February 6, 2005.

Sex, or your kids, which would you choose?

If you had to choose one or the other, which would it be? This is the question now being presented to the American people. It's quite a perdicament. The fate of American culture and sexuality hangs in the balance.

Consider the following:

The FCC received thousands of complaints following last year's SuperBowl halftime show from parents concerned about their children seeing Jаnеt Jаcksоn's inadvertently exposed semi-naked breast. The satirical website Thе Onіоn recently ran a feature mocking this hysteria, which has spilled over even into the media's reports of this year's SuperBowl half-time show, which generally are so effusively happy that no one showed a boob that they forget to tell us whether or not Pаυl McCartney's half-time show was any good.

U.S. Fеdеrаl Cоmmυnіcаtіоns Cоmmіssіоn Chаіrmаn, Mіchаеl Pоwеll, Cоlіn Pоwеll's son, is set to step down from his post at the end of this month. Prеsіdеnt Gеоrgе Bush, an avowed anti-porn president, will appoint his replacement. Inspite of fining ABC $400,000 for the Jаnеt Jаcksоn's accidentally exposed breast on live television, Powell has always been considered a proponent of communications deregulation. So much so that the powers-that-be want him gone. Rest assured, whoever Bush replaces him with, will not be so, uh, liberal.

Supermodel Cіndy Crаwfоrd, has turned down Playboy's offer to pose nude again, because her son is now 5 years old and she doesn't want him to get hassled about it. It's ironic because Cindy opened the door for all women to pose nude without damaging their reputations or careers when she became the first supermodel to pose nude for Playboy back in 1989. She made it possible for other supermodels to follow, for Madonna to get away with her overt nudity and sexuality, for actresses to wear skimpy outfits to movie openings, for starlets to pose in Playboy, for Vіctоrіа's Sеcrеt to employ the world's most beautiful models, and much more. Now that door has once again been shut.

So it looks like America will now have to decide the issue of female beauty and nudity in the media, once and for all, much sooner than even we expected. The battle will have to be fought in one month, when Mіchаеl Pоwеll is gone, which means it will have to be waged right where the battle lines are currently drawn. There is no time to change them. Here is the question as it now stands:

Do we allow our children to become a bunch of corrupted sex perverts by allowing sex and nudity in the media or do we save our children by establishing wider powers to the FCC and the separate States to control what we see in public and in the media?

Of course it's a completely bogus question, based entirely on false alternatives - in fact, all evidence and common sense says the opposite is true, that stifling healthy sexuality in human beings turns them into perverts and indeed, violent monsters, and that children are not threatened - or even interested in - images or expressions of nudity and sexuality, but rather, generally come into existence because of them.

But because no one has dared to speak these simple and obvious truths for far too long, falsehoods are now all that is commonly and popularly available to the average person. And it's falsehoods with which they will make the choice between sex and their children.

Is there any doubt what they will decide?

How did this happen? Why is it either-or? Why isn't it possible to have children and sex in our lives in the future, keeping them separate as we've always done successfully in the past? Why do we now have to choose between them?

It because we're all guilty of abandoning the fight for free expression of female beauty to posturing moralistic campaigns and critical cultural movements. They've been quietly establishing censorship wherever possible, and hacking away steadily at our right to free speech, for decades, creating the political and cultural environment we find ourselves in today. The most powerful of the modern movements currently shaping our world and which has done so over the last several years is what we at Body in Mind call, the 'protect our children' movement. It is not an offical institution or organization. It is simply an ad hoc collection of the most vocal members of the numerous and varied anti-value movements now slowly but effectively destroying the world, from the environmentalist movement on the far left, to fundamentalist Islam on the far right. Such groups have nothing in common, except for one thing: the claim that they are motivated by their love of their children. This is the common denominator that defines and empowers 'protect our children' as the single most powerful activist group in the world, in spite of no official membership. And this is what has made 'for the sake of our children' the one moral principle that trumps all others these days.

This is why the current decision between sex and your children is either-or. The 'protect our children' movement will not accept anything less. And neither will any religion, political party, or moral movement now in existence.

