External Articles | Posted: May 10, 2011
Preparing the Victims
Interview with Judith Reisman, PhD
Interview by Brian O'Neel
Catholic World Report, November 2002, front page
A noted researcher, with an extensive background in the study of sexual deviancy, explains why she believes that the American bishops should sue the "experts" who advised them in their treatment of abusive priests. She goes on to charge that the disciples of Alfred Kinsey have helped to build a culture that breeds sexual abuse.
In August, an op-ed column that appeared in the Washington Times caused a stir among many readers who had been following the development of the sex-abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church. The column called upon the US bishops to bring suit against the "experts" who had advised them in their handling of priests who molested children. Catholic World Report recently met with one of the co-authors of that column, Dr. Judith Reisman, to discuss the recent scandals. The conversation soon broadened to include a discussion of sex education, the legacy of the pioneering "sexologist" Alfred Kinsey, and the impact the sexual revolution has had upon American society.
Judith Reisman first became known to the American public, oddly enough, as the songstress on children's shows such as Captain Kangaroo. But she soon turned to scholarly endeavors, receiving her doctorate from Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, and developed an expertise in the relationship between pornography and sex crimes. In that role she has been a consultant to the US Department of Justice during three different presidential administrations. She has led the way in debunking much of what passes for orthodoxy in the sex-research world, and has written several books sharply criticizing that orthodoxy, and exposing the questionable--and in a surprising number of cases, the outright fraud--on which that orthodoxy rests. Her most recent book is Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences.
Dr. Reisman is now the president of the Institute for Media Education. A full list of her publications can be found on her Internet site: ,www.drjudithreisman.org.
You argue that the American bishops were lied to by top experts in the fields of sex education, counseling, and therapy. Why do you make that very provocative claim?
Judith Reisman: Because the bishops would have been told that these counselors were experts in their field, and that's simply not true. It's a lie. They are not experts. They have proven themselves to be anything but.
The claim that one is an "expert" means that you have to have a field in which you can prove success: knowledge and success. I don't think that any rational person who looks around, at this world we are living in today, and considers that the human-sexuality "experts" have been directing much of goes on today, in schools and in laws, would think we are in better shape today than before the arrival of the "experts." So their success rate--if you judge by the health of the nation--is quite easy to document as non-existent. Their failure is what dominates the whole landscape.
What is it that they have advised the American bishops to do?
Reisman: Well clearly they advised the bishops that it's perfectly all right to send these pederasts and pedophiles back into the community and back into service as priests. They--the bishops--took the advice of the medical professionals, when they returned these men to their roles as priests. The professionals didn't say to them, "Look, this man is a pederast. He will continue raping children as long as he is near children he will be raping them. Our advice is don't ever let him go near a child." No; they never said that. If they had said that, I can assure you, every one of them would be hauling out their records right now and plastering them in front of every newspaper.
What they did is they recommended that these guys stay off alcohol and get this therapy they were giving them--this so-called therapy--and then they could go back into service.
I read the famous--or infamous--1985 document written by three leaders in these issues: Wilton, Doyle, and Peterson. Fr. Michael Petersen was at that time the director of the St. Luke Institute [a treatment center for troubled priests]. Ray Mouton was a lawyer for one of the first famous priests who was a child-rapist. And Father Tom Doyle was also a priest [who had worked in the office of the papal nuncio in Washington]. In that document, these three gentleman are counseling and formally advising, as experts, that the Church had to release itself from its moral authority and hand over control of the counseling of pedophiles and pederasts to the "experts"--to Dr. John Money at the Johns Hopkins Clinic in Maryland, and to his disciple and co-founder, Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins.
Both Dr. Berlin and Dr. Money, however, have made it very clear in writing that they would never turn in a pederast or pedophile to the authorities, whether they were sexually sodomizing 100 boys or 1,000 boys, or boys or girls, or combinations thereof. Now I cannot prove it until we have legal discovery, but I would assume that these experts, if they told the bishops they were not going to report these men, certainly wouldn't have done it on the basis of saying that they knew these men were going to continue sodomizing boys.
You've mentioned legal discovery: the phase of a lawsuit in which each side can subpoena documents and take depositions. And you have called upon the American bishops to file a lawsuit, which would make that "discovery" possible. What do you believe such a court case would accomplish?
