Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernard Sanders has expressed some bizarre views on women and sexuality, which he has not refuted, and has a few times joked about when asked. Of his 1972 satire on rape, Sanders quipped “It’s bad 50 Shades of Gray fiction,” (referencing the book and movie that glorifies sexual abuse of women.)
But his articles about children and nudity and women’s sexual beliefs and cancer breach even “twilight zone” bizarreness.
While what Sanders wrote over 40 years ago may seem irrelevant today, it’s not. Especially in light of the concerted effort by the Left to impose pornography and sexually deviant mental disorders as “normal” and “healthy,” particularly among children.
In November, 1969, Sanders wrote an article, “The Revolution is Life Versus Death,” in the Vermont Freeman, in which he lamented over the ban of a 1967 Swedish drama film, “I Am Curious: A Film in Yellow,” because it contained numerous nudity scenes and staged sexual intercourse. The film’s ban led to legal proceedings, which ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Byrne v. Karalexis, 396 U.S. 976 (1969) and 401 U.S. 216 (1971), the Supreme Court upheld the Second Circuit Court’s ruling that found the film was “not obscene,” ultimately unbanning the film.
Sanders’ response to the ban and to an incident at a Vermont beach, was:
“Now, if children go around naked, htey [sic] are liable to see one another’s sex organs, and maybe touch them. Terrible thing! If we bring children up like this, it will probably ruin the whole pornography business, not to mention a large portion of the general economy that makes its money by playing on people’s sexual frustrations.”
Was Sanders joking? Being sarcastic?
If so, is joking about children touching each other’s private parts funny?
And, what does this say about one’s privacy or “control of their own body”? Should children be taught to look at others’ sex organs and then ask permission to touch them?
Then, there is his 1969 essay, which is even more bizarre, in which he suggests that social ills are related to “the sexual repression of young people” and that women get cancer because of their sexual attitudes.
In “Society, Cancer and Disease,” Sanders ruminates over a 1952 study that correlated a woman’s inability to orgasm with having breast cancer. He also addresses a 1954 study that suggests women with cervical cancer “tend to have a dislike of sexual intercourse.” In response to these “scientific studies,” Sanders concludes:
…What do you think it really means when 3 doctors, after intense study, write that ‘of the 26 patients (under 51) that developed breast cancer, one was sexually adjusted.’ It means, very bluntly, that the way you bring up your daughter with regards to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will get breast cancer, among other things…How much guilt, nervousness have you imbued in your daughter with regard to sex? If she is 16, 3 years beyond puberty, the age at which nature set forth for child bearing, and spent a night out with her boyfriend, what is your reaction? Do you take her to a psychologist because she is ‘maladjusted,’ or a ‘prostitute,’ or are you happy she has found someone with whom she can share love? Are you concerned about HER happiness, or about your ‘reputation’ in the community?
Somehow he infers that a woman’s proclivity to get cancer is a result of how she is raised? And, that a woman’s attitudes about sex can determine whether or not she gets cancer? Is he serious?
Is Sanders suggesting that because a girl gets her period at 13 that nature is saying 13-year-olds should get pregnant? Worse still, and even more bizarre, that teenage girls should “share” or “accept” love from men– or they will get cancer?
His rationale and suggestions would make more sense if he admitted he was on drugs while he wrote them.
But the fact that he doesn’t apologize or even make excuses for his ludicrous statements is telling.
In “Society, Cancer, and Disease,” he extends his misogynist view that women in authority are to blame for a child’s “repressed anger.” (Does this mean Hillary has created millions of angry children?)
A child has an old bitch of a teacher (and there are many of them), or perhaps he is simply not interested in school and would rather be doing other thing. [sic] He complains and rebels against the situation, which is the healthy reaction. When a person is hurt, no matter what age, he SHOULD rebel…. Outwardly, he becomes the “good boy”, [sic] conforming to the rules and regulations of the system. Inwardly, his spirit is broken, and his soul seethes with anger and hatred, which is unable to be expressed. He has learned to hold back his emotions and put on the phony façade of pleasantness. Thirty years later, a doctor tells him he has cancer.
To be clear, Sanders is suggesting that a man’s anger is suppressed by an old woman. And this old woman represents an oppressive power system that causes men to get cancer.
Again, is he serious, or joking? Either way, Sanders’ views about women, children, sexuality, and cancer are perverted and deeply troubling.
Either way, his new slogan should be: “A vote for Hillary is a vote for men’s cancer.”