Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution

by Judith Reisman, Ph.D.[1]

---

Judith Reisman, Ph.D., President of The Institute For Media Education, received her doctorate in Communication from Case Western Reserve University. She authored the Department of Justice/Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention report, "Images of Children, Crime and Violence" (1989), Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Reisman & Eichel, 1990) and Soft Porn Plays Hardball (1991). She has appeared in scientific journals Ethology and Sociobiology, The New Universities Quarterly (England), The New York University Review of Law and Social Change, and has chapters and citations in numerous academic texts, scholarly books and lay books.

---

Americans bestow authority-and billions of tax dollars-upon science in the belief that scientists will make important contributions to society. There is the further belief that scientists, in their responsibility and trust, will behave ethically, especially in research that involves human subjects.[2] While the former is certainly historically accurate, such trust in the class "scientists" as honest, humane persons who deserve unquestioned public faith is sustained neither by cross-cultural or American science history.

Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.[3]

But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments? The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act."

The Science Crime & Fraud Context

Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are modern cross- cultural examples of totalitarian regimes which produced highly educated scientists who served their leaders without question-but with frightening and disastrous results. As cruel as were the actions of key scientific brutes like Dr. Joseph Mengele, just as instructive is the evidence of wholesale collusion by colleagues, universities, colleges and higher order think tanks. Thousands of state and private professional and pedagogical clubs and agencies were aware of the inhuman and unethical scientific activity, but rarely was there a protest made. Instead, their educated colleagues obsequiously bowed and jealously coveted association with the chosen scientific barbarians.

But, it has not only been totalitarian governments which have produced unethical scientists. Our own nation-a government designed to be of and by and for the people-was betrayed by our fantasy of non-judgmental, objective science. (It is only the trust in scientists as a "special" moral population that permits our nation to approve of fetal and DNA experimentation, as well as other forms of God-like tampering.) For example, consider the Willowbrook school scandal:

Pappworth published Human Guinea Pigs, a detailed recitation of experiments reported in reputable journals in which subjects were exposed to a variety of risky procedures not intended to benefit them. In chapter after chapter, he described the insertion of catheters and biopsy needles into important organs of the body (bladder, kidney, heart, liver) and resulting meningitis, shock, liver damage and cardiac arrest. The subjects of these procedures were newborns, infants and children (both healthy and diseased), pregnant women, prisoners, patients undergoing surgery, the mentally disabled, the aged, the critically ill, and the dying...[revealing] little concern on the part of investigators for their subjects ....experiments which involved injecting hepatitis virus into mentally retarded children at the Willowbrook State School in New York.[4]

Part of the problem is that the establishment press remains amazingly silent in the face of the most vile domestic scientific barbarisms. The Willowbrook school scandal and similar inhumane scientific abuses reflect but a few of the unprosecuted science felonies to reach the public. For example, examine some cites from Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948 by Frank Kofsky (1995):

Beginning in the late 1940s, under programs authorized by Truman, the U.S. government deliberately dropped radioactive material from planes or released it on the ground in a dozen experiments after World War II....Eight of the tests occurred in Tennessee and Utah in an effort to create a battlefield radiation weapon. In four other tests, radiation was released into the air in New Mexico....In at least four of these 12 experiments, radiation spread beyond the planned boundaries of the test....[5]

[And] All the tests were conducted between 1948 and 1952. The implication is clear: so vile were these "experiments" that even the Eisenhower administration could not stomach their continuation.... Nineteen mentally retarded boys who thought they were participating in a science club in the 1940s and 1950s were actually fed radioactive milk by scientists who wanted to learn about the digestive system, the Boston Sunday Globe reported." The "scientists" in question were affiliated with such ruling- class institutions as Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; their too-trusting subjects came from the Fernald State School....

[On radiating expectant mothers to see what the results would be] The figures in the Boston Globe's initial stories, however, proved to be far short of the mark, for the number of expectant women actually dosed with radioactive materials during these "experiments" probably numbered in the thousands. . . .several of the children exposed to the radioactive iron during their mother's pregnancy died....Army spokesmen acknowledged that 239 populated areas from coast to coast had been blanketed with bacteria between 1949 and 1969. Tests involved covering areas of Alaska and Hawaii and the cities of San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, and Panama City in Florida. Some tests were more focused, such as those in which bacteria were sprayed onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike or into the New York City subway system.

"Distinguished scientists," writes Leonard A. Cole, "testified at the hearings that the tests were inappropriate and dangerous....the incidence of illnesses suddenly increased in some areas near the tests.[6]

The other part of the problem is, without an informed public directing its own community af-fairs, science historically serves its funders. Scientific patrons tend to be a small, powerful elite, which is necessarily subversive of a self-governing republic. If the medical, or the harder science experiments cited here are difficult for Americans to come to terms with, these aberrant experiments at least adhere to scientific form and are possible to replicate and validate or repudiate. However, the public does not understand (nor do scientists seem to understand) that the softer social sciences are largely not science, but rather what Professor Hobbs termed, "scientism." Human behavioral experiments without the limits of scientific protocol are easily manipulated and have frequently been misused by those in positions of trust to undermine the American way of life in the second half of the twentieth century.

Who, by now, has not heard of the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments? If some American scientists could knowingly allow men to die slowly of syphilis, if others could infect pregnant women and endanger the lives of their unborn children, if still other unethical scientists could inject healthy and mentally retarded children with hepatitis, could not some American scientists teach pederasts and pedophiles techniques for sexually abusing children for "science"? Looking candidly at the facts of American scientific felons and the commonality of collegial collusion through silence or support, could scientists-who often feel unconstrained by Biblical standards or fears-not deceive a plebeian public about the percentage of men engaging in illicit sex, and those who are homosexual? Could scientists, together with philanthropic, pedagogical and legal colleagues of like mind and sexual proclivity, now strategize to use their considerable influence in the latter half century to change America's attitudes and sex crime laws to favor their own personal interests?

The Historical Context

Truman took office in 1945 and shortly thereafter released the atomic bomb. Kofsky's documentation suggests that Kinsey's revolutionary report was a welcome public diversion for Truman's administration. However, while the A-bomb took the lives of thousands and did untold damage to Japan for generations, "Kinsey's Bomb" has taken the lives of millions and is fomenting the disintegration of the local school, university, and public control, nationwide.

The 1945 A-Bomb: World War II ended in 1945 after America, under scientists headed by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, and like a modern Prometheus, dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In an instant, all of America was reeling, as both joy and anguish hit the nation with the force of that nuclear blast. Emotion rode high, for along with the immense relief that "it worked" and the brutal war was ended, came the quaking realization that while God had created the earth, science could now destroy it.

On the one hand, Americans were awed by Oppenheimer's ability to end the worldwide threat of war. On the other hand, our faith in ourselves as the world's savior was shattered by both the nuclear scare and ensuing newsreels of burning Japanese children, subverting our sense of moral integrity and who we really were as Americans. Aided by an army that now dispensed condoms, Yankee soldier-saviors of Europe and Asia broke the promises of their Puritan homeland. GIs returned home to wives and sweethearts in 1946 with the highest rate of venereal disease since the original VD epidemics of World War I. Yet, the overwhelming VD epidemic which raged overseas was quenched in the U.S. as young lads overflowing with penicillin waited for the marriage bed to carnally embrace the "girl next door."