Reisman: Well, I don't know that the bishops would ever do it because obviously when you go into discovery that means you are uncovering a great deal of correspondence between individuals, which would probably reveal many things that the bishops would not want to have revealed--nor would the medical professionals want these things revealed, either.
Still I would imagine that in discovery--and if we could do that in another sort of lawsuit, I would be happy to hear about anybody going forward with it--we would find out exactly who was counseling which priests at what time. We would be able to go into their notes and find out what was being said to the counselor, and what kind of advice that counselor was giving the pedophile or pederast.
Certainly it appears that when these "sexology experts" were throwing out would-be priests who were "not suited" to that vocation, many of them were discarded because they--the seminarians--objected to pornography in the seminaries, and objected to sexual activities that were taking place, sometimes between the adult superiors or faculty members and the boys. They had been told that these activities were normal. Dr. Alfred Kinsey was the guru who explained all this: that masturbatory activity is perfectly normal and appropriate for groups or individuals, and so fort. Every form of deviance, and every form of conduct that identifies the homosexual population, would be considered to be normal and appropriate.
I have interviewed enough people by now so that I have been confirmed in my observations that legal discovery would enable us to find out how much of the flawed and false information these "experts" have been trained in has in fact become orthodoxy, and transmitted both to pedophiles and pederasts and to other future priests who became pedophiles and pederasts.
You believe that the field of "sexology" is largely fraudulent, and that the real goal of the pioneers in that field was to sweep aside the traditional American--and for that matter Catholic--understanding of sexual morality. Can you explain?
Reisman: That of course was Kinsey's aim in the first place. In his book, Sexuality of the Human Male, Dr. Kinsey made that very clear, as did his backers at the time, such as the Rockefeller Foundation.
That was Kinsey's interest. He was a bisexual/homosexual: sadistic, masochistic, who could have been clinically defined as a sexual psychopath. And I base that on documented evidence.
Kinsey's underlying interest always was in the destruction of the laws and the views that existed in this society regarding sex. So he surrounded himself with like-minded people who would hide what he wanted hidden--which was the fraud--and who participated in these lies and created what he called the field of human sexuality. The pioneers in that field then found like-minded people who continued in the field, and schooled others. Certain key structures emerged, like the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, which has been a major mover and shaker in the creation of sexologists who entered into the school systems and have so infected our society. There was New York University, which had a group that began a curriculum on human sexuality and did training there, and another at the University of Pennsylvania.
This, then, became the core training structure for the study of human sexuality in the United States. There were these places, and the Johns Hopkins Clinic, which was founded by Dr. John Money--who wrote in the Journal of Pedophilia that he believed that men should be able to have sex with boys. He did not see a single problem with any of that; he thought it was perfectly normal; he wanted to see an end to the age of consent. Now I'm sure he did not say those things to the bishops when they met. He did not tell them that this was his view. Yet he would be counseling their priest-pederasts in this way. Nor did his disciple, Dr. Fred Berlin, report anywhere that this was Dr. Money's view--although Dr. Berlin himself was circumventing the law in attempting to keep active pederasts from being arrested.
Who is Fred Berlin, and why is his position as an advisor to the American bishops so problematic?
Reisman: Fred Berlin was the co-founder of the sex-treatment clinic at Johns Hopkins along with Dr. John Money--who was his mentor, he has said. Fred Berlin is a psychiatrist and a medical professional, and a self-styled expert in sex, as is Dr. John Money. (Nobody is asking how you become an "expert" in sex, when you're learning from people who have created a body of fraud in the first place.)
Dr. Berlin was the fellow who was recommended along with Dr. John Money by Father Michael Peterson, a Catholic priest who was running a little retreat house for sex criminals. Berlin, along with Money, was recommended very strongly, in that 1985 document on pederasts and pedophiles in the Church, as among the most preeminent people in the field of human sexuality. Petersen said that these were the most well respected men in this entire field, and that the Church should genuflect to them and the Church should bow itself to them. Petersen was very clear about this; he accused the bishops' approach of being old-fashioned, antediluvian. He said [the bishops] were engaged in moral judgmentalism--which, Petersen said, was absolutely wrong.
And of course the advice was that these men, the pedophile priests, could be cured, and these psychologists and psychiatrists were going to cure them. And how were they going to cure them? Through therapy. They were going to sit and talk with them and explain that what they did was probably not a really great idea.
