Where does Bernie Sanders stand on naked children and sexual attitudes that ‘cause cancer’?

Where does Bernie Sanders stand on naked children and sexual attitudes that ‘cause cancer’?

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. [score]Bernie Sanders[/score] has some weird views on women and sexuality. In 1972, he wrote a satire on rape, which he recently quipped is “bad ‘Fifty Shades of Gray’ fiction.”

But his articles about children and nudity and women’s sexual beliefs and cancer breach even “twilight zone” bizarreness.

While some will argue that what Sanders wrote over 40 years ago is irrelevant, it’s not, especially in light of the concerted effort by the left to recast pornography and sexually deviant mental disorders as “normal” and “healthy,” particularly among children.

In November, 1969, Sanders wrote an article in the Vermont Freeman titled “The Revolution is Life Versus Death.” In it, he lamented the ban on 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 was challenged in court, ultimately ending up before the U.S. Supreme Court, in Byrne v. Karalexis, 396 U.S. 976 (1969) and 401 U.S. 216 (1971). In its ruling, the high court upheld the Second Circuit Court’s determination that found the film was “not obscene.” In the end, the ban was lifted.

Trending: Teacher suspended for criticizing Bernie Sanders’ rape fantasy

One of the happiest campers at that decision must have been Bernie Sanders, who originally wrote an op-ed on the wrongheadedness on the ban as exemplified (in his view) by an incident at a Vermont beach:

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 the essay was meant as comedy, how is joking about children touching each others’ private parts funny? And, what does this say about one’s right to 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 developing 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 predisposition to 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. Again is he being serious? Is he suggesting that because females begin menstruating at around 13, 13-year-olds should seek to become pregnant (by “sharing love”) or risk 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 has remained unapologetic for, or even made excuses, for his radical off-the-wall statements is revealing.

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?)

Sanders writes:

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’s 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.”

Cross-posted at Constitution.com

Bethany Blankley

Bethany Blankley

Bethany Blankley is senior editor for Constitution.com. She has written for the Washington Times, Newsday, Western Journalism, Townhall, and the Christian Post. Her syndicated show, "America's Betrayal," can be heard on Conservative Review Radio and WAAR.


For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.