Anybody seen this?
Anybody seen this?
- Thread starterMrEdd
- Start date
Mike Church
Registrant
Wow. I had no idea. I hope the SOB died horribly
With all due repect to everyone's personal beliefs and opinions.
I have just spent hours going through the WorldNet.com site, and reading the words of Judith Reisman and numerous articles and quotes, by her and about her.
In a nutshell: Worldnet.com is not a mainstream news source. It is described by Publishers Weekly as a news outlet for Fundamentalists.
The articles I read there express several views which I believe are extreme, intolerant, or simply regressive and misguided.
These views include: Anti-Homosexuality; Anti-Gun Control; Anti-Feminist; Anti-Sex education; Anti-Planned Parenthood; Anti-Government.
The editor & CEO of Worldnet.com, Joseph Farah, expresses the following views in his new book "Taking Back America" (this quote is not from the book, but from a Publisher's Weekly review).
When it comes to Judith, that is another story. Basically, she shares many of the views expressed at Worlnet.com.
She is particularly active with respect to Anti-Homosexuality and Anti-Sex Education. She also has a particular fascination with pornography and Kinsey.
Speaking of Kinsey, the only allegation I was able to verify is that Kinsey was married, and had sex with men. He rated himself a 4 on the sexuality scale (with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual).
Back to Judith. She is a crusader for turning the clock back in all matters relating to sex. Back to a time when homosexuals either stayed out of sight, or through prayer and willpower, became heterosexual. Back to a time, when sex education was left to parents and the church; when family planning and abortion were priveleges of the rich.
Let me remind you, that that would also take us back to a time where adults were unquestioned, sexual abuse was unheard of, and a site like this would not be possible.
Judith's "research" and conclusions (with the exception mentioned below) have not been peer reviewed, nor are they given any credibility by the scientific community. Her books have been self-published or published by Huntington House. Huntington House, along with its subsidiary Vital Issues Press, will publish almost any book on "conservative issues, politically incorrect exposs, christian apologetics, cults/occult, evangelism, family issues, anti-globalist issues" and "patriotism/survivalism" as it says in its appeal to prospective authors.
Her articles appear mostly on-line and in fundamentalist publications. She is a close personal friend of "Dr." Laura.
Her only major, reviewed study was in 1984 and was funded by a grant from the US Justice Department. Her study was academically based at American University. Reisman used the grant to confirm her conclusion of "Kinsey's role in child sexual abuse and the link to children appearing in mainstream pornography..."
In 1990 Reisman wrote "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud," with Edward Eichel, published by Vital Issues Press (Huntington House). Reisman describes the book on her web site claiming that "Kinsey's research involved illegal experimentation on several hundred children."
The Kinsey Institute refuted Reisman's allegations prompting a lawsuit filed in 1991 by Reisman against the Institute's then director June Reinisch and Indiana University. She alleged defamation of character and slander.
Reisman's attorney "withdrew from the case" in 1993, and "in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice [which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit]."
Finally, for your consideration: from FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
And isn't her argument just teriffic??? It's not the perpetrator's fault, not the bishop's who ignored and protected them, not even the devil's: IT WAS KINSEY!!! Let's see how far this advice gets.
Regarding the British documentary: It is based entirely on Judith's "research" and writings.
I don't know a thing about Kinsey's personal life (other than his admitted bisexuality), his research, his methods. I wonder if his work would still be described as a landmark over 50 years later, if even the least of her allegations were true.
Whatever the truth, I sincerely doubt that all of the problems we see in this country, that everything Judith disagrees with, was caused by or can be traced back to Kinsey's two books.
As Bob said about this in the other thread,
I have just spent hours going through the WorldNet.com site, and reading the words of Judith Reisman and numerous articles and quotes, by her and about her.
In a nutshell: Worldnet.com is not a mainstream news source. It is described by Publishers Weekly as a news outlet for Fundamentalists.
The articles I read there express several views which I believe are extreme, intolerant, or simply regressive and misguided.
These views include: Anti-Homosexuality; Anti-Gun Control; Anti-Feminist; Anti-Sex education; Anti-Planned Parenthood; Anti-Government.