But then again I'm not sure that they ever said that to these men, you see, because I don't necessarily believe that this was their position! I know it wasn't Dr. John Money's position, and I have no information that suggests that Dr. Berlin ever disagreed with Dr. John Money. So what they were whispering to these guys behind closed doors is anybody's guess--until we have legal discovery and we get to try to find out.
At Johns Hopkins, Dr. Money and Dr. Berlin made it very clear that in order to enter the Johns Hopkins sex-offenders clinic, you had to promise that you would attend every session. They threatened anybody who joined their group with being reported to their probation officers (if they were on probation) if they didn't show up for their meetings. But they also made it clear that if the pedophile or pederast or rapist or whoever he was, was carrying on his normal activity, sodomizing or raping children and women, then Johns Hopkins and John Money and Fred Berlin would never report them to anybody. So they could be reported if they didn't show up for their little therapy sessions, but they certainly would not be reported, they were promised, if they said in confidence to their counselors that they were in fact engaged in the sexual assault of children.
Now if you're not going to tell the bishops that while you're treating these guys, these guys are raping kids, how are the bishops really supposed to know that these men are not really being treated so that they will stop assaulting kids?
Do you think that, were it not for people such as Dr. Berlin, men like John Geoghan or Paul Shanley would have been unable to do the things they did?
Reisman: Oh, absolutely. I mean, if the Church had adhered to its own belief system, these guys could never have been allowed loose, as far as I understand it.
Father Petersen accused the Church of its moral judgmentalism, saying that they had to stop that kind of thing. Well, if they were morally judgmental, unless they were prepared to say that they were simply going to hide all this from the authorities with no justification whatsoever, then I would have to believe that, yes, these men would have been turned in.
I'm not Catholic, but I realize that they [the bishops] might have felt that they should be tolerant, and keep these guys in a place where they could read and do research and that sort of thing. But to turn them loose again, without any indication at all that they would not continue their crimes, I don't the Church would have done that.
Are there other Kinsey acolytes who have been prominent advisors to the Catholic hierarchy in America?
Reisman: Paul McHugh is a very famous fellow. He was chief of psychiatry at John Hopkins, with authority over Dr. Berlin, and he stood by and supported Berlin's thwarting of the law when he refused to turn in men who were sexually assaulting children, although the law required it. So McHugh is deeply implicated in this. [Editor's note: Paul McHugh is now a member of the US bishops' National Review Board on sexual abuse.]
But beyond that there all of the "second-tier" people who are cited in Goodbye, Good Men--Michael Rose's book--or who I have heard of in my interviews with men who have been forced out of the seminaries because they were sincere Catholics. Those "second-tier" counselors, who see themselves as experts, have been promoting the Kinsey sexual perspective for the past 30 years. And they have forced upon these young men their attitudes based on the SAR: Sexual Attitude Restructuring.
What is Sexual Attitude Restructuring?
Reisman: Oh, well, it's a pornography show by which you get a degree, essentially.
It was created at the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, which was founded by two Methodist ministers, and its academic dean was Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, coauthor of the Kinsey Report.
The SAR as described by George Leonard in Esquire, and in a subsequent book that he wrote about it, is a series of up to 14 screens of pornography. It has in the past included child pornography, bestiality, homosexual sodomy, heterosexual sodomy, group copulation, and various other things. Fourteen screens showing this pornography were shown at the same time in a room in which the participants sat in the middle on reclining mats in various stages of dress and undress--it depends upon who's running it. And these pornographic films play at high-pitch volume, often with Tchaikovsky symphonies playing in the background.
It is there to help sexually restructure your attitudes--that is, to gut your entire belief system, through this massive brainwashing activity. And it accomplishes exactly that. You don't come out the same as when you went in.
In your degree-granting activity at any of these sex places where they give degrees, you are going to have to watch hundreds of hours of pornography--not critically, but in order to accept and enjoy this activity. Now that is abnormal, by definition. Again, you cannot justify training people about sexual things through this kind of coarsening, exploitive, debasing activity.
Leonard wrote in Esquire that when he left the Institute, all of a sudden he realized that he had been conned. He was completely disoriented in watching all this film. He found he couldn't distinguish between men or women or animals or whatever, and at the end he realized that the entire time he'd been at the Institute, he said he hadn't heard the word "love" mentioned once. They were very clear about that; this is a breaking down of human beings, of their modesty and honor and so forth.
