From my Understanding America’s Drug War essay.

[3] At:

[4] From the essay The Civil War From the Southern Point of View, by Frank Bohager, at:

[5] Regarding rebirth and differences between nations, see my book A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind).

[6] From the article Frequently Asked Questions About Infant Circumcision, by Geoffrey Falk, at:

[7] From the interview of Dr. John Taylor, by Lawrence Barichello, at:

Note that infant male circumcision as practiced in America is, generally speaking, male circumcision at its worst. Male circumcisions done within certain other cultures to older males, such as that typically done to Muslim boys at roughly age 8, are still destructive, but typically less destructive, removing less of the total structure of the penis. Jews practice an infant male circumcision which is just as destructive as that done in America, and, in effect, America probably learned infant male circumcision from the Jews. In the same interview of Dr. John Taylor, he mentions that “some circumcisions, especially Jewish circumcisions, are quite tight.”

Regarding the reason for the practice of male circumcision by both Judaism and Islam, see my Monotheism, Imperialism, and Genital Mutilation essay.

[8] At:

For a more recent and detailed breakdown of circumcision in the world, see Incidence and Distribution of Circumcision (Male Genital Mutilation) Worldwide, at:

[9] From the article Normal versus Circumcised: U.S. Neonatal Male Genital Ratio, by Dan Bollinger, at:

[10] Regarding the alleged care needs for a natural penis, in the article Care of the Intact Penis, at

Much nonsense has been written about the special care required for an intact penis. Care advice can be summarized briefly:

  1. Leave it alone.
  2. Leave it alone.
  3. Leave it alone.

Very similar to the special care required by the ears and the eyes, really.

A baby’s penis should be washed like any other part of his body, gently. No effort should be made to retract his foreskin and wash inside. In New Zealand, nurses were once instructed to start trying to retract the foreskin from birth and ensure that it was fully retractable by the end of a week. This doubtless caused many problems, resulting in the “need” for circumcisions. This mentality persists in many places, and it may be necessary to make sure that any new person examining the baby (including nurses, nannies and grandparents) is not a “retractor”.

From South Africa comes this breath of fresh air:

In the Paediatric Casualty Department at the Johannesburg Hospital we frequently see children with torn foreskins caused by forcing the foreskin back over the glans penis. The damage is most often done by clinic sisters, but I regret to say that it is sometimes caused by general practitioners who seem to be unaware of the normal development of the foreskin.

The normal foreskin will in the normal course of events dilate sufficiently to slip over the head of the penis by 5 or 6 years of age [for some, this occurs later in life, such as in the teens]. It does not require anyone’s help to do this. The head of the penis does not require cleaning. Nature does the job very efficiently by means of natural secretions. The white material which collects under the foreskin is not dirt or pus but good healthy epithelial debris which will slowly but surely separate the adherent foreskin from the glans better than any nurse or doctor should do it.

The danger of “retractors” is very real in America, and the damage done is used as an excuse to circumcise. For example:

When my oldest child was born, I was 15 … [her baby was not initially circumcised because of the cost] … That was fine and I continued to care for it [the foreskin] as I was instructed at the hospital. All was fine until he was 1 yr old. At that point the foreskin was adhering and causing him problems. His dr suggested getting him circumcised at that point. I agreed … [the baby was circumcised] … it could’ve been I was pulling the foreskin back too far but when I showed the dr how I was doing it he said I was doing it properly … [From the article My Experience with Circumcision, at:]


While it is true that more infections have been recorded in uncircumcised children, one needs to look instead at the instruction of care for an uncircumcised son that parents are receiving from their doctor. The AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] recommends not retracting the foreskin to clean underneath (it is attached firmly at birth similar to the way fingernails are attached to the finger). The foreskin, if left alone, actually protects against infections similar to the way the hymen protects female children from infection. I can attest to the fact that my son’s glans (head of the penis) has never been touched by feces because his foreskin is sealed and will not allow such a thing to enter. Many doctors break this seal in the first exam, which is painful for the child and leaves a wound that could become infected and keeps the foreskin from ever doing its job of protecting against infection. So in other words, you have the medical community warning that not being circumcised is a risk of infection when they themselves are the ones causing that infection. [From the article Circumcision: A Solution in Search of a Problem, at:]