The 1948 A-Bomb: Three years later, after decades of clandestine preparation and a relentless publicity campaign, Dr. Kinsey launched what was then called "The Kinsey A-Bomb" on America's now fragile sense of moral virtue. Wrapped in Oppenheimer's flag of science as the final authority, Kinsey's fraudulent sex science statistics seemed to "prove" middle America to be a nation of sexual hypocrites, liars, cowards and closet deviates, despite the fact that all of Kinsey's data were repudiated by the then current public health data. While the Armed Services found skyrocketing VD and illegitimacy rates abroad, we found no such domestic rates for these disorders or for abortion, rape and other sex crimes and sexual disorders. Wrong or right, the fighting men might be misbehaving overseas but by and large they were not doing over here, what they were doing over there.

Despite the common sense fact of low rates of illegitimacy and VD, despite personal knowledge of faithful and virtuous family and friends, mainstream America was dramatically shaken by Kinsey's data. The popular press hawked Kinsey as a diversion from Truman's ominous cold-war warnings, heralding the astonishing scientific findings-that 98% of men and roughly half of women had premarital sex, 95% of American men were legally sex offenders and 10% or more of men were largely homosexual. And, while no one noted that 317 infants and children were "tested" for Kinsey's child sex data, educators repeated his conclusions-that children were sexual from birth, hence school sex education, Kinsey style, should be mandated.

The question anyone should be asking is: How did Kinsey get the statistics on childhood sexuality... that were to revolutionize the schoolroom, courtroom, pressroom, and bedroom? More succinctly put, did the Kinsey team participate in the pedophile abuse of 317 infants and children?

Below is a reproduction of... "Table 34. Examples of multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males. Some instances of higher frequencies" (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948). How were these figures gleaned?

AGE	NO. OF ORGASMS	TIME INVOLVED
5 mon.	3	?
11 mon.	10	1 hr.
11 mon.	14 7	38 min. 9 min.
2 yr.	11	65 min.
2.5 yr.	4	2 min.
4 yr.	6	5 min.
4 yr.	17	10 hr.
4 yr.	26	24 hr.
7 yr.	7	3 hr.
8 yr.	8	2 hr.
9 yr.	7	68 min.
10 yr.	9	52 min.
10 yr.	14	24 hr.
11 yr.	11	1 hr.
11 yr.	19	1 hr.
12 yr.	7	3 hr.
12 yr.	3 9	3 min. 2 hr.
12 yr.	12	2 hr.
12 yr.	15	1 hr.
13 yr.	7	24 min.
13 yr.	8	2.5 hr.
13 yr.	9	8 hr.
13 yr.	3 11 26	70 sec. .8 hr. 24 hr.
14 yr.	11	4 hr.

Kinsey's Research on Child Orgasm

Dr. Alfred Kinsey's research on child orgasm is described in Chapter 5 of his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).[7] Some of the observations are summarized in Tables 30-34 of the book. The numbers of the children in the five tables were, respectively, 214, 317, 188, 182, and 28. The minimum ages were, respectively, one year, two months, five months, (ages of children not recorded for Table 33), and five months. The tables identify sex experiments; for example, Table 32 speaks of: "Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm; Duration of stimulation before climax; Observations timed with second hand or stop watch."

Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices? And did he actually use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34? In his book, acting as the on-site reporter, Kinsey did not clearly describe his own role. However, Kinsey's close colleague, C. A. Tripp, made a revealing statement in a 1991 televised interview by Phil Donahue:

[Reisman is] talking about data that came from pedophiles, that he [Kinsey] would listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches, knew how to record their thing, did careful surveys....[T]hey were trained observers.[8]

Two questions cry out for an answer: What was the nature of the training given to these "trained observers"? And, who "trained" them? Perhaps Dr. Tripp or others can answer these questions. A 1991 book review in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet, noted:

[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are the imperfections in the [Kinsey] sample and unethical, possibly criminal observations on children....Kinsey...has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.[9]

Tripp is not the only former Kinsey colleague to admit that actual pedophiles were involved in the Kinsey Institute's child sexuality studies. A taped telephone interview with Dr. Paul Gebhard, former head of the Kinsey Institute and Kinsey co-author, also confirms this fact:

Interviewer: "So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?"

Dr. Paul Gebhard: "Ah, they do if we tell them we're interested in it!"

---

Interviewer: "And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to...."

Dr. Gebhard: "So, second hand or stopwatch. OK, well, that's, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many."

---

Interviewer: "These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal."

Dr. Gebhard: "Oh yes."[10]

Molesting Children in the Name of Science

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Dr. Kinsey reported that the data on the 317 children came from "9 of our adult male subjects."[11] However, Dr. John Bancroft, current Director of the Kinsey Institute, contradicted this claim. After examining the data, Dr. Bancroft indicated that the data for Table 31 came from a single adult male subject.[12] There are a number of other instances where Kinsey's published claims about numerical or factual data-claims with important implications if true-are now believed to be misleading or false.[13,14,15] A review of Kinsey's original data, claims and possible involvement is long overdue.[16,17]

Kinsey's "trained observers" tested babies "5 months in age," for repeated orgasms via:

...empirical study and statistical procedures... which resulted in...reported observations on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrust and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys, ranging between infants of 5 months and adolescence age.[18]

Orgasm was defined as follows:

Extreme tension with violent convulsions: ...sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body... gasping... hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching...violent jerking of the penis...groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).... hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject.... some...suffer excruciating pain and may scream ...if the penis is even touched....some...before the arrival of orgasm, will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.[19]

Lester Caplan, M.D., Diplomate, the American Board of Pediatrics, reviewing Kinsey's Chapter 5 (as above) said, "One person could not do this to so many children-these children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly,"[20] especially if, as Dr. Gebhard notes, a cinema record was being made.[21]

Child interviews were unusually long. Kinsey said after two hours, "the [adult] becomes fatigued and the quality of the record drops."[22] Still, Kinsey reported 24-hour orgasm "interviews" of a four-, a 10- and a 13-year-old;[23] a four-year-old for 10 hours; a nine and 13-year-old for eight hours; and so on.[24] Dr. Gebhard's taped phone interview further details some of these techniques.[25]

Dr. Kinsey even reported that some observers "induced...erections [in the children]...over periods of months or years,"[26] but that the Kinsey team interviewed no "psychotics who were handicapped with poor memories, hallucination, or fantasies that distorted the fact."[27]

What kind of men were they, this Kinsey team? The question remains: Who did these experiments? As noted, the Kinsey team reported on a cadre of "trained observers." In Kinsey's own words...