That was the training curriculum that has been concocted by what I call the "academic sexuality syndicate" since Kinsey came on board. The SAR that we're talking about was created in 1971, and that thing is really just hard core porno: stuff that was all illegal in the United States up until we had our liberal interpretation of the media. All of the institutions that train in sexuality will use the SAR, either in full or in part, either a few hours or many hours. But you can't get away from it. And what it does is effectively screen out anybody with a moral compass, because you're not going to sit through that.
Clergy certainly came to the Institute, and they trained their people that way. Those people then went into the seminaries and they trained the future priests.
You talk about how it effects our seminaries. What about our schools, both public and parochial?
Reisman: Oh, the same people who are drumming out good future priests from the seminaries because they are too orthodox and too "sexually repressed," those very same people were trained [by] the same "academic sexuality syndicate." And those same people are the ones who are training little Tom Sawyer and Becky about sex in the classroom. I would be really nervous if I had any kids in the classroom being trained by those folks.
How prevalent are they? Do they make up a majority of the sex-ed teachers?
Reisman: I would say they are 100 percent of all accredited human-sexuality teachers.
No, let me back up. I won't say 100 percent; I'll say 99 percent. I know a woman who went through it and... well, she came through it OK, because she started off knowing what she was going into. She was already a nurse, she was a very devout Christian, and she bit her lip and said she was going to get through this and not tell anybody-- because in fact, if you object to any of this sort of stuff, you can be sure you probably will not graduate. So it's a self-selecting sort of thing. As opposed to any other discipline, in this field there is no degree you can get if you don't have the right understanding about sex. And the "right" understanding is their understanding.
By the way, it is an understanding that's written clearly in some of their documents. Their mission statement says that everybody--that would include children--should be able to have sex with anybody they choose to have sex with. And that's in the mission statement from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Human Sexuality which has trained most, if not all, accredited human-sexuality teachers in the California system.
Now the new folks on the block, the abstinence teachers, come from a different perspective, and they're largely free of this kind of thing. But they're not the "accredited" human-sexuality teachers.
Talk about SIECUS a little bit. Who are they and what influence have they had over parochial schools in America?
Reisman: SIECUS was formed in 1964, effectively at the Kinsey Institute. Mary Calderone, who had been the medical director of Planned Parenthood, moved out of that slot to form SIECUS, and as its title suggests--the Sex Information Education Council of the United States--they were aiming to become the educators and informers of all the United States about sexuality issues. So Planned Parenthood's Mary Calderone was the head of that effort, which really was carved out of the Kinsey Institute as the education arm, to funnel clients into Planned Parenthood--which would help to provide the abortions, and the contraception, and the field activity.
It was after Kinsey's work appeared that SIECUS was created, and it was created out of the Kinsey structure. In 1991, SIECUS published guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education, for kindergarten through the 12th grade. These guidelines were sent to all the public education school boards nationwide, and they have subsequently gone into private and parochial schools, to promote sex education at every grade.
The original claim for sex education, by the way, was that it would lower the rate sex crimes. I thought that was kind of cute. I don't know if you've noticed that the sex crime rate has lowered with all our sex education, but based on the information I get regularly from the Department of Justice, I don't see that it has. Quite the contrary.
So they were going to lower our sex-crime rates. Then they claimed they were going to lower our pregnancy rate amongst youngsters. As the pregnancy rate increased, then they said what they were going to lower the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. But all of that, of course, is now off the charts, as the sex educators move into schools and educate the children in sexual promiscuity--which is essentially what they're doing. They titillate them, stimulate them, and in every way, shape and form distract these children from the work that they have at hand, which is supposed to be academic learning -
Anyway, Mary Calderone became a supporter of Playboy magazine, and Playboy and the Playboy Foundation gave financial support to SIECUS, as did Planned Parenthood, as it did the Kinsey Institute. The interlocking relationship between the pornography industry itself (and Playboy magazine is pornography, and they have produced child pornography; that is well documented in the research I did for the Department of Justice) and the sex-education world is direct, it's not even indirect. As we speak, SIECUS and Planned Parenthood and their disciples have publicly called for the right to give children graphic, sexually explicit materials in the classroom without any controls from parents or teachers or anybody else. That is, in fact, taking place. We have that now all over the country.