For example, several years ago, when the anti-child pornography movement first made its way into the popular media, Body in Mind warned people that it was not meant to protect children as it claimed. There were already laws against sex with minors and using underage models for sexual photography or art so we didn't need more laws; we simply needed enforcement of the current ones. We said then that such people were not really out to stop child porn but rather to use the public's loathing for child porn to taint, smear, and eventually outlaw adult porn, and all forms of female beauty, nudity and sexuality.

Certainly we despise child porn. But we despise more those who tell us the sight of a fully grown woman in the nude will corrupt children, since such ideas are what creates the perverts interested in child porn in the first place. All of the evidence now known to science says that those not raised with a healthy attitude towards sex and their bodies, grow up screwed up. Often they grow up into perverts, and just as often into crusaders to 'protect our children' who then accuse we lovers of mature female beauty of perversion.

In spite of their corruption, beauty-haters have managed to gain the sympathies of the American people to the point where it is they who speak out without fear, and the lovers of female beauty who cringe in the shadows. Good people have betrayed the goodness of what they love and granted the moral high ground to those they know to be evil. We should never have allowed our love of female beauty, nudity and sexuality to be labelled immoral, depraved, dangerous, dirty, superficial or smutty as is so often has been over the years. The very first moment we did, it was inevitable that the anti-beauty movements - once granted the moral high ground - would try to destroy female beauty. When you grant power to something evil, you can't later pretend to be surprised that that evil uses that power to destroy what you love.

That is how we got ourselves in this perdicament. This is why the choice is now: sex, or your children. We long ago granted to evil movements like femininism, environmentalism, egalitarianism and religious fundamentalism the idea that our children are our highest value, and we have long accepted without proof that female beauty, nudity and sexuality are immoral. Thus we have no right to be surprised now that those movements are using our love for our children to destroy the things we love, including female beauty. We find ourselves now in the ironic and unpromising position of having to defend something as wonderful and glorious as female beauty from what our society calls a moral crusade to 'protect our children'.

And unfortunately, there is nothing anyone can do about it now. The maudlin cries in hysterical defence of our children against such horrible things as breasts, Cosmopolitan magazine, and swear words have turned America into just another backwards country that severely punishes women for accidentally showing a part of their bodies, just like they do in the fundamentalist Islamic nations with which we're now at war.

And because FCC Chаіrmаn Pоwеll is about to resign, things are about to get much much worse.

Body in Mind predicted this exact set of events 7 years ago in an essay on the brutal treatment of women in fundamentalist Islamic countries. We said that America would be no help to such women as long as Americans agreed with the idea that female beauty is immoral. And that in fact, if America did not reject this awful idea, that it would be in danger of following in the fundamentalists' footsteps.

We were right.

And if it sounds like the purpose of this piece is to say, "We told you so", you're right. It is. We did tell you so. But we hope telling you so now will help wake everyone up to the fact that the 'protect our children' movement will not stop at destroying freedom of speech and female beauty. It will eventually try to attack and destroy every value known to you: your freedom no matter how little, your pleasures no matter how innocent, your rights no matter how sacred, your accomplishments no matter how great, and your family no matter how loved. It will do so simply because it is anti-value loosed on the world in its purest form, and in the largest numbers we've ever seen. It is a headless, soulless fog of acid. And its only purpose and only possible outcome, is total destuction of all human values.

We hope telling you so now will make you alert and responsive the next time someone attacks something you love in order to 'protect our children'. If you don't defend what you love from them, don't ever ask why you've lost it.

And for those of you who wonder what argument they can use against someone who cries 'We must do it to protect our children? What could be more important than children?':

The answer is: adults. Without adults there can be no children, and without a healthy view of sexuality, which includes the admiration and protection of female beauty, the sanctity of the female body enshrined in law, and nudity as an artistic expression of the greatness and glory of adult human beings, there can be no 'adults'.

All of these things are more important than children, and until we realize it, and speak it openly, healthy human sexuality is doomed.

And if it is, what then will we be passing on to our children?

Dаnіkа's Gаllеry | More galleries... | Jоіn Bоdy in Mind

All contents © 1997 - 2005 Body in Mind. All rights reserved. All nude models at least 18 years old and of legal age when photographed.