Dr. Judith Reisman

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:05:04 +0000

Key Causes of The Current Pandemic Child Sexual Abuse Pornography Traffic (PowerPoint Presentation 17MB)

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:17:48 +0000

Reliance of the U.S. Catholic Church on the Discredited Field of "Human Sexuality" and on Sexology Advisors Whose "Scientific" and Moral Foundation Deviates Radically From Tat of the Church (PDF 42MB)

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:08:56 +0000

Pornography In Neighborhood Convenience Stores: Neurochemical Effects On Women (Word DOC 368KB)

California Cripples Women's Children's and Family Rights

Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:30:59 +0000

California Cripples Women’s Children’s and Family Rights

“Science Based” Law Reform 1923 - 2000

The Kinsey Reports: 1948 to Today

A Work in Progress:

J.A. Reisman, Ph.D.

RSVP America

L.L. Jeffrey, Ed.d

Principal Investigator

2002

www.rsvpamerica.org & www.drjudithreisman.org

California Cripples Women’s, Children’s & Family Rights

A Preliminary Historical Overview of The Penal Code

All obstructions to the execution of the laws…serve…to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a…small but artful and enterprising minority of the community…rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plan as digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

***

[I]n the course of time and things….cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

***

[R]esist with care the spirit of innovation….which will…undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments … [C]hanges [based upon] mere hypothesis and opinion, expose to [society] perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion…[1]

Excerpt from George Washington’s “Farewell Address,” September 17, 1796

Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (JA Reisman) provides an overview of the development of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Model Penal Code (MPC) at the national level. In January 2001, under the direction of researcher Dr. L. Jeffrey, RSVPAmerica, began to examine in greater depth the history of the ALI Model Penal Code (hereafter cited as the ALI/MPC) and its impact on state penal reform. The evidence of Kinsey’s role in deconstructing the rights of women, children and the family in state laws began to dramatically emerge.

Kinsey, who died in 1956, is praised by the North American Man-Boy Love Association, stating all pedophiles should “know Kinsey’s work and hold it dear…[for] implicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today."[2]

Reisman and Jeffrey confirm Kinsey’s work as the basis for weakened laws and cultural norms that have helped foster a sharp rise in sex crimes against children, noting that 58,200 abductions by non-family members were recorded by the FBI in 1999, most of which involved sexual victimization.

The research question was posed over 200 years ago by President George Washington.

That is, did “a…small but artful and enterprising minority of the [legal] community” usurp “for themselves the reins of government” by “obstructions to the execution of the laws”? Claiming the need for “innovation” and simple “restatement’ of the laws, did a group of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” establish the ALI/MPC as a means of subverting the nation’s criminal and moral laws in order to undemocratically implant their own “hypotheses and opinion” as the law of the land?

The particular focus of RSVP is, at this time, the way in which the ALI/MPC reshaped the legal status of American women and children. The RSVP investigation has examined state laws, reform commission reports, bar review journals, and other primary source documents.

California’s history in relation to the ALI Model Penal Code is unique. A full decade was spent rewriting the California penal code to conform to the ALI model. Yet, the final ALI/MPC based product was rejected by the California State Legislature both in 1968 and again in 1973.

At the time of this writing it appears that in 1978 the ALI/MPC recommendations became one of the first official acts of Jerry Brown, the then newly elected California Governor.

Credit for California’s revolutionary penal change goes to a group of law professors headed by University of California, Berkeley law and criminology professor, Arthur Sherry. According to UCLA researcherW.L. Gordon, the California group were “law professors from the prestigious law schools who had either participated in the drafting of the MPC, or shared its outlook.”[3] Sherry claims that the California Governor and the legislature initiated the push for legal change. What he doesn’t mention is that the public sought tougher, not lighter penalties for crimes, especially sexual crimes against children.

Crime and crime control were important political issues receiving extensive public exposure, and the recently published Proposed Official Draft of the Model Penal Code was beginning to be recognized as a useful example of what could be accomplished by a comprehensive study of the whole body of the substantive criminal law.[4]

Sanford J. Fox, the sole draftsman for the New Hampshire Criminal Code cites other influences on California’s embrace of the ALI/MPC.

There is undoubtedly an element of ‘me-too-isim’ involved as well. The Model Penal Code and the enactment of new codes by several states during the recent past have exerted a strong influence to reevaluate a body of law which many have known to require revision…Of central historical importance is the background of the Model Penal Code. Several documents which demonstrate major ideational roots of the Code…make it clear that the thinking at Columbia and Chicago in the 1930’s played a decisive historical role.”[5]

ACLU founder and Kinsey attorney Morris Ernst revealed the political strategy was to quietly insert the Kinsey data to draft penal changes from New York to California. Writing in “Law” in the Saturday Review, (March 13, 1948) Ernst explains;

Rockefeller, Indiana University, and the Kinsey staff have made an outstanding contribution to….law which touches on marriage, the home, and personal behavior patterns related to sexual drives or suppression. The Kinsey contribution must eventually affect all our sexual legal folkways…. Are we ready for a national pattern?….Kinsey and his staff are wise enough not to hint, even, at any answers …[and use] no adjectives. Not a single passing comment should be made on the effect of the data on present laws, or the effect of the existence of the present laws on the data. Others must take on that chore. It’s time now for a staff of lawyers, with zeal and wisdom equal to the Kinsey group, to study the material…the Kinsey Research Magnificent.”[6]

“A Staff of Lawyers:” The Revision Committee

In 1963, the “staff of lawyers” entitled, the California Joint Legislative Committee for the Revision of the Penal Code was organized, including 10 men, divided equally from both houses of the legislature. The revision staff was made up of “a staff of lawyers, with zeal and wisdom” law school professors from UC Berkeley, University of Southern California and Stanford University. In addition there was an advisory board of two district attorneys, two criminal defense attorneys, two judges, Professor Arthur Sherry, and a representative from the Attorney General’s office.

As was the case with the national ALI/MPC draft, no active prosecutors participated in either the California revision staff or the advisory board. Each member of the staff was assigned individual research and drafting responsibilities. When their product of 18 months work was brought to the California board, the board’s response was unfavorable. Sherry, indignant for himself and his staff, wrote:

[I]ts product at first inspection struck most of the members of the Board, unfamiliar with the Model Penal Code or any other contemporary criminal law revision as a strange and baffling departure from all of the familiar landmarks of conventional law. The style of the Model Penal Code, its rigorously logical order and its general abandonment of common law terminology does pose difficulties for anyone whose entire educational and professional experience has been circumscribed by the eighteenth century common law concepts still preserved in the criminal law of California. The staff, of course, was greatly influenced by the Model Penal Code.[7]

In 1969, the “staff of lawyers” were dismissed, and a former Deputy Attorney General was appointed to redirect the reform process. The UCLA Law Review devoted its April 1972 issue to a “Student Symposium on the Proposed California Criminal Code.” They described the current California Penal Code, which was based on an 1872 enactment, as “outdated, unmanageably lengthy, and internally inconsistent.”[8]

According to Professor Sherry, "it seemed apparent to the staff that the Model Penal Code provided the most useful and efficient base from which to attack this disorderly body of law." (pp. 434-435). Their “efficient” draft on sex offenses "assumed that in almost all offenses, a maximum term of five years would be adequate and would best serve the goals of modern correctional practice" (p. 437).