You've mentioned pornography several times now. Many people have this impression that pornography is harmless, that it's an effective teaching tool.
Reisman: It is (an effective teaching tool)! (laughs)
But maybe not for teaching what we want to have taught! Why do you insist that pornography is not harmless?
Reisman: The research I did for the Department of Justice fully established that even soft pornography has effects. My research was on Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler, and images of children, crime, and violence in those magazines. I was asked to do that research because these particular magazines--back in the 1980s, before the Internet and so forth--were being found in the possession of many teenagers who had been sexually assaulting children, that they wanted to know what was actually in these magazines. So we did a content analysis of the magazines.
I'll just talk about Playboy briefly, because whatever applies there should apply tenfold for Penthouse and Hustler, right? Playboy was producing child pornography. By 1954, Playboy was already doing pornographic cartoons of children having sex with adults. In fact, one of the first ones was drawn by Hugh Hefner himself. It was an incest cartoon about a young boy remembering his older sister and having had sex with her. >From the cartoons, it graduated into illustrations, and from the illustrations (and this is a standard desensitization program, by the way) they then graduated into photographs. The photographs were usually of young, young girls with men--adult men--which would be outtakes from European films. So they could talk about the pictures as though they were just reviewing a European film. It was that sort of thing: artistic child pornography. But there's no question that Playboy was a child pornographer.
Now, when we have sexually explicit pornographic materials in any environment, you get people sexually excited. That's what it is supposed to do, and it does it very well. And when people are sexually excited, they will usually act out sexually if they can. Now when you have a child in a situation where there's a younger sister or a younger brother in the room, and that child is being exposed to pornographic stimuli, he will very often act out on the little child next to him.
When you put pornographic materials in a classroom, you are eroticizing the classroom and you are eroticizing the children--to each other, to themselves. This is not healthy. I hope we haven't slipped down the drainpipe so badly that we can't figure that out. Sex is not something that is to be distributed like candy. It causes great harm when people are not having their sexual activity within the stricture of a marital relationship. We find venereal disease. We find people raping people. We find people getting AIDS and dying. And guess what? We even find that they are kidnapping children from people's back yards because they are stimulated beyond belief by the pornographic materials that they are looking at regularly.
The data from our law enforcement agencies have been clear. The fact that all our government administrations have run from the challenge of having deal with this massive multi-billion dollar industry--which has emerged like a toxic cloud over our society, worse than an atomic cloud, I would suggest--tells us one thing and one thing only: that the pornography industry is incredibly strong. It does not tell us that it is harmless; it tells us it is becoming more and more entrenched, because there is more and more money being gained. It is an industry that has only one thing at the end of it, and that is destruction and harm, and in particular massive harm to children.
Our child sexual abuse rates are off the charts. Depending on how you look at data, it can be anywhere from 5,000 percent increase to a 15,000 percent increase in child sexual abuse reports since the 1960s. We are looking at massive increases in rape, as well. We are looking at every kind of sexual dysfunction. If they tell you that the abductions of children have decreased, that's a lie. We had 58,000 non-family abductions last year, reported by the Missing and Exploited Children's Center.
Now I am 67-years-old. There is no way these things were taking place when I was a kid. There is no way that these things were happening and mom and dad didn't notice. There is no way that children were being kidnapped from the front yard. Something has happened. What has happened has been based upon a fraud: Kinsey's fraud. It was used to change the obscenity laws, the abortion laws. It was used to change the fornication laws, which had restrained a lot of this activity. It certainly was used to lower age-of-consent laws, and to eliminate laws against seduction. (It had been against the law if you promised the girl you would marry her and then you didn't.) We had a whole slew of laws in place before Kinsey that protected young girls and protected women. But with the feminist movement screaming that nobody needed protection, we have left our girls and our women--and for that matter our boys--as open targets for every sex offender. And we're breeding them. We're breeding sex offenders everywhere.
Before we go on, what is the long-term effect of a 14-year-old brother viewing Playboy and wanting to act out, say, with his 7-year-old brother.
Reisman: That ties right into an experience I had with a young man who was homosexual and who had AIDS and who was dying. This young man had been trying to get off drugs, and trying to recover from his alcoholism and his various other diseases and what not, and his is exactly that kind of story.