Better data came from adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys' experiences. Unfortunately ....[only] 9 of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal....on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self- masturbation or....with other boys or older adults.[28]

There are serious questions which must be answered by the Kinsey Institute directors-for Kinsey's is arguably the most influential model for scientific sex taught to the nations' schoolchildren today. The proposed Congressional investigation is critical for that reason alone. How did the Kinsey team know that an 11-month-old had 10 orgasms in one hour? (See Table this article.) How did they verify these data? Where were the children's parents? Have attempts been made to locate the children? Who were the subjects of Table 34?[29,30] Certainly these were not the children pictured in the publicity photographs which were distributed to the press and the gullible academic world, such as the little, braided girl of roughly four years, sitting with "Uncle Prock" in innocent play.

Further, Dr. Gebhard claimed in a letter to me, that they did no follow-up on these children since it was "impossible or too expensive."[31] Later Gebhard said Kinsey was correct, some children were followed up and "we do have some names" of the children.[32] There is still no answer to the question, "Where are the children of Table 34?" It is finally in the hands of Congress to determine what really happened at the Kinsey Institute.

H.R. 2749, the Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995, is a bill to determine if Kinsey's two principal books on human sexual behavior "are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing." Clearly a useful step would be the gathering of facts on the work of Kinsey and his colleagues and a public disclosure of these facts in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Congress is in a strong position to carry out this kind of fact-finding as a precursor to legislation. An attempt should be made to answer certain questions that bear directly or indirectly on H.R. 2749:

• Did Kinsey and his colleagues behave in an ethical fashion in the way they collected and published data from human subjects, especially children?
• Apart from the ethical considerations, did they analyze and publish their data correctly from the scientific point of view?
• Were federal funds solicited, used, and accounted for appropriately?
• Do the answers to the preceding three questions indicate any violations of federal law?

If the information collected and published by Kinsey proves, on examination, to be badly flawed or to involve fraud or criminal wrongdoing, what are the implications for the use of this information in science, education, law and public policy? Specifically, to what extent should the federal government[33] fund or recall the dissemination and use of this information?

Kinsey's Figures on Homosexuality

With the above in mind, it is shocking that, almost overnight, following release of Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (and a succession of earlier private, public relations briefings at the Kinsey Institute for favorable interviewers), books, articles, films, news clips, cartoons, radio, TV, and front-page stories appeared coast to coast as part of a publicity campaign to institutionalize Kinsey's claims. Americans believed "the most famous man for ten years" that primitive, sexually permissive cultures were happier than were Mr. and Mrs. Jones.

However, without question, any "scientists" who reprint and encourage production of data on child sexuality which have been taken from child sex offenders engaged in "manual or oral" sex with babies and children, are not scientists but propagandists-indeed guilty of admitted criminal sexual conduct, by the descriptions in their publications, whether the sexual offender(s) were identified and prosecuted or not. To trust anything these men or their disciples produce is to put one's faith in those who use the language of science to accomplish personal, criminal, and/or sexual interests. Hence, whatever Kinsey's claims of homosexual percentages and normality were, these become, pragmatically, as invalid as his child sexuality data.

Kinsey fathered not only the sexual revolution, as Hugh Hefner and others have said, but the homosexual revolution as well. Harry Hay gave Kinsey that credit when Hay read in 1948 that Kinsey found "10%" of the male population homosexual. Following the successful path of the Black Civil Rights movement, Hay, a long-time communist organizer, said 10% was a political force which could be melded into a "sexual minority" only seeking "minority rights." With Kinsey as the wind in his sails, Hay formed the Mattachine Society.

But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders."[34] As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast.[35] This group of social outcasts and deviants were then redefined by the Kinsey team as representing your average "Joe College." With adequate press and university publicity, the people believed what they were told by our respectable scientists, that mass sexual perversion was common nationwide-so our sex education and our laws must be changed to reflect Kinsey's "reality."

Following the release of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,[36] the then Kinsey Institute Director, Dr. June Reinisch, initiated a "CONFIDENTIAL," international, 87-page mass-mailing of accusatory materials calling upon recipients to repudiate "Judith Reisman's accusations." One of the accusations Reinisch wanted repudiated was the fact that Kinsey's 10% to 47% or more homosexual data were fraudulently generalized to the "general public." (Kinsey's homosexual figures were exposed as wholly false in 1948 by Albert Hobbs et al, as well as by several other scientists then and since.) In her letter to past Kinsey Director and Kinsey co-author Dr. Paul Gebhard, Reinisch denies the Kinsey team's culpability for the child sex abuse data and states that the Kinsey team never did "conduct experiments." She asks Gebhard's aid in discrediting me. She adds:

Further, with regard to sampling and the generalizability of the findings to a broader portion of Americans, throughout both volumes Kinsey very clearly identifies exactly which data from which groups he is referring to when drawing conclusions. He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public.[37]

Unfortunately, Dr. Gebhard wrote back to Reinisch on December 6, 1990 that she was wrong and that Kinsey did use "the gay community," pedophiles and prisoners to generalize to the population at large. Gebhard writes:

In your recent letter of December 3, which I gather was sent to a number of individuals as well as me, you refuted Judith Reisman's allegations about Kinsey and the Institute. However, I fear that your final paragraph on page 1 may embarrass you and the university if it comes to Reisman's attention. Hence I want to warn you and relevant university officials so that some damage control might be devised. The paragraph ends with this sentence: "He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public." This statement is incorrect. Kinsey did mix male prison inmates in with his sample used in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male....

As to generalizing to a wider population, in his first volume Kinsey did generalize to the entire U.S. population. See, for one example, the tables on page 188 and 220 where he clearly extrapolates to the U.S.....

I am distressed that neither you nor your staff seem to be familiar with Kinsey's first book nor with The Kinsey Data and consequently produced the erroneous statement in your letter.[38]

Conclusion

Kinsey is a powerful example of one's personal orientation affecting one's science and the moral shape of society. What could be the motive of Kinsey's fraudulent data, which often found up to even half of average American males homosexual? Quite possibly, it amounts to Kinsey's wishful thinking, which he quantified in order to recreate others in his own distorted image. Was Kinsey himself a closet homosexual, pedophile or pederast?

In the past, science fraud has taken place for economic and political reasons-but with Kinsey, was his "science" rather the outgrowth of personal morality and sexual proclivity? If that were true, he has certainly not been the last. In recent years, the world has seen other "men of science" (Hamer, LeVay, Pillard et al) whose work lacks objectivity and who seem to be justifying their own lives with their [questionable] findings. Were these scientists making claims about beetles, fauna or supernovae, there would be less cause for alarm; however, the travesty is that-in a culture in which science is the preferred religion (a no-fault religion) and scientists its high priests-these men's words are being received as "gospel" (no matter how little factual basis they have) on a subject as important and wide- sweeping as human sexuality. Unfortunately, the scientific world and the western world at large has all too eagerly embraced Kinsey's work.

No matter what Kinsey's own sexual orientation, scientists and laypersons alike must acknowledge that he engineered a study of child sexuality which was unthinkable. The Kinsey Institute's data on child orgasms are, at best, a human concoction or, at worst, the results of child molestation. In either case, the Kinsey Institute is guilty of criminal activity and their findings on all subjects are suspect and misleading. Too, science must be re-evaluated, for Kinsey's work has hijacked an entire body of science for almost half a century, leaving behind untold damage to families, relationships and human souls.