[11] Besides the hygiene claims there have been many false claims that are used to fool people in America into believing that male circumcision is good for the person circumcised. For example:

Circumcision is so ingrained in our society that it is a solution in search of a problem to solve. First it was to cure masturbation [this claim was used in the late 1800s], then in the 40's it was STDs [sexually transmitted diseases]; in the 50's and 60's it was cancer; in the 80's and 90's it was AIDS and UTIs (Urinary Tract Infection). All the myths have been debunked, yet just as one is debunked another one is created. [From the article One More Mother Opposed To Infant Circumcision, by A. Shaffer, at:]

Because a circumcised man serves its purposes, the American empire will continue to manufacture one lie after another to justify male circumcision. Only when the American empire falls will the lies stop, and then, hopefully, the practice of male circumcision will be a criminal offense as it should be.

[12] From the article Frequently Asked Questions About Infant Circumcision, by Geoffrey Falk, at:

[13] Other effects of male circumcision that concentrate wealth include the charges for this destructive surgery (it is not done for free), and the expenses incurred as men try to compensate for having been made less than what they should be. For example:

First, the vast majority of circumcised men are NOT AWARE of the PHENOMENAL LOSS their bodies have been subjected to. This is not the same as saying that the vast majority of circumcised men do not have problems with their circumcised penises. In fact, quite the contrary is true. 20/20 News (ABC TV) featured a special segment in their March 20th, 1998 telecast. They reported the current statistics that over 18 million men in the United States suffer from impotence, and that tens of millions of other men suffer from various other sexual dysfunctions. The facts clearly indicate that millions of men are indeed experiencing sexual problems because of their circumcisions. … Such overwhelming numbers of sexual dysfunction are unique to North America. Statistics from European countries where circumcision is virtually non-existent are minuscule in comparison. [From the article Circumcision’s Effects and Consequences, by Brian Pederson, at:]

Sexual sensation is subjective. A man who was circumcised as an infant can imagine that he is getting as much as there is to get, in terms of sexual sensation and satisfaction. However, the statements of men who were circumcised as adults tell a different story. For example:

The greatest disadvantage of circumcision, in my view, is the awful loss of sensitivity and function when the foreskin is removed. … I was deprived of my foreskin when I was 26; I had ample experience in the sexual area, and I was quite happy (delirious, in fact) with what pleasure I could experience beginning with foreplay and continuing as an intact male. After my circumcision, that pleasure was utterly gone. Let me put it this way: On a scale of 10, the uncircumcised penis experiences pleasure that is at least 11 or 12; the circumcised penis is lucky to get to 3.

… You have to be circumcised as an adult, as I was, to realize what a terrible loss of pleasure results from this cruel operation. —From a letter to Marilyn Milos, RN, Founder/Director of NOCIRC [At:]


I am 42. I had myself circumcised 12 years ago. I am still not used to it. It was not a medical circ. I did it because I thought sex would be better. It took me over a year to be comfortable in my clothing. I have to use lubrication if I masturbate, now. I must use lube during sex, now, even if my partner has plenty of her own. I look at the scar and realize how UGLY a circumcision is. I have now lost most of my sensitivity. A train could run over my glans and I wouldn’t feel it. My wife complains that I am too rough in bed. It is the only way I can feel it. [A statement by J.M., at:]

Besides causing a loss of sensitivity and other problems (for some of these effects male circumcision is like a partial castration), another effect of male circumcision is that both the length and thickness of the penis are substantially reduced (male circumcision is also penis-reduction surgery). Estimates vary, but the following numbers (from the above-referenced article Circumcision’s Effects and Consequences) seem typical of other estimates:

In addition, as some writers have suggested, this infant mutilation leaves a permanent psychological scar and harms parent-child bonding. The experience of being mutilated—male circumcision is correctly called male genital mutilation—is a traumatic experience. For example (all the bracketed [notes] are mine):

The silence was soon broken by a piercing scream, the baby’s reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed as the doctor attached the clamp to his penis. The shriek intensified when the doctor inserted an instrument between the foreskin and the glans (head of the penis), tearing the two structures apart. … The baby began to gasp and choke, breathless from his shrill continuous screams. How could anyone say circumcision is painless when the suffering is so obvious? … To see a part of this baby’s penis being cut off—without an anesthetic—was devastating. But even more shocking was the doctor’s comment, barely audible several octaves below the piercing screams of the baby, “There’s no medical reason for doing this.” [From the article Infant Circumcision: “What I Wish I Had Known”, by Marilyn Milos, at:]


[Regarding anesthetic use:] The vast majority of neonatal circumcisions are performed without anesthesia. Using local anesthesia during the operation has been disappointing. Research has shown that local anesthesia does not prevent, but merely moderates, the cortisol elevation [believed to be a stress indicator]. Furthermore, local anesthesia does not affect postoperative pain, such as that due to the newborn’s urinating and defecating into the open penile wound. In any case, the external application or injection of any local anesthetic involves risk to the patient.

[Regarding psychological effects:] Recent research suggests that the operation may have long-lasting effects on the patient’s perception of and sensitivity to painful stimuli. The main structures for memory are functional in newborns, and remembrance of pain may figure in pain perception later. For days after the surgery, the circumcised boy will experience a greater change in heart rate when his blood is drawn than will a noncircumcised boy. And regardless of whether an anesthetic was used during circumcision, he will cry louder and longer during inoculations months later.

Boys circumcised when they were five years old showed a decrease in IQ, feelings of insecurity and inferiority, sexual identification disturbances, regressiveness, an increase in self-aggression, and other psychological problems after the operation. The children perceived the operation as castration and perceived females as responsible for the act.

… Circumcised men report suffering from premature ejaculation, impotence, bleeding at the scar site during erections, desensitization of the glans [only after reading what natural men experience with their penises do I realize how little I feel in comparison with my mutilated penis], pubic hair on the shaft of the penis [I have this; the explanation for it is given in the above-referenced article Circumcision’s Effects and Consequences], painful intercourse, and decreased lubrication [having no foreskin, I have no lubrication]. …

In a recent University of Chicago study, researchers discovered that circumcised men engaged in masturbation and oral and anal sex more often than did noncircumcised men. This suggests that they may be in search of greater direct stimulation than that afforded by coitus [this certainly explains my own preferences]. The Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs consider it unethical to perform nonemergency surgery on individuals who are unable to consent. Isn’t it prudent to let the person with the foreskin decide whether to have it removed? [From the article Is Circumcision Healthy? — No, by Dr. Robert Van Howe, at:]


To me, a European woman living in the US, a cut penis looks “naked”—bald if you like. The main reason I prefer intact males is sensitivity. Never before have I met as many guys who have had anal sex or are into it as in the US. … The duration, dryness and often the requirement of certain sexual positions to get him off during regular intercourse is very discouraging for me. So is the fact that many lose erection during less stimulating, less harsh intercourse. My advice to circumcised men …: Don’t be as ignorant about this as your parents and your doctor were. Unfortunately, you missed out on a great deal of pleasure and freedom. Don’t deny it to your own baby boys. They’ll thank you for it. [From the Comments from Visitors page, at:]

It appears that the mentality of empire agrees with the mentality of male circumcision. Reviewing the circumcision data, it looks like circumcision roughly correlates with empire, since circumcision began in America in 1870, only five years after America’s first big conquest (the South). And the American circumcision rate grew over the following century—a century filled with many more conquests—and peaked in 1979. Similarly, it seems that as the British empire was largely replaced by the American empire, as a consequence of World War 2, the circumcision rate in Britain quickly declined:

A survey of British men born between 1934 and 1944 found 38 per cent were cut [circumcised]. … Britain’s circumcision rate had begun to fall during World War 2 and plummeted when its new National Health Service decided against funding the procedures in 1947 (having judged it unnecessary and cosmetic). [From the article Foreskin lament for babies, by Yvonne Martin, at:]

Besides concentrating wealth, male circumcision has other effects that are compatible with the American empire. For example, the harm done to the bond between a child and his parents serves the same purpose that the government schools serve: to separate the child from his family (this is a part of the empire’s larger campaign against all forms of nationalism, including its smallest form, the family). Similarly, as another attack against the family, being mutilated makes normal intercourse less satisfying for both parties, and inclines the mutilated man to seek sexual contact that is more stimulating, causing frustration and dissatisfaction for women, as expressed, for example, by the above-quoted European woman living in America. (For a more detailed discussion of how male circumcision damages sexual relations see my Monotheism, Imperialism, and Genital Mutilation essay.)

Regarding the violence of male circumcision, some writers have suggested that this violence is an initiation rite into a violent society. But other writers have taken a larger view. For example:

The numbness in our penises resulting from circumcision here in the US parallels the emotional numbness which those in power need for us to have so we will continue to fulfill our roles as producers. If we all get in touch with our feelings and discover our own strength and desires, we may not want to keep working at our often unsatisfying, low-paying and hazardous jobs to produce more profits for those at the top. Circumcision is one of many societal factors helping to keep us disempowered and out of touch with our sexuality and our own great potential. [From the article Circumcision: A Barbaric Practice, A Human Rights Violation, by Steven Svoboda, at:]


Culturally speaking, male genital mutilation [MGM] does not happen at random. It is highly correlated with authoritarian, monotheistic, patrilineal and militaristic cultures, where children, women and minorities are devalued, class stratification is high, and in some cases FGM [Female Genital Mutilation] is practiced as well. (MGM world-wide is about 7 times more widespread than—and appears to be a precursor for—FGM.) It’s not difficult to see how genital mutilation could arise not only as a consequence, but also function as a reinforcer of such dystopian and hierarchical cultures.

GM is fundamentally different from other kinds of bodily modifications such as body piercing or foot binding. It is directed specifically at a highly emotionally-charged sensory organ, as unique and irreplaceable as the eyes, as critical to human community and emotional connectedness as the ability to see and be seen, to speak and to hear speech, to hold and to be held. … MGM is thus an assault not only on the individual, but on that individual’s future family and friends and, where widely practiced, on the community’s capacity for mutual goodwill, trust, self organization and local empowerment. A type of “social fragmentation grenade.” Perhaps this is why MGM was often inflicted on slaves and conquered peoples in biblical times.

Men and women who are denied emotional fulfillment in human relationships must seek it elsewhere, and frequently channel their energies into the abstracted and manipulable meanings and rewards of state-sanctioned institutions such as workaholism/consumerism, professional sports (often a surrogate for nationalism), socially disengaged religion, and the ultimate form of state servitude, soldiering. Interfering with the sexual compatibility and satisfaction of men and women likely strongly affects mass social organization. Thus MGM’s social utility goes far beyond mere fertility control, into the realm of generalized social control.

In short, MGM is an important component of one of many spontaneously arising, self-reinforcing social processes which facilitate the disempowerment, dissociation, reorganization and absorption (i.e. digestion) of the human community into the body of the state. George Orwell could not have devised a more cost-effective instrument of social control. Such is the natural genius of self-organizing complex adaptive systems, when left to their own devices. [From the article Male Circumcision in the USA: The Profoundly Disturbing and Explosive Facts, by Rich Winkel, at:]

[14] From my Understanding America’s Drug War essay.

[15] From my Monotheism, Imperialism, and Genital Mutilation essay.

[16] The anti-sex policies in America take many forms. Besides those already mentioned, America’s anti-sex policies include exaggerating the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases, and portraying anything sexual that is seen, done, or experienced during childhood (and, to a lesser extent, during adolescence) as being damaging to the person involved.

