Who are Kinsey's Four Biographers... how do we know Poppy Dixon was right?

Ah, yes, a winning article by Max Blumenthal, who is on a mission to shoot messengers, and share his left-leaning rants with the world. Instead of listening to him, I'd just watch Reisman's video. It's mighty revealing.

I haven't seen the video, but I have read Reisman's essay.

(emphasis mine)

Reisman forgot to mention that in 1946, a gay man was a sex offender by definition. I was in a gay bar (or was it a "haunt"?) yesterday with a friend. I guess we were only "activists" when we were talking to each other. The rest of the time, we were merely "outcasts and deviants". I don't think there were enough of us there to constitute "mass sexual perversion," but it was still early.

Kinsey's been dead for a long time, and most Americans barely know who he is today. Dr. Reisman hasn't really spent all that time and energy going after Kinsey.

She's after me.


-----

Okay--it's a few minutes later and I've cooled down. Rather than delete the above, let me add something. If Kinsey really did collect data from serial pedophiles, he was guilty of letting his scientific curiosity overwhelm his human judgment and empathy. If he actually encouraged serial pedophiles, he was guilty of something far worse.

But this reflects the question we're dealing with-- how do we cope with the effects of destructive sexuality (if sexual abuse even is sexuality) without going to the other extreme, as Reisman does? She declares war on the erotic itself and shouts "deviant!" equally at gay men and abusers.

How do I cope with the fact that the best and worst experiences of my life have both been sexual? Yes, my family was in many ways defined and damaged by the sexual revolution. But without it, there would have been no room for me to live my life at all, none of the friendships, lovers, nothing outside of a furtive and anonymous encounter now and then.

Peace,

David

David,

If someone called me deviant and a social outcast, my blood would be boiling too. Today is the first day I have heard of this essay, and I can see how it can come across offensively. I received a copy of The Children of Table 34 over a decade ago. Despite her uncompassionate remarks in this essay, I still believe the data in this video to be worth viewing.

Andy

Thanks, Andy --

It wasn't you--I've been angry at Reisman for years. Probably because half of what she stands for is a good cause (protect kids from abuse) and the other half seems really dangerous.

And I'd be the last person to say we should sweep actual sexual abuse under the rug, so I am interested in the facts.

David

I don't know this Reisman character i will look her up and read what she has written before i pass my judgement on her.

But i will say alot of people claim to be looking out for the safety of children but are truly just using that as a mask to spread their hate and bigotry.

For example people often say gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it isn't a healthy environment for children. This has been proven to not be true but people still use this claim as an argument to not allow it to happen.

Christopher.

"Won't someone think of the children?!?!"
Such is the stereotypical refrain of conservative (and often religious) busybodies of the Helen Lovejoy mold (and worse).

A cynical person like myself is immediately suspicious of people like Reisman. Just how pure are her motives?

Christopher brings up the example of gay marriage, but that is only one of an ever increasing catalog of attempts to expand human freedom that has been attacked by the reactionary forces of the right because it they would supposedly harm children.

One has to wonder if such people really care about children at all, or if they are just using children as pawns in their medieval social agenda.

I would think that such politicization would quite appropriately be classed as child abuse.

You said it, VL! If someone spouts hatred out of one side of their mouth, how can anyone agree with what comes out of the other side?

David, I appreciate your rant. I'm sure it felt good to get that off your chest. Thank you for not deleting it once you calmed down too. It was much more effective the way you wrote it, along with Part II... As for your other question, it's not unusual for sex to be both the best of times and the worst of times. It's amazing just how powerful and important sex is in human society! Sex rates consistently either No 1 or No 2 on the list of human drives (the other one is eating), far outwieghing it's actual worth or value. I'm always amazed and seldom surprised by the extents people will go to in order to satisfy this sex-drive (urge, need, whatever you want to call it). Unfortunately, those extents are not always nice.

IMHO

Ric

I decided to pull out that video tape the other night and back it up to disc. As I watched it, I realized that Reisman was simply one of many speakers on the 30-minute presentation, and not a "main" speaker. There were no negative comments toward any particular group.

Lazarus,

"If someone spouts hatred out of one side of their mouth, how can anyone agree with what comes out of the other side?"

Yeah, I can see that. Someone can have a good message, but I wonder how many good messages it takes from them to undo one bad one. Like the analogy that it takes ten "Atta boys" to undo one "oh $#!+!"

Andy

Dan,



Exactly. Or at the very least it weakens the genuine arguments by turning them into fodder for cheap self-serving political ploys.

Much love,
Larry