The control of sexuality information has for too long been in the hands of the Kinsey elite-unethical scientists, men without moral conscience or honor, who fathered a bastard sexual revolution. It should come as no surprise then to those on our campuses and in the halls of legislative, judicial and educational power, that as our nation has followed Kinsey and his disciples, we too have become increasingly coarsened to conscience and honor. It is clear that sexual aggression, brutality and hedonism have greater sway in our society post-Kinsey than was the case pre-Kinsey.

No matter what Kinsey's own sexual proclivities and biases, after WWII Kinsey began to move in concert with a cadre of revisionist educators, lawyers and other professionals who determined with their sponsors to forever alter the American way of life through its educational system (the future) and the legal system (the standard of judgment). Prior to the Kinsey Reports, American law held that not only were sodomy, adultery, fornication and the like transgressions, those who committed such acts were themselves unacceptable. Post-Kinsey, these once-criminal acts and their actors began moving toward acceptability. The new law system used Kinsey as its primary and only scientific authority, and pointed America in a downward direction, promoting today's entire panoply of sexual deviances more common to the Pre-Christian era.

In the upheaval of the post-World War II period, Kinsey, for his part, refashioned the way humankind looked upon sexuality and separated this most powerful of human acts from its labor-intensive procreational function, pronouncing true human sexuality in the new human nature to be free, self-fulfilling and recreational.

Kinsey lives and reigns today in classrooms across America. The Ten Commandments may be out of our classrooms, but the Kinseyan-based "One in Ten" project is in, and "prima nocte"-the medieval practice of an overreaching government taking a young person's innocence, modesty and virtue (as depicted in the film Braveheart)-is a pervasive and accepted practice today in the schools of our American village.

Kinsey sold his soul to win his place in time, but now is the time to take back America's soul which has been led astray by fraudulent and criminal science. It is soon fifty years since Kinsey foisted his hoax upon a trusting and moral American people. The American standard was right all along. Let's pull the curtain back and call for a proper investigation of Kinsey's fraudulent investigation into human sexuality. Write and call your political representatives now to begin the debunking and defunding of Kinsey and truth will restore social virtue once again to our nation.

Author's note: Since the establishment media has largely censored this information, if you have or desire any information on Kinsey, the use of his materials, or his role in your life or the lives of others, kindly call the 800 number listed. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, The Children of Table 34-a Family Research Council video of the Kinsey fraud (30 min.), and the Reisman & Johnson Report (comparing homosexual and heterosexual personals or "In Search Of" ads) can be obtained via First Principals Press, 1-800-837- 0544.

Endnotes

[1]The Institute For Media Education, Box 7404, Arlington, Virginia, 22207.

[2]Science Magazine editorial, January 9, 1987.

[3]See Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement, ed. Mark Thompson, Stonewall Inn Edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 22, 59-60, 102, 164.

[4]The Lancet (April 1971), as taken from the Department of Health and Human Services' "Protection of Human Subjects" report, FR 52880, November 23, 1982.

[5]Frank Kofsky, Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948, New York: St. Maritn's Press (1995), p. xvii.

[6]Ibid., p. xix.

[7]Key pages from Kinsey's 1948 Male volume, pp. 157-192, "Early Sexual Growth and Activity."

[8]"The Donahue Show," transcript, December 5, 1990.

[9]The Lancet, March 2, 1991, p. 547. Emphasis added.

[10]Audiotaped phone discussion between J. Gordon Muir, editor of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, and Paul Gebhard on November 2, 1992.

[11]Male volume, p. 177: The nine men "have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal; and from them we have secured information on 317 pre-adolescents who were either engaged in self masturbation, or who were observed in contacts with other boys or older adults." The Washington Post (December 8, 1995, p. F1, F4) reports Dr. Bancroft saying, "Kinsey gives the impression that the data came from three or four men, but it was just the one." He speculates that Kinsey "kept that bit to himself because he thought the public might not react well to his use of data from a sex criminal." Elsewhere Bancroft is reported saying, "I have looked at the data on which these tables appear to be based, and I am fairly confident that the data for all 317 cases came from the one old man..." (September 19, 1995, Indianapolis Star, A1, A4), etc.

[12]The Indianapolis Star, September 19, 1995, p. 4, col. 1, "an elderly scientist."

[13]Activities such as "forcing" correct answers from subjects and suggesting that investigators might find some way to treat the data should they find these answers unacceptable is not science, Male volume, Op. cit., p. 55.

[14]Ibid., p. 58.

[15 ]Pomeroy, Wardell, Dr. Kinsey and The Institute For Sex Research. Harper & Row, New York (1972), pp. 208-209. "By 1946, he, Gebhard and I had interviewed about 1,400 convicted sex offenders in penal institutions scattered over a dozen states." (On this page Pomeroy notes Kinsey's explanation that all American males are really sex offenders, by law, hence the need to largely eliminate sex offender laws). Kinsey's data included these deviants and prisoners as average American men. In court documents, former Kinsey Institute Director, Dr. June Reinisch writes that Kinsey "never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public" and Dr. Gebhard replied, "I fear that your final paragraph will embarrass you and the university if it comes to Reisman's attention.... This statement is incorrect. Kinsey did mix male prison inmates in with his sample used in the Male volume."

[16]See Maslow and Sakoda, "Volunteer Error in the Kinsey Study," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 1952 (pp. 259- 262).

[17]Writing in Our Sexuality, (2nd edition), Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co. sexologists, Crooks & Baur, offer a sexological view of the term "direct observation:" A third method for studying human sexual behavior is direct observation. [Original emphasis.] This type of research may vary greatly in form and setting, ranging from laboratory studies that observe and record sexual responses to participant observation where the researchers join their subjects in sexual activity," (p. 64).

[18]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 181.

[19]Ibid., pp. 160-161.

[20]Letter to Judith Reisman from Lester Caplan M.D. (Baltimore, Maryland), Diplomate, the American Board of Pediatrics, reviewing the child data.

[21]See exhibit E, Pomeroy's letter to Reisman, para 2, "Some of these sources have added to their written or verbal reports photographs, and, in a few instances, cinema." The Kinsey Institute is on record as possessing a selection of child pornography films and photographs.

[22]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 181.

[23]Ibid., p. 180.

[24]"Was Kinsey a Fake and a Pervert?," The Village Voice, December 11, 1990, p. 41.

[25]Op. cit. fn #9.

[26]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 177. Moreover, as Lewis Terman pointed out in his critique of Kinsey, "The author lists (p. 39) "many hundred" persons who brought in "delinquent groups: male prostitutes, female prostitutes, bootleggers, gamblers, pimps, prison inmates, thieves and hold-up men. These, presumably, would have brought in others of their kind, but in what numbers they did so we are not told." Terman also notes "a dozen prison populations" included "a state school for feeble-minded, two children's homes, and two homes for unmarried mothers....plus "more than 1,200 persons who have been convicted of sex offenses." (Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male: Some Comments and Criticisms," Lewis Terman, Sexual Behavior in American Society: An Appraisal of the First Two Kinsey Reports, NYC: W.W. Norton & Co., 1955, p. 447).

[27]Ibid., p. 37.

[28]Ibid., p. 177. Emphasis added.