Regarding sexually transmitted diseases, not only is there exaggeration, there is also fabrication. The reason that the American government proclaimed AIDS in 1984 as being a sexually transmitted disease that carries a death sentence, is because that is just another way to attack sex. There is a large literature on the Internet exposing the fiction of AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease. See, for example, the writings of Peter Duesberg (his book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, is especially good).

Regarding America’s treatment of sexual matters during childhood and adolescence, the various persecutions used to suppress all things sexual during childhood (and, to a lesser extent, during adolescence), include among other things forced “therapy”, criminal prosecution, and imprisonment. For example:

During the mid to late '70s, as a photography professor at Cornell University, I was scorned by my friends, accused of child pornography and fired from my teaching job after exhibiting photographs of my son, my husband and my father-in-law in the nude. I showed close-ups of the older men’s penises and testicles, my husband with an erection, and my son in a moment of natural childlike self-exploration. …

“Probably most offensive,” according to writer Carol Jacobsen in her article “Redefining Censorship; A Feminist View” in the Winter 1991 issue of Art Journal, “was Livingston’s perceived social breach of the motherhood role, for she broke silence on some carefully guarded secrets about childhood sexuality with her images of joyful child nudity and masturbation.”

The photographs of my son Sam caused such a stir that I was investigated by the Department of Social Services for alleged child abuse, after the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children charged me with producing kiddie porn. The charges were later dropped.

Because I was raised in a family where my sexuality was repressed (as most of us were), I thought touching one’s genitalia was something that occurred in teen years. As a new parent, I learned differently. Sometime in Sam’s first week, when I was changing his diapers, his hands went to his genitals. My first impulse was to brush his hands aside, but I hesitated long enough to realize that here was an important decision: to be free or not to be free, that is the question.

I envisioned thousands of parents repeatedly pulling their babies’ hands away, slapping them, or spanking: whatever it took to teach them that the area between their legs is forbidden territory. I had grown up thinking/feeling it was a dark and dirty business down there. My mother was undoubtedly responsible. She must have pulled my hand away from my sex hundreds of times. I wasn’t going to make the same mistake.

I refused to interfere with my son’s innocent beginnings of sexual development. Instead, I smiled at his childish playfulness. I wanted him to be able to do and think what he wanted, particularly concerning his own body. At the age of six he was still comfortable fondling his genitals in the presence of his parents. This childish delight I captured only once in a series of nine shots taken during a nude photo session with him. [From the 1994 article My Story, by Jacqueline Livingston, at:]


Among the cases I have encountered during my investigations: teenagers forced into “therapy” (looking at pictures while being punished with electric shocks) for being homosexual, children being treated with “aversion therapy” (smelling ammonia while looking at pictures) for touching each other sexually, juveniles being locked up for “statutory rape”, which, in most cases, are sexual relationships where the age difference is simply one year too much.

A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman named Crystal Larkin, was sentenced to 6 years and 3 months in prison for consensual sex with a 12-year-old boy. Another 16-y-o boy was sentenced to the same sentence for having sex with a 13-year-old—again, consensual, and he was imprisoned against the explicit will of the girl and both families. This is the result of the sex abuse scare coupled with the “tough on crime” scare, as these sentences are mandatory minimums.

In other states, large groups of kids aging from 7 to 17 having sex with each other were split up into “victims” and “offenders”, half of them sent to prisons, the other half to “therapy”. Again, the sexual relationships were playful and non-violent. Teenagers have been imprisoned for making photos of each other while having sex—producing “child pornography”.

The sex abuse scare itself, at least, seems to be mostly over. At its height, a witchhunt took place in America and Europe, with kindergartens and schools raided by investigators and social workers who learned soon that everyone they investigated was a victim or an offender. The “Top 10 signs that you are sexually abused” include things like headaches or “the feeling that you are different from others”. The list reads nearly identically for the top 10 signs that you were abducted by aliens. Or that you have multiple personalities.