To do this, sex felonies would be demoted to lesser crimes and/or penalties, while they proposed stripping the law of most if not all of its misdemeanor criminal sanctions, substituting the non-criminal offense of "infraction" punishable by fine, or some other non-custodial restraint. In fact, Kinsey’s friend, psychiatrist Karl Bowman, reported that by late 1950 the 1955 MPC view of sex offenders had been quietly gaining converts in California.

Bowman claimed that the average period of confinement for “child molesting, incest, exhibitionism, window peeping, sadism and certain homosexual crimes” was “about eighteen months.” Additional staff could reduce that “to fourteen months” opined an optimistic California Mental Health Progress Report 4, in 1963. Sex crimes of sadism, incest and child abuse were pronounced trivial in the larger scheme of things.[9]

Since other states had relied on the Kinsey-based ALI/MPC to lighten sex offense penalties beginning in 1956, similar changes were acceptable to a majority of California legislators. In fact, the undoing of the California committee resulted from their drug regulation proposals. (p. 438). They proposed supplying marijuana to a person under 18, cultivation of and possession of over a pound of marijuana be classed as a misdemeanor and over 10 pounds a 3rd degree felony. (p. 439).

Public reaction was strong-The California District Attorney's Association resolutely opposed the revision project, and made a strong commitment to the defense of the current Penal Code. The culpability provisions were ridiculed by prosecutors who "purported not to be able to understand them." (p. 441). Replacing the M'Naghten Rule with a definition drawn from the Model Penal Code was attacked because it would "turn criminal trials over to the psychiatrists." (p. 441) The sentencing proposals were rejected because their lower maximum terms were described as a threat to the public safety. (p. 441)

The second MPC reform proposal was also rejected by the Legislature in 1973.

Post 1973 Acceptance of the New Code

Although the California legislature did not accept law reforms based on the ALI/MPC at that time, they did so, apparently in 1974, and all California laws now reflect the Kinsey Reports assertion that children are sexual from birth, hence entitled as juveniles to sexual information, education and training in sexual freedom. Psychological opinion and therapy, although never proven to be a scientific discipline, have been elevated to the critical determinant in assessing the child predator, effectively overturning the power of the jury and judge with superior sexperts.

The two terms of Jerry Brown as governor of California may shed light on the leniency of California law towards child predators. Pat Brown, Jerry Brown’s father was governor of California during Kinsey’s tenure, and was visited by and advised by Alfred Kinsey on the need to eliminate or lighten sex law penalties on many occasions.

Indeed, Kinsey’s extensive “expert” testimony to the Subcommittee on Sex Crimes of the California General Assembly in 1949 may be seen as a turning point in California’s treatment of sex offenders. Kinsey lied to the legislators, saying his research found children unharmed by sexual abuse. He then called for widespread parole of all sex offenders and lenient penalties at a time when the public was demanding that sex offenders be permanently removed from society. Kinsey’s influence can be seen in that while the legislature rejected the MPC proposed by the committee, they accepted the liberalization of sex laws. The legislative rejection may be laid at the feet of the Code’s call for a wide-open use of drugs.

By 1970, the sole control for the sex offender’s future was in the hands of the California Adult Authority, an administrative agency composed of eight members chosen by the governor and approved by the State Senate. According to writer, Louis Barnett, Chairman of the National Foundation to Fight Political Corruption, Governor Brown was very fond of appointing controversial figures whose connections to pornography, organized crime, and disregard for the law was flagrant.[10]

Were probation denied, the judge could only sentence the offender to the term prescribed by law. Once this was done, the governor-appointed Adult Authority then had discretion to determine the exact length of imprisonment and parole within this term.[11]

As noted, the California District Attorney’s Association objected to the proposed reforms, noting that “..a definition drawn from the Model Penal Code would ‘turn criminal trials over to the psychiatrists.’”[12] The ALI/MPC chief author, Herbert Wechsler, scorned the American system of governance requiring a trial by jury. In his call for law reform in the Harvard Law Review, Wechsler writes,

It is widely urged that the responsibility for the determination of the treatment of offenders should not, in any case, be vested in the courts; that judges have no special expertise or insight in this area that warrants giving them decisive voice; and that they should be superseded by a dispositions board that might include the judge but would draw personnel of equal weight from social work, psychiatry, penology, and education.[13]

Wechsler’s bias has been proven unsound by multiple studies reported at a conference held in San Diego in April, 1999. Professor of Law, Neil Vidmar, of Duke University reported on a literature review and his own empirical study with two colleagues that the jury system over the last 25 years has remained effective. He referred to Alan Dershowitz’s book, The Abuse Excuse, as perpetuating a false “belief based on no systematic evidence whatsoever” regarding jury attitudes towards acquittal. Dershowitz reports an “overwhelming view about the jury and its competence and its diligence was supported by the trial judges.”[14]

There was high agreement between trial judges and jury verdicts, juries are able to understand and act on complex trial evidence, and juries are adept at critical assessment of experts and their testimony. Vidmar concludes that there is substantial support for the jury system from a systematic examination of current research.[15]

California Law 2001

After careful examination of the current California Penal Code, in 2001 it appears that, as in most other post-common law states, no fixed law provides a clear felony offense for sex with a child unless it is proven that the act is against the child’s will by means of force and violence. Massive confusion exists in the degrees and sub degrees which must be labeled by the police and the victim.

Richard H, Kuh, a working New York prosecutor,[16] complimented the authors of the MPC on many aids the MPC provided to prosecutors, However, he complained about the heavily weighted academic and social science advisors as well as the missing working prosecutors. Kuh was especially concerned about the legal confusion the ALI/MPC was creating in all our states. He worried:

If the [ALI/MPC] draftsmen wish to force trial judges to stop and puzzle over abstruse wording, that discipline can do no harm. But…[this is] linguistic embroidery to which lay jurors would inevitably be exposed….awkward phrases and shrouded concepts bother me; for instructions in the law—jury charges—are delivered to jurors orally, and may go on for hours. [And] if a verdict is to be reached, the jurors must all end up as of one mind, convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor can the Code’s protagonists—if they are, at this time, to be realists—respond, “these definitions are not for the jury; the judge may simplify them, using his own words when he charges.” Trial judges do not like to be reversed, and the safe course for them is to charge the law precisely as the legislature has handed it down.[17]

Kuh says the ALI/MPC models fuse further with “mental gymnastics” such as

….a twenty-one page discussion…[which] contains so many conditions modifying other provisions, which in turn have modified still others, that limitations of space make adequate description impossible.[18]

These “conditions modifying other provisions, which in turn have modified still others” are seen in bold relief in the California child abuse statutes. A child of any age who allegedly willingly submits to “unlawful sexual intercourse” appears to be only guaranteed a misdemeanor penalty should the aggressor be found guilty. (See attached chart, California Law: 2001).