[29]After I asked these questions in 1981, the Kinsey Institute launched a 12-year-long national campaign to undermine my investigation. The 87- page Kinsey Institute "confidential" package mailed worldwide, and especially to those who might interview Reisman on the issue are available.

[30]Beyond Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990), the recently released video, The Children of Table 34, narrated by Ephrem Zimbalist Jr., is a very important tool for understanding the way in which the Kinsey data have been used to mislead the nation. This half-hour video documents the history of the Kinsey fraud and establishes Kinsey as the foundation of current homosexual advocacy and classroom sex education and AIDS Prevention.

[31]Gebhard letter to me, March 11, 1981.

[32]In the Male volume, Kinsey describes the children's trauma (which he saw as orgasmic), claiming to also have data on "a smaller percentage of older boys and adults which continues these reactions throughout life," p. 161. Gebhard also says they have the names, Op. cit. fn #9.

[33]In most of their recent news releases, Indiana University denied they received any federal money which served to support Dr. Kinsey's research efforts. [

]However, in addition to other grants, in 1957 the National Institute of Mental Health granted approximately $50,000 per year for three years to the Institute, several years before Kinsey's sex study concluded.[] Furthermore, many millions of dollars from tax-free institutions were diverted to Dr. Kinsey's research during his lifetime, and millions of federal, state and tax-free funds continue to be funneled into the Kinsey Institute.

"[I]n 1957, under Gebhard's leadership, new sources of federal and private funding were found....During the 1970s, with funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Kinsey Institute was able to develop an information service," SIECUS Report, September 1985, 6-7.

The Official Brochure, Institute for Sex Research, Indiana University (1970) reads, "News of Kinsey's efforts reached the National Research Council's Committee for Research on Problems of Sex when he applied for a grant....in late 1940 [and was awarded] $1,600, the monies being provided by the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation....increased to $7,500....by 1946, reached $35,000....the National Institute of Mental Health awarded the Institute the first in a series of grants which were destined to continue for years and to constitute the major financial support of the [Kinsey] research. In the Customs case a federal district course ruled in favor of the Institute, empowering it to import for research purpose any sort of erotic material and allowing such materials to be sent through the mails...regarded as a landmark in the history of the relationship between science and law." pp. 3, 6. (Emphasis added.).

[34]Wardell Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, New York: Harper and Row (1972), p. 208.

[35]Ibid. Also see British Broadcasting Company's biography of Kinsey, released on Arts and Entertainment, August 7, 1996.

[36]Judith Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House, 1990). The British medical journal, The Lancet, said: "In Kinsey Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two [Kinsey] reports."

[37]Letter to Paul Gebhard, December 3, 1990.

[38]Letter from Paul Gebhard, December 6, 1990. Both letters are official deposition exhibits.

[ Table of Contents | ]

Spitzer Study Critiqued
In the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy

(Volume 7, Number 3, 2003)

by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH

"...an over-the-hill stage horse galloping toward the limelight, or a court jester hoodwinked by a scheming religious right"

--Characterization of Robert Spitzer
by gay activist Wayne Besen

A recent issue of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy was entirely devoted to Robert L. Spitzer and his study, recently published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. One author after another, the Journal authors--all gay activists-- devoted their efforts to a critical analysis of the Spitzer study.

The opening editorial by psychiatrist Jack Drescher set the tone for this issue of the journal. Drescher couched the malleability of homosexuality as a question central to the "cultural wars," but not to science. And it's the cultural wars, not science, that seemed to occupy center-stage in all the ensuing articles.

Another commentator, Theo Sandfort, suggested that Spitzer should not have published the study at all because of the delicacy of the topic, because the issue of homosexuality is "charged" in cultural debates, and because of the limitations of the study (Sandfort lists his concerns in that order).

Psychiatrist Charles Silverstein, author of The Joy of Gay Sex, devoted his commentary to a scorching criticism of religious-faith traditions, accompanied by accusations of bias in Spitzer's subject selection. Silverstein has a preference for the Shidlo-Schroeder study, which sought to document the harm experienced by some reorientation-therapy clients. The Shidlo-Schroeder study was conducted by researchers who at least initially, selected their participants through an advertisement in gay publications that said, "Help Us Document the Damage of Homophobic Therapies."

An analysis of the media response to the Spitzer study was provided in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy by Lund and Renna. They offer a "conspiracy" theory of the Spitzer study, noting how "media routines dictate that coverage of scientific issues which intersect with political or cultural ones tend to minimize the science, and focus instead on the political or cultural 'conflict.'" They fail to note, however, that a long series of gay-friendly media stories during the past ten years--stories about "gay genes," "gay brains," and children raised in gay-headed households--has been heralded almost uncritically, on a scientific level, by the popular media as evidence to prove the merit of gay social causes.

Much of the rest of the Lund-Renna commentary is basically a critique of the validity of the ex-gay movement, and an attempt to de-legitimize the efforts of ex-gays to change.

The article in the Journal by Wayne Besen could only be characterized as polemical; such polemics were justified by the journal's editor, Jack Drescher, because they were said to be a "representative sample of the political reception" of the Spitzer study within the gay community.

The commentary is vintage Wayne Besen. He concludes his diatribe with the following:

"In the end, however, the real loser is Dr. Spitzer. Whether he was an over-the-hill stage horse galloping toward the limelight or a court jester hood-winked by a scheming religious right is unimportant.

"What matters is that Spitzer's embarrassing travesty of scholarship will surely go down as his defining work, a professional pockmark that will indelibly taint his once splendid career."

In another article, Stalstrom and Nissinen provided a commentary on the role of the Spitzer study in the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships in Finland. The Spitzer study had been offered as evidence (by supporters of traditional marriage) in the Finnish same-sex partnerships debate. Consistent with his historical and current political views supportive of gay-activist social causes, Spitzer made a clarification to the Finnish Parliament on the distinct--and non-intersecting-- spheres of science and ethics; i.e., that scientific studies can never settle matters of social ethics; but then in closing, he offered his personal support for both anti-discrimination laws and civil unions for homosexuals.

The final article in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy is a dialogue between two colleagues: gay-activist psychiatrist Jack Drescher, and Robert Spitzer. It is difficult to determine how much of the interview was scripted. But Spitzer, in spite of being subjected to hate mail from the gay community and rage from colleagues, concluded, " I'm glad I did the study."

It's tempting to provide my own commentary on this issue of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy. But beyond simply laying out the facts, I am not sure there is a need; surely, most professionals will be able to glean for themselves the differences between legitimate scientific criticisms and political rhetoric. However, because I am acquainted with Robert Spitzer, perhaps the following information will come closer to the truth of the matter.

My acquaintance with Robert Spitzer began in May, 2000, when I responded to a dinner invitation from him. Though discouraged from doing so by some of my colleagues, I accepted the invitation. Having spent three decades in clinical practice, I had learned to trust my judgment about people more than depending on the appraisals of others.

I was greeted by a mild-mannered man who was quite engaging. He was reasonable and open to hearing my opinion as he posed questions about the malleability of homosexuality. I was impressed with his genuineness and sincerity. At the risk of insulting him, I noted a kind of searching depth, almost approaching spirituality. By the evening's end, I had learned much about the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, and much more about Robert L. Spitzer, the man.