The accusations from sexual abuse therapists (and later, their victims, i.e. patients) often have destroyed entire families—because a woman who had some problems in her marriage suddenly “discovered” that she had “repressed” memories of the most extreme & bizarre memories of abuse in her past. Thanks to the therapist for asking questions like: “Are you sure you weren’t abused? Well, just for the sake of the argument, imagine that you were abused. Then we’ll try to recover these memories and after 6 months, you tell me again that you weren’t abused.” And then it goes on like this: “Well, of all persons, who would most likely be the abuser? Your father? Yes, your father. I knew it all along. What did he do to you, did he touch your vagina? Can you see the picture now?” —often under hypnosis or even under drugs. Again, I don’t exaggerate. This has been documented by many scientists and journalists. An excellent book on the subject that should be in any humanist’s bookshelf is Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria, by Richard Ofshe (a sociologist at Berkeley) and Ethan Watters (an investigative journalist).

While many courts now reject these false abuse testimonies, the therapists are still there, and have looked for new occupations—to further spread their antisexual memes. One of their favorite topics is child sexuality, where they are capitalizing on the child pornography scare. They are treating “children who molest” (sexually active children) and “educating” parents about the “dangers” of touching, hugging and, generally, pleasuring each other. Even tickling is a sin. [From the 2001 article Defending the Right to Pleasure, by Erik Möller, at:]


The view that there has been a movement towards antisexuality and overreaction to childhood sexuality is supported by a poll of mental health and legal professionals reported by Haugaard and Reppucci (Okami, 1992). The poll indicated that 20% of these professionals believed that frequent hugging of a 10-year-old child by parents required intervention, that between 44% and 67% believed intervention was required if parents kissed the child briefly on the lips (as when leaving for work), and that 75% believed intervention was required for parents who appeared nude in front of their 5-year-old child.

Antisexuality is also evident in the need to deny and ignore the sexuality of children. The oft-repeated but unfounded dogmas that children cannot talk about anything they have not experienced and that age-inappropriate sexual behavior means the child must have been sexually abused are counter to the research concerning children’s sexuality. What children normally do sexually is more involved than most people believe (Best, 1983; Friedrich, Grambsch, Broughton, Kuiper, & Beike, 1991; Gundersen, Melas & Skar, 1981; Langfeldt, 1981; Martinson, 1981; Okami, 1992; Rutter, 1971). Haugaard and Tilly (1988) found that approximately 28% of male and female under-graduates reported having engaged in sexual play with another child when they were children.

Money (1991a) discusses the antisexuality evident in the prevention programs and the sexual terror induced by good touch/bad touch presentations (1991b). The sexual abuse prevention programs which have proliferated throughout the country are based on empowerment theory. The orientation of empowerment theory is political ideology which has at its core antisexuality (Krivacska, 1991b). This antisexuality may be seen in the language of sexual abuse that has its own peculiar, idiosyncratic usage of terms such as “hurt,” “touch,” “feel funny,” “body parts,” “yucky,” and “uncomfortable.” The system does not use direct language about sexuality but instead uses circumlocutions such as “parts covered by a bathing suit.” This communicates to children that sex is viewed negatively and cannot be talked about freely and openly. When a young child is questioned repeatedly about deviant sexuality, that child has been taught a negative view of sexuality. This focus on parts of our body and genitals teaches a genitalized and partial view of sex that will hinder the development of concepts of intimacy and sexuality (Krivacska, 1990; Nelson, 1978). (For a more detailed analysis of the antisexuality in the child sexual abuse prevention programs, see Krivacska 1991a, 1991b, 1991c, and this issue).

The frequent use of the circumlocution of “hurt” when adults question children about possible sexual abuse demonstrates the assumption that the power imbalance is harmful. When an adult asks a child if Daddy “hurt” her and both the adult and the child understand that what is being asked is a question about sexual contact the message is that sex and violence are inseparable. In and of itself “hurt” does not imply sexual contact. When it is understood that sexual contact is included, the power imbalance has been broadened to be the cause of the “hurt.” Herman (1981) puts it this way: “Any sexual relationship between the two (an adult and a child or an adolescent) must necessarily take on some of the coercive characteristics of rape” (p. 27).