This puts the smallest children (up to age 13) in the position of having to prove force if they are to make the offense a felony punishable under section 269. If the child cannot prove force, a common problem in child sexual abuse, or her tenderness of years create such intimidation in those circumstances that s/he is unable to establish the facts of the trauma, her/his rape can be penalized either as a misdemeanor or a felony. Prior to 1950 the laws were fixed favoring explicit protection for children.

Provocative teens commonly called “jail bait,” and men genuinely feared that ravishing a child, with or without his/her “consent” would result in significant imprisonment—Hence fewer men and boys engaged in sex with children. Today, it may be said that on the evidence women and children boys and girls suffer under the ALI/MPC definitions of sexual abuse. However, it appears that adult women tend to fare better under the “lightened” rape laws than do children. (Indeed, since 1958, convictions for “statutory rape” of children are no longer even counted in the FBI rape statistics.)[19]

While 261 (2), 289 and 288 (3) punish offenders with “3, 6, or 8 years” for forcible rape and rape with an object, etc., (hence a felony) only a) children 0-13 who are raped by men over 23 years old can see their rapists receive 15 years to life. Even here the sentence may be “suspended” with a “report from a psychiatrist or psychologist or treatment program (288.1).

“Awkward phrases and shrouded concepts “ abound in the California statutes on rape (statutory rape is no longer a category of offense). Continuous sexual abuse, defined as three or more acts of substantial sexual contact including with a foreign object or by oral copulation with a child under 14 in not less than three months, is a felony (288.5).

The pattern established by the ALI/MPC is reflected in current California law-- lightening penalties for sex offenses is enabled through redefinition and reclassification of the crime and the criminal. What was a felony under common law is devalued to a misdemeanor and the level of injury is calculated and commonly must be proven by massive battery by the victim.

The current California law also reflects the concept of rape as having conditions that modify other provisions, which in turn are modified by still other provisions. The defense of rape as peer sex play, first articulated by Kinsey was introduced into law by the ALI/MPC. An age differential between the aggressor and his victim determines the severity of the crime and the resultant penalty. In the case of aggravated sexual assault (a felony), the aggressor must be ten years older than his victim. This means that when a 19 year old rapes or sodomies an 11 year old child, it would be not be aggravated sexual assault but the lesser crime of unlawful sexual intercourse, either a misdemeanor or a felony (261.5(D).

In 1980, when the UCLA Law Review argues that the concept of “statutory rape” has an inherent gender bias, and is therefore unconstitutional, the Kinsey Institute’s tome on sex offenders is the premiere citation for the argument.[20] Promoting the Kinsey Report’s position that children need and want sex, Eidson writes that youngsters between the ages of 12 and 15 are often willing, if not seductive. Protection should be achieved without punishing many blameless men. Based on factual statistics of rape, it is a strange argument indeed that protecting women is a “sexist assumption.”[21]

Layers of protection for the predator—not the victim—are firmly enmeshed in California law. The plea bargaining process often provides the offender the option of pleading guilty to a lesser offense and avoiding prosecution for his felonious behavior.

A “Findlaw” search of the California penal codes for “pornography” locates only two references to children and pornography, neither of which appear to provide proper protection to children from pornography. Section 666. 8 states “Showing child pornography to a minor prior to or during the commission or attempted commission of any lewd or lascivious act with the minor (subd. (a), Sec. 667.15, Pen. C.)” are illegal. However, children are commonly induced into a “consensual” rape via “adult” not “child” pornography, suggesting a “misdemeanor” while showing children pornography without engaging in criminal sexual acts would be legal under this law.[22]

Seducing a child under 16 into prostitution can result in three, six, or eight years, incarceration with no lower age (10 years, 5 years) stipulated (266h: b). Law enforcement data have long established the fact that prostitution of children and their use in pornography go hand in hand. Both are illegal and the latter can follow a child forever into her or his adulthood, despite his or her recovery from prostitution. Perhaps because California is the epicenter of the pornography industry, the laws addressing children in association with “pornography” appear vague at best.

At the time of this writing it appears that California does not have child pornography statutes designed to protect children from this form of exploitation. On a federal level we find: Section 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography

a) Mailing or distributing child pornography shall be fined and imprisoned for not less than 5 years nor more than 30 years.

b) Or is fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, but, if the felon was guilty prior of child sexual abuse activities it is 2 years to 10 years

c) person was an adult at the time the material was produced; and (3) the defendant did not advertise, promote, present, describe, or distribute the material in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (d) Affirmative Defense. - It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (a)(5) that the defendant - (1) possessed less than three images of child pornography; and (2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy thereof - (A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.

Section 1470. Transfer of obscene material to minors

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Therapy Replaces Penalization

Therapy for predators has replaced long term or permanent incarceration, as reflected in section 1000.30, where taxpayers fund “treatment to child sexual abuse perpetrators.

1000.30. The Office of Criminal Justice Planning shall…establish a pilot project for a period of two years…to provide treatment to child sexual abuse perpetrators, including intrafamilial and pedophiliac abusers, and including abusers who are incarcerated, as well as those who are not. (c)…Nothing in this section prohibits the use by district attorneys of counseling and other treatment programs as a diversion from prosecution. In pilot counties, diversion services shall be integrated with the services provided under this chapter.

Taxpayers are further burdened with the coordination of services to child predators from “county mental health, welfare department, district attorney, juvenile court, superior court, municipal court, probation department, and private child welfare service agencies participating in and coordinating case referral, case management, and service delivery to the ‘target population.’” This section (1000.30) suggests that counseling and treatment programs are used as a diversion from prosecution, at the district attorney’s discretion.

The provisions of Criminal Code Reform in the states have left a clear trail of skyrocketing violent crime, illegitimacy and juvenile delinquency. By its own admission, the California State Legislature has acknowledged that current programs to address sex crime are ineffective. Penal Code section 13885 begins,

The Legislature hereby finds that a substantial and disproportionate amount of sexual offenses are committed against the people of California by a relatively small number of multiple and repeat sex offenders.

Section 999i adds,

The Legislature hereby finds that repeat sexual offenders present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California, especially of its children.

The Criminal Justice System is very careful not to infringe on the offenders freedom, but is very willing to establish complex and expensive programs at the tax payers expense, and the multiple victims’ violations, to “target and monitor chronic repeat violent sex offenders before the commission of additional sexual offenses.” [13885.1(b)]

Louise Viets Frisbie reported on the “Atascadero [California] study of 1,921 treated ‘“sexual psychopath”’ patients.” Most of the sex offenders served under two or three years in prison, receiving psychological counseling and treatment throughout their tenure. Frisbie seemed pleased that most of the paroled sex felons were not caught and returned to prison. However, by the end of the 5-year study, 34.5%, of paroled molesters of boys, 18.2%, of paroled molesters of girls and 46.8%. “voyeurs, transvestites and lewd persons” had been convicted of additional sexual offenses.