I asked him when he had his first sexual experience, and he said he was about 19. I remember thinking: That's kind of old for someone who entered the homosexual life. He said he couldn't recall any earlier experiences. But after talking with him for a while, he mentioned, just casually, that when he was about 5, his brother had been using his father's Playboy and Penthouse that were in the closet, and his brother came into the room and--you know, did various things. And I said, "Well, I thought you said you had not had any sexual experience until you were 19." He said, "No, I hadn't." Then I asked him, "Well, what do you call that?" And he sat there, just staring at me for probably a full three minutes. And he said, "Oh, no. Oh, no."
What I have found is that this sort of thing happens very often with boys who are exposed to pornographic materials in their home. (And by the way, if it's in their home, that is a disaster; it's bad enough when they would get it on the street, but at home it's as though mother has given her stamp of approval.) What we have very often is a young boy who's looking at this stuff in his home, who has a little brother or sister in the other room. Very often that boy is not going to distinguish between the girl and the boy. He's going to pick the boy to molest. Why? Because he figures the girl is a tattletale. Very often girls will tell mommy, while boys are told, "Hey, take it like a man. Now be quiet. Don't say anything." They will very often be much more compliant to an older brother than a younger sister will--although there's no question that they do this to the younger sisters, too.
Girls appear to be much more capable of surviving this sort of experience. First of all, they are being assaulted by a male, usually. So it's still heterosexual. It's a crime, it's violent, it's everything wrong in the world, but at least it doesn't disorient their understanding of who they are in terms of their gender. With a boy, his whole sense of who he is is completely turned topsy turvy. He may never completely recover from that.
This is especially true for homosexual seduction, and lies that go with it. Men are telling boys that the boys have asked for it, that the boys are homosexual. Well, you know, we have girls who go into prostitution, there's no question, when they're sexually assaulted, because they're told they asked for it. But very often a good man can help to redeem a girl, can help to bring her back to herself, so that she understands it's not her fault, that it was someone else who did that to her. We simply haven't found that that's the case with boys. They don't seem to be able to pull out of that assault once it has taken place. Some do. We have a lot of recovery groups. But boys don't recover in the same way that girls recover.
Let's talk about Alfred Kinsey. People often say that he revolutionized the field of human sexuality. You disagree. Why?
Reisman: I would agree he revolutionized human sexuality.
When you have a revolution usually it means that the entire way of life is ripped up from its grounding, and people are hurt badly. We take a look around us and we are hurt. This is the sexual revolution and it's still going on. But that it's been improved is a falsehood on the very face of it.
What we have learned from Kinsey is this: he was the guy who allowed us to take sex out of the closet and bring it out into the open and to talk about it. Now that we can talk about it and see it a little bit, and we were told that now everything was going to be wonderful. Remember? We were going to have a lower sex crime rate and a lower venereal-disease rate and everything else.
Well, Kinsey did allow us to take sex out of the closet and instead of whispering and not using four-letter words, we're now using them on television and everywhere else. It's into the classroom, and it's into the kindergartens. We have children being sexually assaulted by other children in kindergarten cloakroom while the teacher sits nearby.
It turns out that taking sex and pouring it all everybody wasn't really the greatest idea in the world. By the way, there was nothing new about the idea of having sex all around us. We had gotten away from the pan-sexual life which people had lived in other cultures and in other times--when children didn't know who their fathers were, when families were not closed to multiple activities ,and when children were found roaming the streets and having various diseases. We had recovered from that, and the way we recovered was by putting the genie back in the bottle, and by making sure that people's activities were controlled under the Judeo-Christian belief system. Under that system a man did not have many wives; he had one wife. He could not spit three times and have her divorced. Divorce was something we abhorred. A man was expected to stay with his first wife, and women could count on their husbands being there and their marriages holding into old age--retiring together and basking in the sunlight with their grandchildren, and all that sort of thing.
The world was not perfect. Life was not perfect. We did have some divorces. We did have wife-beating, certainly, to some extent. We did have rape to some extent. We certainly had child abuse to some extent. But under those Judeo-Christian standards, with sex repressed instead of expressed everywhere, we had control. And that control allowed our grandparents and our great-grandparents to create a civilized society: to create cities that were finally decent places to live, to create rural environments and urban environments that could be livable for men, women, and children. We were reasonably safe and we had parks where children could go out and roam about and not worry about being kidnapped. That was the environment we had in the 1950s.
That was prior to Kinsey.
