Women who bathe naked with boys: Judith Reisman blasts Nichole Kidman film for promoting pedophilia

Liam Neeson and Bill Condon's cover-up for mass child sexual abusers in "Kinsey" will doubtless claim several Academy Awards. This follows Academy wins in 2002 by Hollywood's favorite expat pedophile rapist, Roman Polanski.

Kidman is distressed at the European response to her nude scene with a boy in her new movie, "Birth." She is even rumored to have been spat at in the streets by intolerant Italians during the Venice International Film Festival.

OK, so "Birth" is R-rated (perhaps for repressed). The press reports it features a "shocking scene of the Oscar-winner naked in the bathtub with a 10-year-old boy."

So what? She didn't skinny-dip in the film with her own son Connor – this was another boy.

Anyway, the boy taking a bath with the naked film star is "done in the best possible taste" she says.

Kidman said this was a tender scene. She is shocked, appalled, stunned that a scene with her sloshing around naked with an apparently naked almost boy lover might be seen as a sex scene.

She is quoted as saying, Oh, "It's not about sex, you know, it's certainly not about sex. It's about love, it's about being ... under the spell of somebody."

In her film, Nichole is a widow who thinks the 10-year-old boy is her dead hubby. And we know that director Jonathan Glazer is not another Hollywood Polanski-like closet pedophile because he says he "never set out to make a salacious film."

There you are. Still, the film was booed and hissed at by those uptight Viennese film critics who did not understand the artistic beauty and innocence of it all.

In one scene, Nichole "tenderly kisses" the boy-who-is-her-dead-hubby, played by 11-year-old Canadian Cameron Bright, on the lips. In another scene, they share an ice-cream sundae and she asks him whether he has ever made love to a girl.

We see Nichole's bare back and the lad waist up in the water. But we are assured, often, all is OK because he isn't naked, they say.

Well this is not done "to exploit a young boy," Nichole says. Polanski is still stuck in France after his rape of a 13-year-old girl, and this isn't 12-year-old Brooke Shields being auctioned off for deflowering in "Pretty Baby," or Jodie Foster prostituted as a "12-year-old whore in Martin Scorsese's 'Taxi Driver.'"

Director Glazer noticed that a naked woman and child in a tub was a kind of "taboo in many respects." But he sees his skinny-dipping as "sacred in a way."

The folks connected with the film say Nichole was so "careful to protect the young actor's innocence."

Nichole explains that "he never got to read the script," and in fact, that the two were filmed separately for the "bath scene."

Now, are we to just believe that all those involved in making "Birth" – as in "Kinsey" – are just naively stupid, unworldly? If so, how can they make films that so dramatically influence our lives and our culture? If they're not stupid, when do we admit that such people would use their power and influence to do evil, and that children are, for them, objects to exploit and brutalize?

Kidman says her boy-husband – who is allegedly so mature that he can play a reincarnated dead man who returns to life to lust for his wife – "just thinks it's kind of fun."

A strange defense. If, as Nichole and Glazer claim, their film is about innocent "love," why hide the script to protect the boy (and where were his parents)?

In my jaundiced view, watch the theaters near you for a cadre of Kinseyan Hollywood pedophiles who know exactly what they are doing.

let it first be said that I am firmly against sex outside of marriage and I am firmly against incest and abuse. None may not claim I am stating otherwise without biting their tongue. I know you only want what's best for your children, you are to be commended for that virtue. But I assist in warning you of a terrible error in your judgement. You are in danger of inadvertently harming them.

Affection is MORAL. Lascivious, forced sex on children is IMMORAL. Do not confuse the two. Anger and raw emotion towards previous acts of child abuse, however justified and right it is to have those emotions for the actual case of child abuse, does not constitute a moral reflection and it's no excuse for trying to obliterate something natural and healthy. If emotions are motherly and benign, then they are NOT sexual in the context hereby used. You are confusing abuse with motherly touch (essential for the emotional growth and development of a child). You are making as John put it "good, evil and evil, good". The physical neglect of a child is evil, they are both against the teachings of the Bible and anything resembling common sense. Nudism (not lust) is also the goal of a healthy, moral society. Nudism is truth, nothing concealed. Only a devil conceals. God has given us the story of Adam and Eve to show us our sin. Adam and Eve invented cloths in the warmth of paradise (without the intended purpose of preserving body heat) and in doing so they originated the dark path for mankind to follow. How can deceit (covering one's self up) and trying to deny God's gifts be a good thing, be a moral thing? What next, outlawing breast feeding because it involves physical contact between mother and child? Incriminating human beings because they are not ethereal? Incriminating those who love God because they have not neglected him in the name of his own morality? Certainly you know the answer and realize the contradiction in that last question.

These are people in a bath tub and there is no sexual abuse, right? There is no hitting, strangling, piercing, stabbing, kicking, screaming, swearing, slapping, gnawing, mangling, shooting, burning, grinding, or murder. What in the name of God, then, are you attacking? The human form? The recognition of the human form? WHY? How can you believe this? What beauty is there in mangling a child with a flogging stick or treating him like some uncontrollably promiscuous and demonic virus to be molded and crushed? Attacking the human being made in the Lord's image would seem to be evil in every sense of the word. Am I wrong about this? is this not true?

An innocent child is born evil? How can this be? If an innocent child is born with evil, born with the tendency to lust then there would be no innocence and all murder and mayhem would be the will of God. But this is not so. Right?

I am ignorant, lost, and confused within this ideal of yours. You may now challenge my statment. If you try to defame me, keep in mind that you will accomplish nothing. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a healer of illnesses, and a believer in the redemption of mankind from original sin. Your malice will have no more affect on my thoughts and beliefs than the breath of a mewling calf. You may choose a lifetime of anger and war if you wish. That would be a truly unfruitful sacrifice of your purpose in this life. Your children need your compassion.

I am growing weary, for my fellow humans here seem to be losing their humanity. Now is the time to choose your approach: hatred, defense, or to leave it be and discover the truth on your own. I will not fail in creating a safe habitat for children all over the world to live and grow, even if others fail them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.