Moreover, while Frisbie argued that sex offenders did not increase the severity of their crimes, the data did not support that claim. One reason, among many, was that 11% of exhibitionists, the least “dangerous” of all offenders, “shifted to a more serious offense (bodily contact)” Frisbie does not reveal the nature of the contact, rape, molestation, adult or child victim(s)?[23] And the report again frames these offenders not as felons or criminals but as the therapeutic model requires, as “patients” of the state.

Kinsey Perjures Himself before the California Legislative Assembly Subcommittee on Sex Crimes in 1949

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan, California’s former Governor, wrote that the swift and severe punishment once shown to predators had been completely removed showing empathy and favoritism to criminal predators. In his Preface to California’s 1981 “Crime Victims Handbook,” Reagan charged that the cost of violence in our society can be traced to a criminals’ rights mentality promoted by the criminal justice system since the 1950s.

For the past thirty years justice has been unreasonably tilted in favor of criminals and against their innocent victims. This tragic era can fairly be described as a period when victims were forgotten and crimes were ignored.[24]

What had happened to California, and the nation, was that the passage of tough “sexual psychopath” laws during the 1930s-1940s had been wholly derailed by those pressing for a Kinseyan Model Penal Code, officially released in 1955. Several sex-murders of children had caused public outrage and demands for eliminating any paroles or early release time for sex offenders. The shift to criminals rights can be traced via the Kinsey Reports but California offers an example via excerpts from Kinsey’s testimony before the California Legislative Assembly Subcommittee on Sex Crimes in 1949, a year after the release of his Male volume:

DR. KINSEY: For the last 11 years we have had a research project, as you know, underway at the university on human sexual behavior .... [providing] a picture typical in the population as a whole as well as a special study of the persons who have been involved with the law as sex offenders. Indiana University supports the research, by the medical division of The Rockefeller Foundation, and by the medical division of the National Research Council at Washington .... we find that 95 percent of the [male] population has in actuality engaged in sexual activities, which are contrary to the law.

MR. BECK: What are your recommendations .... at the present time?

DR. KINSEY: .... by lessening the penalty—still arresting, still convicting, but by lessening the penalty....

MR. BECK: You mean by granting parole?

DR. KINSEY: They [New York] grant parole immediately in 80 percent of…sex cases....50 percent of the older men, are incapable of sexual performance anyway.

MR. BECK: I think that’s the answer.[25]

Since 86% to 87% of the Kinsey Report males were homosexuals other sexually aberrant groups, prisoners or boys sexually violated for his data, Kinsey perjured himself by testifying to the California committee that the Kinsey Reports represented, “a picture typical in the population as a whole.”[26] The impotent elder sex offender was also false, for Kinsey knew his favorite subject was a “sixty-three-year old, quiet, soft-spoken...fellow” who was an active child rapist who bragged that he raped 800 infants and children, kin and non kin, many for the Kinsey Male report.[27] This Kinsey did not tell the Assembly Interim Committee on Judicial System and Judicial Process of the California Legislature — during an era when the future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren, was serving as Governor of California.

Kinsey refers to The New York Mayor's Committee for the Study of Sex Offenses, (1939) and the subsequent New York sex offender program more than a dozen times in just 18 pages of his testimony. The New York Mayor's study--in which ALI author and Kinsey colleague Morris Ploscowe was named as “Consultant,” resulted in probation for 80% of sex offenders. Kinsey claims that although no laws were changed, enforcement changed (was reduced) dramatically, and that everyone was pleased, the legislature, law enforcement and the public at large. He claims the New York City “experiment” (his word) “has been going on 5 or six years. New York State has had a full time commission for 1 1/2 years.” This he says, "I know, because they came immediately to me.”[28]

Of the Kinsey influence on radicalizing sex laws state by state, co-author Wardell Pomeroy wrote::

Kinsey…carried on an elaborate study of the procedures involved in the handling of sex offenders ... As a result of this work...Kinsey could point to some concrete results in state legislatures. In California, for example, the lawmakers appropriated $75,000 per year for a study of sex offenders, supplementing his own work, and placed it under the direction of Kinsey’s friend Dr. Karl Bowman.... [whose] research program made abundant use of our material.... Kinsey himself met with the California legislature’s committee on sex laws, and he prepared special documentary material for the consideration of several other committees. Governor Pat Brown, whom he came to know well, worked with him closely in developing the state’s program. In 1952 Kinsey collaborated with an Illinois State legislative committee which was working on a revision of sex laws in that state. He spent much time in gathering factual data for the committee’s use. This action followed a pattern he had already established with legislative committees and special research groups set by the governments of New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Wyoming and Oregon.[29]

The Kinsey colleagues stressed the harmlessness of the convicted sex offender, the allegedly rare recidivism by the rapist and hence the need to view these acts as transitory in the offender’s life. The New York Times reported Kinsey’s keynote speech to The American Correction Association, September 28, 1955, claiming the sex offender “…was least likely to repeat his crime after release from prison.” The famous psychiatrist and MPC consultant, Manfred Guttmacher echoed Ploscowe and Kinsey saying,

[I]t is [wrongly] believed that sex offenders ….tend to be recidivists… among sex offenders there is little tendency toward repetitiveness … Paedophilia is one of the most frequent types of sex offense but recidivism is low.”[30]

Now, while Kinsey told the California legislators in 1949 that recidivism was rare among sex offenders, the Report of the Mayor's Committee for the Study of Sex Offenses in 1939, for which “Mr. Morris Ploscowe…throughout the entire study served as Consultant to the Committee,”[31] reported a 52% recidivism for forcible rape, 43% for incest, 34% for statutory rape, and 42% for sodomy. While Kinsey’s data alleged that there was no such thing as “normal” sexual behavior, still, few normal Americans would consider these to be low or acceptable rates of recapture—all within a ten-year window.[32] And data addressed further on finds a cure rate for sex offenders as unsupported.

The New York Committee (which Pomeroy claims Kinsey aided in their deliberations) concluded that that "sex [crime] is only a sideline to their major criminal activities," since the rapists’ prior arrests (they claim) were often not for sex crime. Hence, the Committee deduces that because “only” 34% of sex offenders reappeared in a police line-up within a decade, this "is convincing proof that sex crime is not habitual behavior with the majority of sex offenders."[33]

In any case, this is clear evidence that Ploscowe had knowledge of the high rates of sex criminal recidivism 10 years prior to the ALI/MPC. (As an aside, Kinsey colleague, psychiatrist, Karl Bowman also was a consultant to the New York Committee as well as providing “Kinseyan” testimony to the California committee.)

The proper contextual definition of modern impotence, then, is not the narrow classification of "erectile dysfunction."

One is not “potent” if one requires little blue pills, sexy pictures, or immature victims for sexual satisfaction. It is more accurate then to define men as impotent when they are unable to be conjugallyintimate with their chosen beloved.

Princeton University professor of psychiatry Jeffrey Satinover said, "The pornography addict soon forgets about everything and everyone else in favor of an ever more elusive sexual jolt. He … will place at risk his career, his friends, his family."