Reisman: Prior to Kinsey. Again, it was not perfect. Human beings are never going to be perfect. But it was good as you can get: that was my experience. Then came 1948, just three years after World War II ended. He waited at least long enough for the "GI Joes" to settle down. It was just the right time for him to come out with his fraud and to claim that 69 percent of our men were really going to prostitutes all along, that 50 percent of our women were engaging in fornication prior to marriage, that 60 percent of our men were engaging in fornication prior to marriage.
Where was he getting all this stuff?
Reisman: Ah! Nobody asked (laughs).
Nobody asked? Nobody said: Show us your methodology?
Reisman: He said 10 to 37 percent of our men were engaged in homosexual activity, that 25 to 27 percent of their wives had had abortions--at a time when abortion was illegal, and when our extra-marital pregnancy rate was roughly 6 percent. In the midst of all of this, with all of this alleged sexual activity, we had hardly any babies being born out of wedlock, and nobody asked him about that. How did he know that 27 percent of our wives were aborting, if that was illegal? How did he know those things? Nobody asked.
It turns out that roughly 87 percent of his male population, for his studies, was already in prison or they were active homosexuals--many of whom he was copulating with at the time, by the way. We had at least 650 boys included in his group who were being sexually molested to some extent. All of this we found out later. We also found out later that probably none of his claims were true, because, according to one of his major researchers, William Simon, he threw away the data he didn't want! He threw away 75 percent of the population that he interviewed.
This is remarkable. Today, if a scientist comes out with some finding, immediately 15 other scientists are questioning his methodology, asking where he got his sample ...
Why didn't this happen with Kinsey? It wasn't as if scientists were less exacting in their standards at that time.
Reisman: No. We had some people objecting, but you have to remember, there was a mass-media blitz. The Rockefeller Foundation put huge sums of money into Dr. Kinsey, and one of the key things the Rockefeller people were extraordinarily good at was manipulating and controlling the media. Kinsey was in the front section of every newspaper all over the country, and he was not there with critiques; he was there as the man who was finally telling us the truth about ourselves--that we uptight, that we were all just a bunch of hypocrites.
The Graduate would flow from that belief, along with the whole 1960s business about, "Mom and Dad, you're a bunch of hypocrites. You're really doing Peyton Place." Well if that had really been the case, I can assure you that our venereal-disease rate, our pregnancy rate, our illegitimacy rate would have been off the charts. In fact we had roughly three major venereal diseases to worry about at that time, and now we're up to between 27 to 50, depending on whose data you're looking at.
But, he lied, and nobody caught him. And when he talked about married women, come on! It turns out he couldn't get any married women for his research. He couldn't get normal women to talk with him. So he just redefined "married." Nobody ever checked. I went to see how he defined "married women," because these were not the women I knew. His definition was very clear: It was any woman who had lived with a man for more than year. Well excuse me, but in 1948, cohabitation was absolutely considered an outrageous activity. There was no way you did that. So here he redefines cohabiting women and prostitutes as "married women."
If he had titled his book Sexual Behavior in Aberrant Males or Sexual Behavior in Aberrant Females, then he could have helped us, because we would have read the things he claimed they did, and we wouldn't have done them. We would have said: Let's not have early sex activity. Let's not have sex before marriage. Let's not have multiple partners. Let's not engage in adultery. But instead he was telling us that these things are normal behavior so that we should engage in adultery. This led to a whole spate of swinging and wife-swapping and open marriage and all that. Where do you young folks think that all came from? That all came from Dr. Alfred Kinsey's claim that everybody was doing it, and if you don't join in what everybody else was doing, you would lose out.
What effect has all this had on sex crimes?
Reisman: I recently released a report which I called: "How the FBI and Department of Justice Minimize Child Sexual Abuse Reporting." I was looking at the claim by the FBI that we have had a dramatic reduction in crime. Well, it wasn't really such a dramatic reduction in sex crime. Forcible rape has increased 418 percent since 1960--and this is only the reported instances, it doesn't include the stuff that people don't want to talk about. And that's forcible rapes--not counting the statutory rapes of kids, because they dropped out all the data on the rapes of children under 12 in 1958. The FBI decided for some reason they would no longer record statutory rape as rape. Anybody who was underage was just dropped out. Yet it turns out, we found recently, that 34 percent of the victims of sex crimes are under 12 years of age.