The editor & CEO of Worldnet.com, Joseph Farah, expresses the following views in his new book "Taking Back America" (this quote is not from the book, but from a Publisher's Weekly review).
So much for Worldnet.com. All I will say is I don't agree with the majority of views expressed there, but I won't deny anyone's right to express them. In fact, I found several items I do agree with, especially some of last year's under-reported news stories, although I doubt that my reasoning would be the same.
When it comes to Judith, that is another story. Basically, she shares many of the views expressed at Worlnet.com.
She is particularly active with respect to Anti-Homosexuality and Anti-Sex Education. She also has a particular fascination with pornography and Kinsey.
Speaking of Kinsey, the only allegation I was able to verify is that Kinsey was married, and had sex with men. He rated himself a 4 on the sexuality scale (with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual).
Back to Judith. She is a crusader for turning the clock back in all matters relating to sex. Back to a time when homosexuals either stayed out of sight, or through prayer and willpower, became heterosexual. Back to a time, when sex education was left to parents and the church; when family planning and abortion were priveleges of the rich.
Let me remind you, that that would also take us back to a time where adults were unquestioned, sexual abuse was unheard of, and a site like this would not be possible.
Judith's "research" and conclusions (with the exception mentioned below) have not been peer reviewed, nor are they given any credibility by the scientific community. Her books have been self-published or published by Huntington House. Huntington House, along with its subsidiary Vital Issues Press, will publish almost any book on "conservative issues, politically incorrect exposs, christian apologetics, cults/occult, evangelism, family issues, anti-globalist issues" and "patriotism/survivalism" as it says in its appeal to prospective authors.
Her articles appear mostly on-line and in fundamentalist publications. She is a close personal friend of "Dr." Laura.
Her only major, reviewed study was in 1984 and was funded by a grant from the US Justice Department. Her study was academically based at American University. Reisman used the grant to confirm her conclusion of "Kinsey's role in child sexual abuse and the link to children appearing in mainstream pornography..."
The Justice Department also refused to publish her study. It was six years before she convinced Huntington House to publish it.
In 1990 Reisman wrote "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud," with Edward Eichel, published by Vital Issues Press (Huntington House). Reisman describes the book on her web site claiming that "Kinsey's research involved illegal experimentation on several hundred children."
The Kinsey Institute refuted Reisman's allegations prompting a lawsuit filed in 1991 by Reisman against the Institute's then director June Reinisch and Indiana University. She alleged defamation of character and slander.
Reisman's attorney "withdrew from the case" in 1993, and "in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice [which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit]."
Finally, for your consideration: from FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
Notice the second paragraph above. See all the "What if's". This is Judith's style -it's all over the web. Make up a bunch of questions and then use her OPINIONS and her AGENDA to make them seem true.
And isn't her argument just teriffic??? It's not the perpetrator's fault, not the bishop's who ignored and protected them, not even the devil's: IT WAS KINSEY!!! Let's see how far this advice gets.
Regarding the British documentary: It is based entirely on Judith's "research" and writings.
I don't know a thing about Kinsey's personal life (other than his admitted bisexuality), his research, his methods. I wonder if his work would still be described as a landmark over 50 years later, if even the least of her allegations were true.
Whatever the truth, I sincerely doubt that all of the problems we see in this country, that everything Judith disagrees with, was caused by or can be traced back to Kinsey's two books.
As Bob said about this in the other thread,
So do I, but I don't think it will be coming from Judith Reisman.
andrew-almost52
Registrant
Don,
Thank you for posting a larger, wider view for us to balance,formulate and consider. Information is power and ammunition against manipulation .... and I'm all for less manipulation. We've seen enough of that. Peace, Andrew
Thank you for posting a larger, wider view for us to balance,formulate and consider. Information is power and ammunition against manipulation .... and I'm all for less manipulation. We've seen enough of that. Peace, Andrew
Richard Gartner PhD
Registrant
Thanks, Don
Mike Church
Registrant
Thanks also from me. I was judgemental without testing the validity of the research. Doesnt that sound a lot like the way others look at us as a group. God it is hard to be tolerant and not to jump to hastily. Once again the quick fix aprpoach to everything and I know that does not work. Slip Slip Slip.