Satinover compared pornography to heroin, saying, "Only the delivery system … and the sequence of steps" differ. Moreover, the sequence from potent to impotent is swift.
Professor Mary Anne Layden of the University of Pennsylvania compared pornography's rapid effects to that of "crack cocaine."

The impotent man replaces his “partner” with a fantasy. For, says neurobiologist Peter Milner, "unfamiliar stimuli have a rewarding component. It is even possible to become addicted to novelty and uncertainty."

Indeed. French neuroscientist Serge Stoleru found that overexposure to "erotic" stimuli exhausted the sexual responses of normal, healthy young men.

Someone once dubbed pornography "the opiate of the masses," an endogenous opiate high called "lust" that makes wholesome, loving sensuality feel ho-hum. Pornography triggers high states of fear-shame-lust arousal ("flight/fight/sex"), quite the opposite of a faithful love. No wonder even devoted couples confess dismay at finding pornography more arousing than their marital embrace.

Many wrongly assume their love is weak. Yet, the strength of love requires an absence of the shame, fear, (and even hate) that commonly defines lust. For a fuller discussion of the psychopharmacology of pictorial pornography, visit my website.

Says Milner, “[m]ost stimuli become less attractive … as they become familiar and predictable. … Thus, novelty has an effect similar to that of reward." (Emphasis added.) By definition, when the libido depends on novel pictures, such men are dependent,they are “without power,” emasculated,their libido, their masculine power and authority hijacked by a steady stream of new paper dolls.

In December 1953, Hugh Hefner began marketing Playboy as "sexual liberation." But, instead of emancipation, Hefner sold Joe College Pornographically Induced Impotence.

Pornographically Induced Impotence is evident in an August 1974 Playboy cartoon. A beautiful girl and a handsome lad are in bed. Across her nude body the grinning boy has laid a naked "centerfold" image. The girl under the paper doll asks, plaintively, "Are you sure you still love me, Henry?"

This Playboy lad – symbolic of millions of currently addicted Internet consumers – no longer commands his own natural-born masculine power to physically love. "Henry" and his young vessel are robbed of a vitally important human right; the right to fully experience love-based intimacy.

Urged on by Kinseyan "sexperts" to bring "erotica" into their marriage beds, millions of hoodwinked couples are now puppets, dangled by pornographic strings. Pornographically Induced Impotence is a national pandemic, raking in untold billions for pornographers and their satellite businesses as well as from marital discord and the despair it produces.

From the Playboy mansion to Capitol Hill, from thousands of prostituted Las Vegas girls and women to newlywed bedrooms, from Fortune 500 offices to Ivy League dorms, men and boys have habituated to the rewards of their own hand from the hand of Hefner et al.

Public policy analyst Shaunti Feldhahn recently launced a series of church lectures after counselors noted, "many families in our church are struggling with pornography and with infidelity." Men are "visually wired," Feldhahn explained. Their images of women stretch "back to his teenage years and any one of the pictures is going to pop up at any time in his brain without warning."

In 1981, Hefner biographer Gay Talese wrote that "Hef's" influence reached out to "the central nervous system of Playboy readers nationwide." Men’s collective "central nervous system" includes "images" popping up and stretching "back to teenage years." By 2005, some experts estimated that situational or total impotence was afflicting up to 50 percent of men.

Pornography (erototoxins) emasculate indiscriminately, castrating men of every race, religion, and "orientation," atheist and orthodox, rich and poor, conservative and radical, young and old, svelte and paunchy, handsome and unappealing, scientist and sky-cap, the clever and the obtuse, en masse.

Pornographically Induced Impotence once kept men and boys anxiously awaiting each month's "new" fantasy images. The Internet means they wait no more. Good news for The Sex Industrial Complex (Pornography, Sexology and Big Pharma)! Men conditioned by erototoxins since boyhood blame their wives and girlfriends for their vanishing libido.

Yet psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld long ago admitted that magazines like Playboy were implanting impotence in their consumers: "Humor is the basic source of education.…Cartoons that poke fun at impotence or other male inadequacies…would outweigh any supportive things said in the advice column. Cartoons are simply more compelling. Some things are."

Thousands of Playboy cartoons "poke fun" at male impotence as well as virginity, wives, marriage, religion, sexual harassment, incest, “illegitimate” childbirth and child sexual abuse.

Feldhahan said the churched men she surveyed largely sought not “unlimited sex," but "a feeling of wanting to be wanted." Men must recoup their manhood to be wanted. Until "Henry" strides forth to purge fantasy, he will remain a vassal, his manhood controlled by pornographers, his Liege Lords.

----------------------------------------

Dr. Judith Reisman is president of the Institute for Media Education and is the author of "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences." More is available at Reisman's website.

Revolving Door Sex Offenders

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:04:04 +0000

Upcoming Legal Actions

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:28:06 +0000

"Adult Entertainment" Expose, streaming video

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:05:03 +0000

www.1726entertainment.com

SYNOPSIS

A fresh social and political look at the $57 billion-a-year Adult Entertainment Industry and its affects on 3 subjects who agree to view porn 1 hour a day for 30 days.

Shady strip club owners, angry strippers, crass porn stars, top-of-their-game experts and 3 unknowing subjects hammer out an uncomfortable look into the soul of the porn biz. Director, Lance Tracy, IMDB (Best Director, NY International Film & Video Festival, 5-Telly winner) maturely balances humor, shocking honesty, science and entertainment.

THE ON-CAMERA EXPERIMENT: A single man and a married man are subjected to a steady diet of porn, strip and sex clubs for 4 weeks. And the wife has plenty to say about it. The subjects consistently fill out behavior and attitudinal surveys. With the help of several research experts, the filmmakers carefully document the results. Simultaneously, a major university independently conducts a similar study with 100 college students. The results are staggering.

THE EXPERTS: In November of 2004, conservative Senator Brownback held a Senate hearing on the effects of pornography on America. He invited 4 experts who all testified that porn has only negative effects. This ticked off the porn and sexologist industries that see nothing wrong with it. Host & director, Lance Tracy hunts down these experts for a one-on-one. He also gives the porn industry a chance to respond to the hearing, including Ron Jeremy, Nina Hartley and Sharon Mitchell. Tom Sizemore and Art Alexakis from Everclear also weigh-in.

THE JOURNEY: Lance Tracy crosses the country on a political, social and moral search into the hearts of sex-workers, people on the streets, experts and the 3 subjects who unveil their souls. He looks behind the secretive doors of strip clubs, and private strip shows where self-masturbation is definitely legal and the bigger the tip, the bigger the trick.

THE EXPOSURE: He unveils surprising porn industry-involved business industries like: AT&T, GM, countless hotel chains & family-oriented retail outlets. All sides get their fair share of the spotlight; sometimes uncomfortable.

THE ANSWER: Is porn really addictive? Are children being sexually exploited? Who should teach sex education? How much of responsibility should the porn industry take to provide treatment for potentially addicted customers? Is porn a healthy sexual arousal tool for consenting adults? Should porn be used to treat sexual dysfunction? The film explores possible answers to these hard questions, providing an unexpected conclusion.