More importantly, my gut-level response told me that Robert Spitzer's motivations were honorable, and that he had integrity. He genuinely wanted to know if some homosexual men and women could change from homosexual to heterosexual, and that he wanted science to guide him. Certainly, with more than 275 publications to his credit, this esteemed scientist at Columbia University was more than able to conduct such a study.

With the limitations that are inherent to all such studies, Spitzer employed the best rigor available for such research protocols. I am certain that Spitzer would have received accolades from the scientific community had he studied a less controversial topic, employing the exact same methodology as in this study. His sample size was larger than those in previous studies. He was very detailed in his assessment and carefully considered the affective components of the homosexual experience. Any bias in interview coding was virtually eliminated by near-perfect interrater scores. He limited his pool of applicants to those reporting at least 5 years of sustained change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation. His structured interview clearly described how the participants were evaluated. His entire set of data is available for scrutiny by other researchers.

Spitzer's conclusions are simply this: based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies.

One of the few rational, scientific commentaries on the Spitzer study was offered by Scott L. Hershberger. Dr. Hershberger, a distinguished scholar and statistician, elected to respond in a Commentary to the Spitzer research (Hershberger's article was published in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior as the Spitzer study was) by conducting a Guttman scalability analysis. This is a scalogram to determine whether or not reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion.

Hershberger's conclusion:

"The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual sexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation.

"Now it is up to those skeptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so."

What I find most intriguing, and somewhat ironic is that Spitzer did in 2001 what he did in 1973: he challenged the prevailing orthodoxy. He challenged the assumption that "every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal."

In the particular sample he studied, Dr. Spitzer concluded that many participants "... made substantial changes in sexual arousal and fantasy--not merely behavior." Even subjects who made less substantial change believed it to be extremely beneficial.

"Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Spitzer, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change."

Perhaps one of the valued characteristics of the good scientist is the amenability to form different opinions based on the data. This is precisely what Robert Spitzer has done. He came to the study skeptical, but open to new data. And with new data, he has formed a different opinion.

What is also clear from the Spitzer study is that more data is needed, because his study was very hypothesis-generating (as such studies should be).

In spite of the complaints from activists, the Spitzer study has managed to lift the thirty-year moratorium on the scientific investigation of homosexuality. Within the last year, I have had nine graduate students contact me about thesis or dissertation topics on homosexuality. Other colleagues report similar inquiries.

Activists suggest that there is no need to study change from homosexuality, and that even research on this subject will cause harm to self-identified homosexuals. In spite of a political climate where activism often trumps science, and where activist claims go uncritically examined, there is no rational basis for the speculation that studying homosexuality will harm gay-identified individuals.

In responding to this concern, Michael Bailey noted, in his recent book The Man Who Would Be Queen, "...it is difficult to argue that good scientific studies, or rational, open discussions" will harm homosexuals.

When sociopolitical agendas prevent scientists from studying even controversial topics like homosexuality, no one wins. In fact science can only progress by asking questions and seeking answers. When research is discouraged and scientists are intimidated, we begin down a slippery slope that approximates the censorship of scientific investigation, a very dangerous slope indeed.

The tone of this issue of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy was not one that valued the scientific spirit of investigation and openness, but rather one of suppression and personal attack.

It's unfortunate that attempts are made to hold Spitzer's study to a higher standard than other similarly-conducted research. Spitzer's study was peer-reviewed and the limitations noted. It appears that the activist-authors of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy were outraged that the study was published at all, a sad commentary for a professional journal. Spitzer's motives were questioned, his credibility attacked and his research subjected to a kind of scrutiny unparalleled in any scientific arena.

As a scientist, I find the journal's approach in this issue to be both disingenuous and intolerant. Disagreement among scientists is healthy. Name-calling and intimidation tactics are not. It is unfortunate that the journal's editorial board, some of whom are respected scientists, would lend credibility to this issue by their affiliation with the journal.

Queeria vrsenjem male nuzde blagosilja srpčad

Queeria blagosilja srpčad.

Da li treba uopste komentarisati ovu sliku?

Ova nakaradna karikatura je bila postavljena na blogu B92 kao prateca tekstu koji se nalazi na ovom linku
http://blog.b92.net/text/1168/Sprski pravoslavni blog/

Toliko o onima koji imaju ljubav za sve.

J.N : : Znači prvo je bio strah, onda zahvalnost, a onda momenat poznat kao ’’metanoia’’ ili budjenje onog pravog autentičnog indetiteta...

 

M.G : Baš tako!Više nije bilo sumnje.Na jednom fundamentalnom nivou,mir izmedju Boga i mene je uspostavljen.

 

J.N : Uspostavili ste primirje?

 

M.G : Da u potpunosti.

 

J.N : Predivno!Zaista fantastično!

 

M.G : I u celom tom iskustvu,potpuno iznenada,kao da sam se ponovo priključio delu čovečanstva sa kojim sam se ceo život borio.

 

J.N : Priključio si se životu.

 

M.G : Da, ali na samom početku, nisam to tako shvatao.Imao sam samo osećaj da sam povratio nešto tako primalno.Ovo mi je dalo takav osećaj nezavisnosti,tako da sam dalje rastao do saznanja šta je to značilo za mene u pravom smislu.

 

J.N : Ja sam uskočio sa zaključkom ’’Priključio si se životu’’,kako bi ti to opisao svojim rečima?

 

M.G : Pa prvo što mi je došlo je bio osećaj slobode i lične autonomije,onda sam počeo da čitam gospele i ono što je Isus pisao,e tada sam počeo da shvatam šta mi se dogadja i da počinjem sa kompletno novim pristupom životu.U tim gospelima,Isus se žrtvao za mene,i ja sam bio izložen nekim novim konceptima sa kojima pre nisam imao dodira.

 

J.N : Da li si ti odrastao u religioznoj porodici?

 

M.G : Odrastao sam u Hrišćanskoj porodici,ali to je bila mahom igrarija.Moj otac nije bio hrišćanin i uglavnom je potkopavao sve istine iz hrišćanstva koje su pokušavali da nas nauče.On bi ih preobratio u smešne priče da napravi dobru atmosferu tokom Božića.

 

J.N : Da li je tvoja majka bila religiozna?

 

M.G : Da,ona je bila hrišćanka ali ne pripadajući zvaničnoj crkvenoj organizaciji.Vodila nas je na okupljanja u ’’Crkvu jedinstva’’ gde su uvažavali kategorije poput ’’gospod otac’’, ’’Bogomajka’’ i slično.Mislim da je bila stvarno dobra žena koja je isto tako htela da zadovolji svog muža koji je bio izraziti agnostik i hipik  sa Berklija šezdesetih.

 

J.N :  Reci mi sad, kakvo je tvoje psihološko razumevanje cele tvoje situacije?

 

M.G :Pa kao što sam već rekao,prvo je počelo sa rastom osećaja nezavisnosti.Onda sam počeo da shvatam dinamiku odnosa gey veza.

 

J.N : Muškarac sa muškarcem.

