With all due repect to everyone's personal beliefs and opinions.
I have just spent hours going through the WorldNet.com site, and reading the words of Judith Reisman and numerous articles and quotes, by her and about her.
In a nutshell: Worldnet.com is not a mainstream news source. It is described by Publishers Weekly as a news outlet for Fundamentalists.
The articles I read there express several views which I believe are extreme, intolerant, or simply regressive and misguided.
These views include: Anti-Homosexuality; Anti-Gun Control; Anti-Feminist; Anti-Sex education; Anti-Planned Parenthood; Anti-Government.
The editor & CEO of Worldnet.com, Joseph Farah, expresses the following views in his new book "Taking Back America" (this quote is not from the book, but from a Publisher's Weekly review).
Beginning and ending with a firm belief in the Constitution and the power of religious faith, Farah stakes out a rigidly populist view of reform as he rails against conservatives and libertarians alike (while reserving special venom for liberals) for undermining the country's strength, its moral core and the 'revolutionary creed of freedom and responsibility' on which it was founded."
Farah feels that the federal government is 'intentionally encouraging and spreading immorality' and 'turning us into slaves.' His proposal for change includes, but is not limited to: abolishing the income tax and the IRS, withdrawing from all international treaties and institutions, repealing all gun laws and ending federal funding for schools, the arts, conservation, housing and agriculture. What's left, you ask? Farah calls for churches and religious institutions to assume a broader role in molding the national character, including actively censoring the entertainment industry and having a direct role in education and family life. There's certainly a choir out there to whom Farah can preach, but most readers will find both his positions and his rhetoric uncomfortably extreme."
So much for Worldnet.com. All I will say is I don't agree with the majority of views expressed there, but I won't deny anyone's right to express them. In fact, I found several items I do agree with, especially some of last year's under-reported news stories, although I doubt that my reasoning would be the same.
When it comes to Judith, that is another story. Basically, she shares many of the views expressed at Worlnet.com.
She is particularly active with respect to Anti-Homosexuality and Anti-Sex Education. She also has a particular fascination with pornography and Kinsey.
Speaking of Kinsey, the only allegation I was able to verify is that Kinsey was married, and had sex with men. He rated himself a 4 on the sexuality scale (with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual).
Back to Judith. She is a crusader for turning the clock back in all matters relating to sex. Back to a time when homosexuals either stayed out of sight, or through prayer and willpower, became heterosexual. Back to a time, when sex education was left to parents and the church; when family planning and abortion were priveleges of the rich.
Let me remind you, that that would also take us back to a time where adults were unquestioned, sexual abuse was unheard of, and a site like this would not be possible.
Judith's "research" and conclusions (with the exception mentioned below) have not been peer reviewed, nor are they given any credibility by the scientific community. Her books have been self-published or published by Huntington House. Huntington House, along with its subsidiary Vital Issues Press, will publish almost any book on "conservative issues, politically incorrect exposÚs, christian apologetics, cults/occult, evangelism, family issues, anti-globalist issues" and "patriotism/survivalism" as it says in its appeal to prospective authors.
Her articles appear mostly on-line and in fundamentalist publications. She is a close personal friend of "Dr." Laura.
Her only major, reviewed study was in 1984 and was funded by a grant from the US Justice Department. Her study was academically based at American University. Reisman used the grant to confirm her conclusion of "Kinsey's role in child sexual abuse and the link to children appearing in mainstream pornography..."
In 1984, the US Justice Department had given Reisman a grant for $734,371 to study pictures in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. She claims that these magazines published 6,000 cartoons, photos and other illustrations of children between 1954 and 1984. Subsequently, Reagan-appointee Alfred Regnery (the head of a conservative publishing house), who commissioned the study, had to admit that it was a mistake.
"It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, 'The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.' Figlio told the press, 'I wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn'." (Carol, 1994, p.116)
Marcia Pally cites Dr Loretta Haroian, cochair of the plenary session on Child and Adolescent Sexuality at the 1984 World Congress of Sexology, and one of the world's experts on childhood sexuality, as saying of the Reisman study:
"This is not science, it's vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing doesn't help children at all. ... Her [Reisman's] study demonstrates gross negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time collecting her data, her conclusions, based on the data, are completely unwarranted. The experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not experts at all but simply people who have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and children."
The Justice Department also refused to publish her study. It was six years before she convinced Huntington House to publish it.
In 1990 Reisman wrote "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud," with Edward Eichel, published by Vital Issues Press (Huntington House). Reisman describes the book on her web site claiming that "Kinsey's research involved illegal experimentation on several hundred children."
The Kinsey Institute refuted Reisman's allegations prompting a lawsuit filed in 1991 by Reisman against the Institute's then director June Reinisch and Indiana University. She alleged defamation of character and slander.
Reisman's attorney "withdrew from the case" in 1993, and "in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice [which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit]."
Finally, for your consideration: from FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
Dr. Judith Reisman, Advises Catholic Church to Sue the Sex Experts for Medical Malpractice
Dr. Judith Reisman, Debunker of Kinsey Sex Research, Advises Catholic Church to Sue the Sex Experts for Medical Malpractice
Thursday, December 26, 2002
By Karl Maurer, Vice President
As the sex scandal in the Catholic Church continues to unfold, the most shocking aspect is not so much the abuse itself, but that molester priests were repeatedly given access to children, even after they were known to be child molesters. While the Bishops are in a large part responsible for the sex scandal in the church, there is a growing body of evidence pointing to an enormous fraud perpetrated on the Catholic Church by so-called sex "experts" who consulted to the Bishops and allegedly "treated" sex abuser priests.
What if these "experts", who claimed that child molesting priests could be reformed and then repatriated to their parishes, weren't really experts at all? What if they were quack doctors, who believed there was fundamentally nothing wrong with adult/child sexually contact? What if their so-called treatments never showed success, and in fact were never intended to stop child sexual abuse?
This is the thesis advanced by Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph. D., who believes that the entire field of sexology, established by the notorious Dr. Alfred Kinsey, is a fraud. Dr. Reisman also believes that the so-called treatments given to predator priests in Kinsey inspired therapy sessions were so grossly ineffective, that the Catholic Church and the victims of clerical sexual abuse have a legal claim against these sex clinics for medical malpractice. She is currently consulting with several attorneys regarding class action suits whereby the Catholic laity can seek damages.
Notice the second paragraph above. See all the "What if's". This is Judith's style -it's all over the web. Make up a bunch of questions and then use her OPINIONS and her AGENDA to make them seem true.
And isn't her argument just teriffic??? It's not the perpetrator's fault, not the bishop's who ignored and protected them, not even the devil's: IT WAS KINSEY!!! Let's see how far this advice gets.
Regarding the British documentary: It is based entirely on Judith's "research" and writings.
I don't know a thing about Kinsey's personal life (other than his admitted bisexuality), his research, his methods. I wonder if his work would still be described as a landmark over 50 years later, if even the least of her allegations were true.
Whatever the truth, I sincerely doubt that all of the problems we see in this country, that everything Judith disagrees with, was caused by or can be traced back to Kinsey's two books.
As Bob said about this in the other thread,
I have to suspect that the truth will come out eventually.
So do I, but I don't think it will be coming from Judith Reisman.