Newsday Positive Review of Broadway's 'Alfred Kinsey: A Love Story'

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:00:32 +0000

Newsday Positive Review of Kinsey Broadway Play

By Rob Kendt, September 11, 2007

Sex confuses everything. Science, for instance: We don't question the good faith of Stephen Hawking because we suspect he's secretly attracted to black holes. But when a scientist's subject is sex, we simply must know: What's the real agenda? And, really now, what kind of hands-on "research" is the prof up to behind closed doors?

Such tittering speculation has always greeted Alfred Kinsey, the pioneering sex researcher of the 1940s and '50s, who with his books on men's and women's sexual behavior strove mightily to bring a biologist's dispassion to the subject. As influential as Kinsey's findings were and continue to be, they've been regularly second-guessed - re-examined less as science than as crypto-autobiography.

Mike Folie's smart, modestly entertaining new play "Alfred Kinsey: A Love Story," follows this familiar vein and takes its inspiration from well-trod territory: the faintly Oedipal triangle enacted by Kinsey, his young research assistant Clyde Martin and Kinsey's accommodating wife Clara, which also inspired T. Coraghessan Boyle's novel "The Inner Circle," as well as an important thread in Bill Condon's 2004 biopic "Kinsey."

If the material feels familiar, what Folie and a fine, sensitive cast under director Craig J. George do with it makes all the difference. As played with admirable economy and sly magnetism by Wayne Maugans, Kinsey emerges fitfully, and movingly, from under a studiously sexless academic facade to embrace a fleeting passion with Martin, here renamed Sanders (Carter Roy).

By play's end, Kinsey has remade his defenses under another guise: that of a hardened revolutionary who refuses to see that the truth by itself doesn't necessarily make everyone free.

What this approach shoves aside, of course, is the transfiguring, immeasurable power of love. For the gay-leaning Kinsey, this was the rub. Folie's insight is to speculate that Kinsey made the lab into a roomy sort of closet - where everything was allowed except avowed attachment, least of all to another man.

On hand to point this out, and to remind the good doctor that shame and secrecy can be sexy, too, is an ageless madam (Melinda Wade) who presides over Sarah Lambert's blowzy parlor set like a dissolute queen bee. Wade also plays Kinsey's wife with a flawlessly sage snap in a few too-brief scenes.

Roy expertly traces Sanders' arc from youthful swagger to middle-aged resignation, and Jessica Dickey makes sharp, bright dents in a pair of relatively thankless roles. The play's deathbed framing device and narrative time jumps aren't always convincing, though they're deftly handled by George and the cast.

A penultimate slide show illustrating how far we've come since Kinsey's day is a bit embarrassing: Can we really thank him for Ru Paul and Viagra? The ascendant reality of gay marriage, though, would have been a bittersweet triumph for this conflicted liberator who, like Moses, could glimpse but not enter the promised land.

ALFRED KINSEY: A LOVE STORY. By Mike Folie, Directed by Craig J. George. Through Sept. 23 at the Michael Weller Theatre, 311 W. 43rd St., Manhattan. For tickets, call 212-352-3101. Seen Friday.

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:31:30 +0000

Canada Pimps Its Girls to Big Pharma by Henry Makow

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:32:17 +0000

US v. Williams

NAMBLA's Website Thanks Kinsey

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:20:50 +0000

“Gay liberationists in general, and boy lovers in particular, should know Kinsey’s work and hold it dear. ... Implicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today.”

NAMBLA in Daniel Tsang, Ed., The Age Taboo, Alyson Pub., Boston, MA, 1981, AT 96

ALFRED KINSEY

"It is ordinarily said that criminal law is designed to protect property and to protect persons, and if society's only interest in controlling sex behavior were to protect persons, then the criminal codes concerned with assault and battery should provide adequate protection. The fact that there is a body of sex laws which is apart from the laws protecting persons is evidence of their distinct function, namely that of protecting custom."

~ Alfred Kinsey, W. Pomeroy and C. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, (Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, 1948) 1999 was the 50th anniversary of the publication of Kinsey's first volume in 1948.

"When children are constantly warned by parents and teachers against contacts with adults, and when they receive no explanation of the exact nature of the contacts, they are ready to become hysterical as soon as any older person approaches, or stops and speaks to them in the street, or fondles them, or proposes to do something for them, even though the adult may have had no sexual objective in mind. Some of the more experienced students of juvenile problems have come to believe that the emotional reactions of the parents, police officers, and other adults who discover that the child has had such a contact, may disturb the child more seriously than the sexual contacts themselves. The current hysteria over sex offenders may very well have serious effects on the ability of many of these children to work out sexual adjustments some years later..."

~ Alfred Kinsey, W. Pomeroy , C. Martin, and P. Gephard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1953)

Copyright © NAMBLA, 2003. All rights reserved.

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:02:42 +0000

Kinsey Syndrome: a 2 minute streaming video

On Kinsey's German, Nazi Pedophile Aide; The New York Times Asks: "Alfred Kinsey: Liberator or Pervert?"

Sun, 04 Feb 2007 00:00:54 +0000

The following is excerpted from my upcoming book, Kinsey's Attic: The Shocking Story of How One Man's Sexual Pathology Changed the World. Further details on Kinsey's Gestapo/Nazi "sex researcher" are found in my book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences.

Hundreds of articles appeared in the USA in 2004 and 2005 critiquing Kinsey's two PBSTV specials and the Fox Searchlight "Kinsey" feature. In a daring,"one time" mainstream media exposure, on October 3, 2004, The New York Times published reporter Caleb Crain's article, "Alfred Kinsey: Liberator or Pervert?" Crain was the only reporter who revealed both Kinsey's on-going collaboration with serial rapist pedophile Rex King as well as Kinsey's Gestapo/Nazi "sex expert" and pedophile collaborator, Dr. Fritz von Balluseck. Crain wrote:

Kinsey wrote to King, coaxing him to send his detailed diaries of his sexual exploits, including those with children. Jones reports that on Nov. 24, 1944, for example, Kinsey wrote, "I rejoice at everything you send, for I am then assured that that much more of your material is saved for scientific publication."....[And Reisman] alleges that Kinsey continued to correspond with King until 1954, and she points out that Kinsey also corresponded with Fritz von Balluseck, a German pedophile and former Nazi who was tried for murder.¹

Years ago, I wondered how anyone could molest so many children in the USA without alerting the parents, authorities--someone! Could some of Kinsey's child sex "data" have come from World War II Nazi experiments, where parents were powerless to protect their children and where the police played a role in the crimes?² My madcap hunch turned out to be on target. Tipped off by a draft of Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, the Yorkshire investigators tracked down at least one of Kinsey's pedophile collaborators, a former highly placed Gestapo officer.

Kinsey's "Brief" Visit to Frankfurt Before von Balluseck's Final Arrest

For some time, long-time Nazi party member, Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, mailed his on-going child abuse crimes to Kinsey. Von Balluseck's diaries appear to date from 1936 to1956, revealing Balluseck's regular correspondence with Kinsey. In fact, Kinsey sent his sympatico Nazi aide books about child sexuality--books that would have supported and encouraged the serial child predator's incestuous and pedophile crimes.