All over this country men have told us they are afraid of children. They see an attractive, cute child in the supermarket and they don’t go down that aisle. They don’t make reinforcing comments to children in elevators. They worry about kissing and hugging their children or changing their diapers and wiping their bottoms. They cannot go into hot tubs or showers with their children for fear of being misunderstood. Teachers who were taught that children need to be touched and hugged risk being accused of sexual abuse, losing their jobs and careers, and even going to prison. [From the 1993 article Antisexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, by Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, at:]

America’s war on sex has evolved as needed, and will continue to evolve as needed. As one campaign loses its effectiveness and fades away, another campaign is created to take its place. Today, the current campaign, which is already more than two decades old, seems to be focused primarily on the alleged sexual danger to children posed by adults. It appears that this danger-to-children campaign developed, at least in part, as a replacement of the older campaign against all forms of so-called pornography, which had mostly faded away by the early 1970s.

In any year, the American media tends to publicize at least a few of the many anti-sex criminal prosecutions in America, so that the average American is made aware of what can await him in case he is caught doing anything that can be construed as violating the current law-enforced standards of sexual conduct. Thus, the general fear that American men have of children, as mentioned in the above quote.

Although I have not noticed recent criminal cases of this kind, I recall that during the 1980s and early 1990s there were many publicized criminal cases against fathers who were convicted and given long prison sentences based on alleged sex-abuse testimony that was extracted from their children (typically from daughters), who, as was later revealed by various critics, had been subjected to the kind of detection methods and questioning described in the above quotes. More recently, one of the current media-taught demons is so-called “child pornography”, and there are recent publicized criminal cases with resulting prison sentences for men who have downloaded “child pornography” from the Internet.

Regarding the psychological harm that results from America’s treatment of sexual matters during childhood and adolescence, a discussion-forum comment dated April 8, 2002, by David Kimbro, at, states:

[17] Women especially are vulnerable, since it is a lot easier to do something about female breast size than it is to do something about male penis size, and women are more motivated to “improve” their physical appearance since men are more attracted by physical appearance than women are.

Circumcised men are more vulnerable than natural men, because circumcision makes the penis smaller. Also, circumcised men are more likely to be dissatisfied with their penises than natural men, because a circumcised man is a sexually mutilated man.

[18] From the brief item Men and Their Underwear, by Ikey, at:,65453,

[19] Some people consider this method of using the toilet-bowl water to clean oneself unsuitable, because they see the toilet-bowl water as being unsanitary and a possible disease path. For myself, I don’t think the possibility of getting something serious as a result of using toilet-bowl water to rub myself clean is likely enough to be of any concern. However, for those who are concerned about the possibility of getting a disease as a result of using the toilet-bowl water, a possible alternative approach is to have a separate container that one fills from a faucet and then places next to the toilet; this separate container would be the water source for the water used to rub oneself clean.

[20] From a press release (which also gives the interesting detail that toilet paper “first appeared in roll form in 1890”), dated January 16, 2001, at:

[21] If it were possible to make a good public-interest argument against using water to clean oneself after shitting, then using water to clean oneself after shitting would probably be illegal in America. See my discussion about public-interest arguments in my Understanding America’s Drug War essay.

[22] The surrounding context, in both the original Latin and an English translation, given at, is:

iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat,
panem et circenses. 'perituros audio multos.'
'nil dubium, magna est fornacula.' …

Now long since, from the moment when none of us put our votes up for sale any longer, [the Roman people] has squandered its concerns; for the people which once had the power to grant imperium, fasces, legions, everything, now holds itself back and anxiously desires only two things: bread and circuses. 'I hear many men are going to die [in the arena].' 'No doubt. The furnace is huge …'

August 2017: I, Kurt Johmann, the author and copyright owner, hereby place this American Culture essay in the public domain.

Revisions: end