 

M.G :Tako je.Utvrdio sam da uvek postoji problematika odnosa moći i da ta dva muškarca nikako ne mogu da se usklade koja strana je ustvari dominirajuća.Jer moja veza sa partnerom bi dospela uvek u ćorsokak kada se ne bi smo složili oko nečega.On prosto nije znao šta da radi samnom, jer je navikao da sam uvek onaj koji je podredjen.

 

J.N : To znači da si počeo da se menjaš?

 

M.G : Nakon što smo se razdvojili taj osećaj nezavisnosti je sve više rastao.Nije to bilo isključivo povezano sa vezom,Još uvek su tu postojale osnovne stvari koje nisu funkcionisale.Počeo sam sve da preispitujem,osim homoseksualnosti.Bukvalno bih sedeo sav u suzama i molio se pitajući naglas ’’Šta je u pitanju? Ne razumem gde je greška još uvek?’’I onda je postalo  veoma očigledano. Samo sam napisao rečenicu na svom kompjuteru : ’’Ja sam heteroseksualac’’, i nastavio sam da ispisujem i ispisujem,prosto nisam mogao da poverujem.Imao sam osećaj kao da kršim neki zakon.

 

J.N : Momenat razumevanja situacije...

 

M.G : Ali ipak užasan osećaj.Imao sam utisak da mi se milioni ljudi smeju,osudjuju zbog ispisivanja tih reči.

 

J.N : Bilo je kao u smislu : ’’Kako se usudjuješ da napišeš to!’’

 

M.G : Da.Ali od tog momenta pa nadalje shvatio sam da je to istina.Nakon toga morao sam da dokučim odakle te potrebe dolaze.

 

J.N : Drugim rečima :’’Ako sam heteroseksualac,odakle mi sklonosti ka homoseksualizmu?’’

 

M.G : Tačno.

 

J.N : To je upravo prvi korak terapije reorijentacije,ubedjenje ’’ Ja sam heteroseksulac.’’

 

-Part2-

 

Investigative Panel: "Gay" Status Helped Couple Get Away with Sexually Abusing Foster Children
| 9/6/07 | Hilary White

Posted on 09/06/2007 4:17:43 PM PDT by wagglebee

WAKEFIELD, UK, September 6, 2007 - A report by an independent panel has laid the blame in a homosexual child sex abuse case squarely on the culture of political correctness among British civil authorities. It was a local Council's fear of offending the homosexual movement or being labeled homophobic that allowed two men to continue to sexually abuse boys placed in their care as foster parents.

Ian Wathey, 40, and Craig Faunch, 32 were convicted in May 2006, of molesting and filming eight-year-old twins and two 14 year-old boys placed in their care by the Wakefield Council. Since they were approved as foster parents in 2003, Wathey and Faunch took in a total of 19 boys.

Despite growing reservations by staff and complaints from the mother of two of the boys, the two men were treated by the authorities as "trophy carers" who, because of their status as homosexuals were regarded as beyond scrutiny. An independent investigative panel has found that officials of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, controlled by the Labour Party, allowed "the fear of being discriminatory" to lead them to "fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive."

The Daily Telegraph reports that the review panel found authorities ignored or inadequately investigated complaints against the two men and that an annual review was never conducted.

The Telegraph quotes one social worker who told the inquiry team, "you didn't want to be seen discriminating against a same-sex couple."

At the time of his conviction for sexual abuse, Judge Sally Cahill told Faunch, "Once you realised social services were going to take no action in respect of the photos that had been found, and believed your ridiculous story about why you had taken it, you went on to abuse others in your care believing yourself to be safe from the authorities."

The men were convicted of multiple counts of sexual activity with the two 14 year-old boys, and Faunch was convicted of using a camcorder to film two eight year-old boys while they showered. Wathey was also found guilty of encouraging a 14 year-old child, who suffers from Asperger's syndrome and has the mental age of a seven year-old, to watch homosexual pornography.

Referring to one boy's "very troubled background" the judge said, "You are presented as a couple but this is not a case about homosexuality, it is about a breach of trust".

The panel leader, Brian Parrott stated, "These anxieties about discrimination have deep roots, we argue - in social work training, professional identity and organisational cultures, and the remedies for these go beyond the remit of any single council or inquiry report."

Five weeks before their conviction, Wathey and Faunch took part in a civil partnership ceremony and are thought to have been the first homosexual partners in Yorkshire to be allowed to act as foster parents. That Faunch was jailed for six years and Wathey for five years, outraged some children's charities who said that for such a "breach of trust" the sentence ought to have been ten years.

Ovo postaje sve gore i gore. Oduzimaju decu normalnim ljudima i daju ih ovima da ih zlostavljaju. I pritom su zasticeni. Gde ovaj svet ide?

 M.G (Michael Glatze) je odlučio sa svojih 13 godina da je gej i kasnije osnovao svoju neprofitnu organizaciju ’’ Young Gay America’’. Tokom svog života,kroz seriju incidenata i dogadjaja, Michaeal je polako počeo da uvidja da se više ne oseća kao gej i da je ono sa čime se ustvari suočava je problem sa doživljajem svoje muškosti.Ovaj intervju koji je vodio sa Dr. Josephom Nicolosi, objasniće njegovo emocionalno i duhovno putovanje ka sebi.

 

J.N : Hvala ti M. na volji da pričaš otvoreno o svom intimnom životu ovako javno.Već si ranije objašnjavao kako religiozno iskustvo može imati duboke uticaje na život osobe,ali bih voleo da ovim razgovorom dotaknemo i psihološku dimenziju tvoje radikalne promene života. Šta ti prvo padne na pamet kad pogledaš unazad i pomisliš na te momente transformacije koji su se dogodili u tebi?

 

M.G : Pa,mislim da je to za početak bila sposobnost da uvidim prirodu mojih želja i mogućnost da ih promenim.

 

J.N : To je interesantna fraza ’’priroda mojih želja’’...

 

M.G : Mada kad se osvrnem na vreme kada sam pripadao gej komunama, preispitivati svoju seksualnu orijentaciju,jednostavno nije bilo dozvoljeno.

 

J.N : Da.Koliko znam to je jedno od osnovnih i najvećih pravila u gej svetu.

 

M.G : Tačno. U suštini govoreći, to je pravilo br. 1 .

 

J.N : Pravilo br. 1 ’’Ne pitaj zašto’’.Ljudi su ’’to što jesu’’.Nema pitanja zašto.

 

M.G : Čim se uključiš u klub, to je prvo pravilo. Možeš da preispituješ bilo šta osim svoje homoseksualnosti.

 

J.N : To znači-ja mogu da istražujem osnove ’’mog’’ alkoholizma, prejedanja,depresije ali ne i homoseksualnosti.

 

M.G : Tačno.Ironija je u tome što je OK  da heteroseksualci preispitavaju svoju seksualnost.