In the mid 1950s Interpol contacted the Kinsey team for help in locating a child sex killer the team had interviewed. The Kinsey Institute protected their WWII Gestapo agent (as they have always protected all their pedophiles and pederasts). They refused to give his name to Interpol under cover of shielding a possible child murderer from investigation based on "scientific" ethics.

This defense was then and is now unconscionable, criminal and self-serving. Indeed, Kinsey and his fellow WWII draft-dodging team feared public exposure for aiding and abetting a WWII Gestapo agent in his ongoing, even murderous sexual violence against children. Naturally, all of Kinsey's biographers deliberately covered up Kinsey's intense relationship with and training of his Frankfurt Gestapo aide.

This brings us to Kinsey's strange travels just before his untimely death. Kinsey's co-author and one of his many sex partners, Wardell Pomeroy, wrote that in 1955 Kinsey decided to visit Europe. After visiting "the Scnadanavian countries," England, France and Italy. After "[l]eaving Italy and Sicily, Kinsey ended his tour with stops in Portugal and Spain."³

One would expect Kinsey to take one of the direct flights from Italy across the Mediterranean to Spain. However, the English investigative team that produced "Kinsey's Paedophiles" found out that Kinsey made a "brief stop" in Frankfurt--not mentioned by any of his television or print biographers. Why the circuitous route from Italy to Germany in order to reach Spain? And if he was going to go vertically first to Germany, why did he bypass the much closer and operational Stuttgart and Munich airports to land in Frankfurt?⁴ The Stars and Stripes report Kinsey made a "brief stop at the Frankfurt airport on his way to Barcelona." Why Frankfurt? And, how "brief" was "brief?" Was Kinsey in Frankfurt for a few hours or a few days? ⁵

"On 13 of August, 1955" Proceedings Against von Balluseck "Were Stopped"

The truth about Kinsey has always been stranger than the fictions created to cover up reality. Just like his theft of Ralph Voris' files just after Voris died. Kinsey fan and biographer James Jones reported (Alfred C. Kinsey, A Public/Private Life, p. 390) reported:

[U]nder the cover of darkness, he [Kinsey] entered Voris’ office and removed certain items, including copies and originals of their private correspondence. This accomplished, Kinsey and Clara returned to Bloomington, without staying for the interment two days later.

In his footnote to the above quote, Jones admits that there was a "written complaint" that someone had illegally entered Voris' office and remained there, "far into the night." (f 73 p. 836). Kinsey certainly would fly to Frankfurt to collect documents that he feared would prove his role in von Balluseck's crimes.

Kinsey and von Balluseck were carrying on a regular correspondence. The entire German press had reported that Kinsey warned his pedophile protege to be cautious, to avoid being caught by the authorities. Knowing that Balluseck was recently arrested for child sexual abuse he had good reason to fear what von Balluseck might say during this and future interrogations. In fact, von Balluseck was released from jail on August 13, 1955. Did Kinsey lobby the judge, did he help von Balluseck--so that the judge ruled the abused child "fantasized," that she had a vivid imagination ("phantasiebegabt")?

For just three months after von Balluseck, a serial pedophile rapist, is cleared of child sexual abuse, Kinsey shows up on von Balluseck's home turf in Frankfurt. (See the November 21, 1955 photo from Stars and Strips.) A coincidence?

I think not.

Recall Kinsey's similarly sudden trip to pinch the deceased Ralph Voris' papers? ⁶ I suggest that Kinsey's flight to Frankfurt was deliberately planned. I suggest that Kinsey (painfully ill with orchitis remember, long before he decides to tour Europe) had to get to Frankfurt. I suggest that von Balluseck was a major reason for Kinsey's decision to visit Europe in 1955.

Consider. Kinsey knew von Balluseck had a cache of his compromising letters as well as who-knows-what written by him in those personalized books. These would be highly incriminating were von Balluseck to be convicted next time of child sexual abuse or even of a child sex murder. And Kinsey knew there would be a "next time" quite soon. Kinsey's "brief" Franfurt visit was specifically to collect and destroy papers "originals and copies of their correspondence" connecting him with von Balluseck's serial child sex crimes. Although von Balluseck may have given Kinsey most of his letters and books in Frankfurt, he saved a few small "mementos" for himself. These were the diaries and letters discovered when von Balluseck was again caught for mass child sexual abuse. This time he clearly did not influence the judge since von Balluseck was convicted. It was 1957, just after after Kinsey's death.

Kinsey Uses A Nazi Pedophile To Defame The Greatest Generation

Why do no American media expose this history-changing story? In his 1957 trial, this former high German Nazi and current official was found to have sexually violated children for "over the last three decades" (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 22, 1957).

von Balluseck photo on his WWII Nazi party membership card.
Yorkshire Television

"Ballusecks Vorbild: dte, USA," "Balluseck's role model USA"

"At the beginning of the trial, this horrible person sang praises to the moral and ethical collapse signs in the USA, which he followed after 1945.As a role model for his perverse actions, Balluseck named the works of the so called sexual psychologist Kinsey, who's out pourings are the highest example of the moral decay of the Imperial World and especially in the USA...." (The Neuss Deutschland, May 17, 1957)

Kinsey's child sex-crime "reports" from Dr. von Balluseck allegedly stopped arriving at the Institute after Kinsey died on August 26, 1956. In May 1957 every major German newspaper headlined the sensational news about the Nazi and Dr. Kinsey. Yet, no American media reported the trial. The Kinsey Instutute continues to hide Kinsey as von Balluseck's guiding light, his authority, his master educator. Some further examples:

The Nazis knew and gave him the opportunity to practice his abnormal tendencies in occupied Poland on Polish children, who had to choose between Balluseck and the gas ovens. After the war, the children were dead, but Balluseck lived. [National-Zeitung, May 15, 1957].

Balluseck...corresponded with the American Kinsey Institute for some time, and had also got books from them which dealt with child sexuality. [Tagespiegel, October 1, 1957].

[N]ot only did he commit his crimes in Germany, but also during the war as an occupation officer, he committed numerous sexual crimes against Polish girls of between 10 & 14 years old. [Der Morgen, May 15, 1957]

Dr. Balluseck... [recorded measurements] of his crimes committed against children between 9 and 14 years old... in four thick diaries... of a pseudo-scientific character...while in correspondence with the American sexual researcher Kinsey... about his research results which as he said himself, took place over three decades. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 22, 1957]

The connection with Kinsey, towards whom he'd showed off his crimes, had a disastrous effect on [von Balluseck]...[I]n his diaries he'd stuck in the letters from the sex researcher, Kinsey in which he'd been encouraged to continue his research....He had also started relationships...to expand his researches. One shivers to think of the lengths he went to. [Tagespiegel, May 17, 1957]

In fact Indiana University and the Kinsey Institute would still be involved in, and would still be covering up, sexual crimes against children.