Good research work, Don. It is very important that we examine rumors and first impressions AND check the source of so-called "information". All too often, we get well-meaning but bogus virus alerts and other information passed along without anyone checking it out.
Just because it's on the 'net doesn't mean it's true.
Ken
Just because it's on the 'net doesn't mean it's true.
Ken
I don't think its right to discount any information we feel like based on a source of information. Here is the real test:
If someone gets a copy of Kinsey's 1948 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male", looks on pages 160-161 and those quotes aren't there, then and only then will I discount her arguements. On the other hand most people don't give a title page number and quotes if they lie.
I had my doubts reading the article. Then when I went to the branch articles it really felt overwhelming, I had to stop reading and go talk to my wife for a while. It seemed to get convoluted in its thinking and I began to wonder what point they were trying to make. It seemed like the baby was getting thrown out in the bathwater. Including Planned Parenthood in the seedyness sent up the red flags to me. At that point it seemed to have an agenda I had problems with. Thanks Don-NY for your extensive research. What's wrong with sex education. Why shouldn't it be taught. My mother tried to teach me in bed with her. School sounds like a much more appropriate setting to me.
You make a very good point, Les.
Right after I read what you said, I went to the library. Unfortunately, they closed early today in honor of Lincoln's birthday.
So after dinner, I went to the Barne's & Noble bookstore. They are sold out of "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male".
I can't get to the library tomorrow, but I will look on Friday.
I am really curious now. But I wonder what exactly would make you discount her arguments.
Look at this passage again:
I say six at the most, because I suspect that the last quote may be the author of this passage quoting Judith's opinion of what Kinsey judged. I also doubt that I will find the word "adult", in parentheses in the original text, so if it isn't there, I'm not going to count it as a quote. Just my opinion, but would that be enough to make you discount her arguments? What about context?
There is no context to the quotes in the above, other than what the author of this passage and/or Judith imply. The word "children's" is not from a quote, indeed, I can't even tell if that word is from Judith or the author.
I will look. I'll let you know what I find. But I also suggest you look for yourself. Because unless I scan the pages and post them, why should you believe me?
Overall, this passage reminds me of when a critic describes a work as "a smashing bore and an incredible waste of time", but the advertisement for that same work will quote the critic like this "...Smashing...Incredible..."
Right after I read what you said, I went to the library. Unfortunately, they closed early today in honor of Lincoln's birthday.
So after dinner, I went to the Barne's & Noble bookstore. They are sold out of "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male".
I can't get to the library tomorrow, but I will look on Friday.
I am really curious now. But I wonder what exactly would make you discount her arguments.
Look at this passage again:
This is not a quoted paragraph from the book. There is not even a sentence. At the most, there are 6 phrases, three of which are single words.
I say six at the most, because I suspect that the last quote may be the author of this passage quoting Judith's opinion of what Kinsey judged. I also doubt that I will find the word "adult", in parentheses in the original text, so if it isn't there, I'm not going to count it as a quote. Just my opinion, but would that be enough to make you discount her arguments? What about context?
There is no context to the quotes in the above, other than what the author of this passage and/or Judith imply. The word "children's" is not from a quote, indeed, I can't even tell if that word is from Judith or the author.
I will look. I'll let you know what I find. But I also suggest you look for yourself. Because unless I scan the pages and post them, why should you believe me?
Overall, this passage reminds me of when a critic describes a work as "a smashing bore and an incredible waste of time", but the advertisement for that same work will quote the critic like this "...Smashing...Incredible..."
This part of the post I'm leaving:
Men, I respect the beliefs & opinions of everyone here, and the right to those beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.
But let's not miss the point here, at least my point in putting some personal emphasis on what Mr.Edd brot out from WorldNet.com.
This is not about homosexuality, sex education, or Planned Parenthood. It's about the sexual abuse of children! Period. I meant to make no other point, and if I made some other point to anyone I'm sorry. No offense intended.