So they tell us sex crimes are down in recent years. Well, I suggest that might reflect a couple of things. One is that women have become more and more fearful about going anywhere, so they won't be taking a jog the way they used to, they certainly wouldn't be strolling around. We have women training in karate. We have them learning how to shoot. We have them avoiding all kinds of places that they'd like to go but will not because they're afraid. And we have mothers restricting their children everywhere. You don't say to the children, "Go off and play; don't come home until dinner." No one says that to their kids anymore.
How does Kinsey relate to all this?
Reisman: We have this promotion of promiscuity back in 1948, and the idea that any restriction of sex was going to increase sex crime. The laws, then, were being changed radically through the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, to allow for an elimination of all of those restrictions. We would eliminate laws against fornication. We would eliminate cohabitation and against seduction. We would reduce the penalties for rape dramatically. We would allow parole for even the most violent of sex crime offenders. That happened nationwide, state by state, because Dr. Alfred Kinsey's phony data were being used. The recommendations went from the American Law Institute, which is an arm of the American Bar Association, into every state in the country. Every legislature began to eliminate some sex crimes, to lower sex-crime penalties, to parole sex offenders.
Now the American Bar Association itself reports that 80 percent of our pedophiles never serve time. They walk. They may have some sort of "treatment"--which doesn't do a bit of good--but they walk. As the penalties have decreased, the incidence of sex crimes has increased, so that now we are dealing with a toxic sexual environment for women and children everywhere you turn.
Now people are beginning to notice--particularly through the priest scandal--that we're letting out these guys and they're just raping kids all the more. The big problem here is that as we have become desensitized to rape and to sodomizing of women and children, that desensitization will really undermine our ability to go after these people and incarcerate them and put them away.
Kinsey had been telling us that our sex-crime laws were...
Reisman: ... antediluvian--that they penalize what everybody is doing--and nobody's getting hurt from it anyway, right? He didn't report anything about the venereal disease from prostitution. He didn't report anything about the problems he knew existed in the homosexual world, because he was very tight in that world. He didn't report any of the fallout from promiscuous sex--although he knew about that fully, there's no question about that. He knew, and yet he lied. Those lies then became part of our legal structure, disguised as fact.
The whole idea of the sex-crimes laws was that we were going to prohibit these things either because of religious reasons, or because of the harm that came from this activity. Well, Kinsey said that science had now displaced religion, and that religion had been wrong, because you could do all these things and there was no harm, either to the individual or to society. We embraced that approach legally, and we have lived with the harm ever since.
How did Kinsey get his data on childhood sexual responses?
Reisman: He got that from rapists, from sodomizers, from pederasts.
There was a man whose name was Rex King, and he was a surveyor who had raped 800 children--from babies to teenagers, girls and boys, of whom large numbers were in his own family. Kinsey was using him as his sex expert in the United States; he had done these "experiments" on these children. This man became our great sex scientist! He would rape these children and then he'd say that they enjoyed it mightily.
The other man from whom Kinsey got a large amount of data from was Dr. Fritz von Balucek, a member of Hitler's Gestapo, who told children they would go up the chimney if they didn't do what he wanted. (Actually they all went up the chimney anyway). Kinsey was corresponding with him. We know that because it got into all the German papers in 1956, just before Kinsey died. (But it didn't get into one of our papers. Isn't that interesting?) The story made the front headlines in German newspapers. Von Balucek was being tried at that time for the sexual murder of a little girl.
Kinsey was also working with the group that preceded NAMBLA--the North American Man Boy Love Association--and they were sexually assaulting children for him, as well.
What happened to the children whom Kinsey brought into his clinic and studies for their sexual responses?
Reisman: We don't know. That was the first thing I asked when I wrote to the Kinsey Institute back in 1980. I got a reply from Paul Gephardt, who was the president of the Kinsey Institute at the time. He said they didn't have enough money or time to follow up on these children. Well, of course, that's ridiculous. I mean, you've just had all these children raped for your little science project, and you're telling me you didn't have time to follow up on them?! They refused to open the records to allow any investigation. Just remember that the Institute reissued Kinsey's book, without any disclaimer, in 1998.
Now at the Kinsey Institute they are conducting research on gender and reproduction and preparing a big document on--guess what?--child sexuality. Until and unless you can wake up some people somewhere, these people are not going to stop.