Why? In the 1940s and 1950s the Kinsey cult was actively engaged in "prospective reports." That is, they sought future "clinical" sex data from people, including predators. The Kinsey team solicited sex diaries and daily sex calendars. Sexual predators would still be mailing those to the Kinsey Institute as of 2006. "Experiments" had occurred both "in the field" and at Indiana University, where predators of all sorts kept detailed records of varied crimes and sexual brutalities to send to Kinsey's institute.

Though I document Kinsey's crimes against adults and children throughout Kinsey's Attic, Fox's "Kinsey" movie furnished a fresh confirmation of those crimes from Kinsey Institute librarian Liana Zhou on March 6, 2005. The excerpt below is from the Website "Kinsey Institute in the News":

Liana Zhou, current head of the Kinsey Institute collections, just announced that the Kinsey Institute received another report from one of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's first interview subjects, now 91 years old. Said Ms. Zhou:

"When he interviewed people he encouraged them to record their subsequent behaviour: self-stimulation, any kind of sexual contact. For 50-some years, ever since she was interviewed, she's been reporting." ⁷ [Emphasis added]

Who else has "been reporting" to the Kinsey Institute for "50-some years, ever since [they were] interviewed"? How many others? Zhou gladly admits that some of Kinsey's subjects have obsessively continued mailing reports of their "subsequent" sex activities to the Institute. Kinsey said he interviewed 1,400 convicted sex offenders and thousands of other sexual deviants! Where is the concerned mass media, setting the record straight, getting the science right? Whose interests are being served by nurturing the growth of the Sex Industrial Complex?

Notes

Caleb Crain, The New York Times, October 3, 2004.
See my final Chapter in Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences where I explore the Nazi era activities.
Wardell Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, Indiana University Press, 1972, p. 428.
German airport history in 1955 confirms that Munich, the airport closest to Italy/Sicily, already accommodated the Lockheed L-1049 G Super Constellation 1955, while the Stuttgart airport also handled commercial traffic.
Several Sicilian airports existed in 1955. It is not known if Kinsey flew from Sicily or from the Italian mainland.
James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, A Public/Private Life, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997, p. 390.
Justine Elias in Bloomington, Indiana, "Kinsey's sex revolution is marching on: As a film on Dr Sex arrives, the institute he founded stresses its scholarly role in the straitlaced Midwest," The Observer, United Kingdom, March 6, 2005. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story.

Pornography's link to rape

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:04:55 +0000

Would you try to put out a fire with gasoline?

No? Then you might disagree with an MSNBC online article, "Porn: Good for America !" by Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor. Reynolds suggests that pornography reduces rape!

As proof, Reynolds quotes a U.S. Department of Justice claim that in 2004 rape of "people" over age 12 radically decreased with an "85 percent decline in the per-capita rape rate since 1979" (DOJ's National Crime Victimization Survey of "thousands of respondents 12 and older").

But the FBI also estimates that "34 percent of female sex assault victims" are "under age 12" (National Incident-Based Reporting System, July 2000).

Since the DOJ data excludes rape of children under age 12, child rape may be up 85 percent, for all we know.

Although the FBI and local police departments are now swamped with teachers, police, professors, doctors, legislators, clergy, federal and state bureaucrats, dentists, judges, etc., arrested for child pornography and for abusing children under age 12, the Department of Justice excludes those small victims from its "rape" rates. Why?

Do DOJ, FBI harbor pedophiles?

You have to wonder: Are there pedophiles and other sexual predators in the governmental woodpiles?

When I worked for DOJ's Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the 1980s, someone high up killed the order to collect crime-scene pornography as evidence in prosecutions. No Democrat or Republican administration has yet mandated such on-site pornography collections. Whom is DOJ protecting?

Reynolds, writes less like an objective scholar than a pornography defender:

Since 1970 … porn has exploded. … But rape has gone down 85 percent. So much for the notion that pornography causes rape. … [I]t would be hard to explain how rape rates could have declined so dramatically while porn expanded so explosively.

He opines that pornography possibly prevents rape (the old discredited "safe-outlet" theory).

The DOJ's preposterous "85 percent" decrease in rape ignores the obvious. The U.S. FBI Index of Crime reported a 418 percent increase in "forcible rape" from 1960 to 1999. That fear means we now keep our doors, windows and cars locked. Women seldom walk alone at night. Parents rarely let children go anywhere unaccompanied. Many states let people carry guns for self-defense. Rape Crisis Centers do not report rapes to police. More women perform as sexually required. A conflicting DOJ 2002 report says "almost 25 percent of college women have been victims of rape or attempted rape since the age of 14."

Why don't the feds call child-rape 'rape'?

In 1950, 18 states authorized the death penalty for rape; most others could impose a life sentence. Following Alfred Kinsey's "scientific" advice in 1948, many states redefined "rape" so the crime could be plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor like "sexual misconduct."

Missouri redefined rape to mean 11 different crimes for 11 different sentences, magically lowering "rape" rates. Like all states that have trivialized rape, Missouri relied on the Kinsey-based 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code.

"Rape" was eliminated from New Jersey 's laws and replaced with a variety of terms during a 1978 penal law revision.

For example, Dr. Linda Jeffrey notes that the charge to which child-molesting teacher Pamela Diehl-Moore pleaded guilty was reduced to a second-tier crime, "sexual assault" – i.e., sexual contact with a victim under 13, or penetration where the "actor" uses physical force or coercion, but the victim doesn't suffer severe personal injury, or the victim is 16 or 17, with aggravating circumstances, or the victim is 13 to 15 and the "actor" is at least four years older. (Whew!)

Sex criminals copy what porn depicts

DOJ experts should read reports such as "Sex-Related Homicide and Death Investigation" (2003). Former Lt. Comdr. Vernon Geberth says today's "sex-related cases … are more frequent, vicious and despicable" than anything he experienced in decades as a homicide cop.

In "Journey Into Darkness" (1997), the FBI's premier serial-rape profiler, John Douglas wrote, "[Serial-rape murders are commonly found] with a large pornography collection, either store-bought or homemade. … our [FBI] research does show that certain types of sadomasochistic and bondage-oriented material can fuel the fantasies of those already leaning in that direction."

In "The Evil That Men Do" (1998), FBI serial-rape-murderer-mutilator profiler Roy Hazelwood quotes one sex killer who tied his victims in "a variety of positions" based on pictures he saw in sex magazines.

"Thrill Killers, a Study of America 's Most Vicious Murders," by Charles Linedecker, reports that 81 percent of these killers rated pornography as their primary sexual interest. Dr. W.L. Marshall, in "Criminal Neglect, Why Sex Offenders Go Free" (1990), says based on the evidence, pornography "feeds and legitimizes their deviant sexual tendencies."

In one study of rapists, Gene Abel of the New York Psychiatric Institute cited, "One-third reported that they had used pornography immediately prior to at least one of their crimes." In 1984, the U.S. Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence reported, "Testimony indicates that an alarming number of rape and sexual assault offenders report that they were acting out behavior they had viewed in pornographic materials."

More pornography equals more rape of children and women. We need to ask whether Big Government is now selling out to Big Pornography as it did to Big Tobacco for half a century.