This I have just added:
I have researched Kinsey, Reisman, and others on both, or more accurately on the many sides of these issues. There is enuf questionable research and faulty conclusions by all to go around from what I can see. As well as the preconceived ideas & personal or social agendas that tend to go with such studies & research.
I will not put much stock in what any of them say. I will add nothing else as far as my opinion.
It is not that crucial to the issues we face as male survivors of sexual abuse. It is not worth even the hint of any division here.
Thus I have saved for documentation, but I have deleted the rest of this post, with apologies for any offense I may have caused anyone.
Victor
Men, I respect the beliefs & opinions of everyone here, and the right to those beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.
But let's not miss the point here, at least my point in putting some personal emphasis on what Mr.Edd brot out from WorldNet.com.
This is not about homosexuality, sex education, or Planned Parenthood. It's about the sexual abuse of children! Period. I meant to make no other point, and if I made some other point to anyone I'm sorry. No offense intended.
This I have just added:
I have researched Kinsey, Reisman, and others on both, or more accurately on the many sides of these issues. There is enuf questionable research and faulty conclusions by all to go around from what I can see. As well as the preconceived ideas & personal or social agendas that tend to go with such studies & research.
I will not put much stock in what any of them say. I will add nothing else as far as my opinion.
It is not that crucial to the issues we face as male survivors of sexual abuse. It is not worth even the hint of any division here.
Thus I have saved for documentation, but I have deleted the rest of this post, with apologies for any offense I may have caused anyone.
Victor
I have no respect for fundamentalism and what it represents. My mistrust is for the source, not MrEdd. With fundamentalism it is a package deal by its nature, that is it's definition. It is more about the letter of the word, and less about its spirit. No if's ands or buts. My experience with fundamentalism is that it is judgemental. I do not need that. This brings up crap for me about the age of reason, which is seven years old. I'm supposed to know the difference between right and wrong and thus I am responsible for feeling pleasure with my abuse, and I went back for more. The law says I was seven yrs old. I would be stoned for what happened to me. Jerry Falwell doesn't miss a beat when it comes to being judjemental. He is not alone, look at the source we are looking at here. This paper is not about love, it is about witch hunts. It is about devide and conquer. Look at the division that is occuring here.
Fundamentalism is about black and white kind of thinking. You do it the way they interpret it or you are going to hell.
For as cruel as that kind of thinking is I know I will see them there.
Fundamentalism is about black and white kind of thinking. You do it the way they interpret it or you are going to hell.
For as cruel as that kind of thinking is I know I will see them there.
As a Survivor of child sexual abuse and a fairly new member of National Organization Against Male Sexual Victimization, I am particularly sensitive about the damage to children caused by sexual predators of the young. I have received such help and comfort here, especially on this public forum. I hope that newcomers to this forum will likewise receive the kind of help, support and caring from the Survivors who post here, as I have. For the most part, stories posted here are by survivors of male sexual abuse who have struggled through the lifelong confusion, torment and depression caused by perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Many of you have courageously and honestly shared your experiences so that others who read them can relate what has happened to them to these experiences. One of the greatest realizations for me from these posts by understanding Brothers was that I AM NOT ALONE in my suffering. Through that realization I gained hope. And as a direct result I am now in therapy and I am finding that healing which will lead to recovery. To paraphrase a quote from Richard ... There is a significant amount of healing that comes from the psychological support provided by the sharing of posts in both the public forum and the private member forum... Yes, I agree because I have experienced that same support on many occasions. There are some very good articles posted here. I have not read them all yet, but the ones I have, like the one by Dr. O'Dea, have been particularly enlightening. I want to encourage any visitors reading these posts to read the articles by other professionals who have dedicated their time and practice to stopping the continuing sexual abuse of boys and men (actually of anyone) and to the healing and recovery of survivors of sexual abuse like myself and others here. I am glad to recommend reading of Dr. O'Dea's article. Many thanks to Richard and Ksinger and Don and Victor and Mo and Mark and all the Members here who have helped me so much and to those Members who are dedicated to helping the victims of child/adult male sexual abuse. I believe Dr. Reisman is also a Member. Sincerely, Jess.