 

J.N : (Klima glavom)

 

M.G : Tako da u trenutku kad sam bio sposoban da dovedem u pitanje moju homoseksualnost,tada je postalo veoma religiozno.Kada sam počeo da tragam za Bogom i pokušavajući da razumem sve te koncepte,počeo sam da prihvatam i duboko razumem i usvajam sve više i više znanja, i naravno prestao da verujem sve  manje u stvari koje sam do tada verovao. Verovao sam u ideje koje nemaju smisao – nisu imale nikakvu težinu.I zaključio sam da nema potrebe da ih se držim kako bih zadržao i imao doživljaj sebe.

 

J.N : Ok, dakle ti pokušavaš da mi kažeš da u trenutku kada si prepoznao Božiju volju u sebi, počeo si da se razilaziš sa pretpostavkama i verovanjima koja idu iz ideju da homoseksualizam odražava ideju ’’ko si ti’, u najdubljem smislu reči.

 

M.G : Da, Gledao sam na stvari kao političke ideje,socijalne ideje i naravno kao lične stvari.Na primer,priroda dinamike odnosa izmedju dva muškarca je nešto gde sam uvek bio naivan. Kad god bih se usprotivio stavovima mog partnera,pre nego sam počeo uspostvaljati odnos povezanosti sa Bogom u sebi ili povezanosti sa sobom samim,autonoman od drugih, na kraju bih uvek bio nagovoren na podredjenost.

 

J.N : Dakle kako si produbljivao svoj odnos sa Bogom polako si počeo da razvijaš svoj odvojeni autonomni indentitet...

 

M.G : Tačno! To je prva stvar koju sam uočio.

 

J.N : I kako je to Bog došao u tvoj život? Kako se to dogodilo?

 

M.G : Pa on je načinio taj korak ustvari. Moj otac je naglo umro od srca i ja sam počeo da verujem da i ja imam slično stanje zdravlja. Imao sam svojevrsnu situaciju panike – hipohondarsku reakciju.

 

J.N : Ustvari ti si imao napad anksioznosti, jer si pomislio da ćeš i ti imati sličnu sudbinu kao otac i to je stvorilo strah u tebi.

 

M.G : Da, potpuni strah.On je umro dok je hodao po plaži. A onda sam ja uradio najgluplju stvar, počeo sam da tražim po internetu odgovore i da sam sebi postavljam dijagnoze.

 

J.N : Što je uvelo još veći strah u tebe.Jer si počeo da primećuješ sve moguće simptome u sebi.

 

M.G : Tačno! (smeje se) I tako sam  nastavio da verujem da mi je svaki korak poslednji,dok nisam konačno dobio sve analize i dokaze da mi nije ništa.

 

J.N : (klima glavom) Kažu da je ono što nas najčešće približava Bogu, je naš duboki strah od smrtnosti...kad imamo iskustvo gde strahujemo za naš lični opstanak.

 

M.G : Baš tako.Nakon što sam utvrdio da nemam bolest, osetio sam takvu zahvalnost prema Bogu.Ovo je bio jedinstven momenat u celom mom životu da sam preispitao svaki koncept mog uma,celo moje bivstvovanje je bilo reevaluirano.

 

 

J.N. : Znači prvo je bio strah, onda zahvalnost, a onda momenat poznat kao ’’metanoia’’ ili budjenje onog pravog autentičnog indetiteta...

 

-Part1-

 

Preuzeto sa http://www.narth.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foster child to be taken away because Christian couple refuse to teach him about homosexuality

By JAMES MILLS - More by this author » Last updated at 07:14am on 24th October 2007

Comments (68)

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.

But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.

The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

The Mathericks have decided to resign rather than face the humiliation of being expelled.

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: "I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

"We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."

Mrs Matherick, 61, said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

She said: "He was very upset to begin with. We are all very close, but he's a mature young man and he's dealing with it."

The couple, who have six grandchildren and one greatgrandchild, are both ministers at the nonconformist South Chard Christian Church.

When they first started fostering they took in young single mothers and their babies.

More recently they have been caring for children of primary school age.

Mr Matherick added: "It's terrible that we've been forced into this corner. It just should not happen.

"There are not enough foster carers around anyway without these rules.

"They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11-year-olds, which I don't think is appropriate anyway, but not only that, to be prepared to explain how gay people date.

"They said we would even have to take a teenager to gay association meetings.

"How can I do that when it's totally against what I believe?"

Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have complained that the rules force them to overturn long-held beliefs.

The Mathericks are planning to fight their case in the courts with the backing of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship.

The same organisation is backing Christian magistrate Andrew McClintock who resigned from the family courts in a row over gay adoption.

He says he was forced to resign because he was not allowed to opt out of cases where he might have to send a child to live with gay parents.

The Mathericks' case comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis.

An extra 8,000 are needed to plug the gaps in the service.

Researchers have found that continually moving children from home to home can have a devastating impact on their education and general welfare.

But a report last year revealed that the shortage of carers meant that some children in care are being forced to move up to three times a year.

David Taylor, Somerset County Council's corporate director for children and young people, said: "No decision has been made about the deregistration of Mr and Mrs Matherick.

"The council is committed to promoting the interests of children and young people and welcomes foster carers from all backgrounds and faiths."

Švarceneger zabranio reči
Švarceneger zabranio reči "mama" i "tata"!
Cetvrtak, 18. oktobar 2007. 11:08

Guverner Kalifornije Arnold Švarceneger zabranio je upotrebu reči "mama", "tata", "muž" i "žena" u kalifornijskim školama, prenosi WorldNetDaily.

U grupi novih propisa vezanih za obrazovni sistem, Švarceneger je potpisao i dozvolu školskim dečacima da idu u ženske toalete, kao i obrnuto.

Izmedju ostalog, novim pravilima je zabranjeno bilo kakvo "negativno karakterisanje" homoseksualaca, biseksualaca i drugih "alternativnih načina života". Tako su i reči za članove porodice zabranjene, da se deca čiji su roditelji ili usvojitelji istog pola ne bi zbunjivala.

Iz školskog programa biće izbačeni svi tekstovi koji brak karakterišu kao "instituciju izmedju muškarca i žene", ili pol deteta "ograničavaju" samo na muški i ženski. Novi tekstovi uključivaće istorijske figure transseksualnih, biseksualnih ili homoseksualnih opredeljenja, a u predmet seksualno obrazovanje biće uključen i detaljan opis promene pola.

Novim pravilima u Kaliforniji će biti ukinuto državno finansiranje bilo kakvog programa koji ne podržava seksualnu različitost, što uključuje i humanitarne organizacije pri crkvi. Obdaništa, predškolske ustanove, javne kuhinje, skloništa, domovi za stare i druge ustanove moraće da se prilagode novom kodeksu, inače rizikuju da izgube budžet.

Ponašanje roditelja i nastavnika takodje je obuhvaćeno izmenom, pa tako roditelj koji u prisustvu homoseksualnog učitelja kaže detetu da je brak samo za osobe suprotnih polova, može biti tužen za seksualno uznemiravanje.

Iako nova pravila nisu zadobila mnogo medijske pažnje u SAD, vest se proširila Internetom brzinom munje. Mnogi ogorčeni "blogeri" kritikuju Švarcenegerove nove odluke.

"Zabranjivanje dečjih knjiga, pa to je komunizam koji počinje od naše dece. Nismo na Kubi, pa da svako svakog špijunira i prijavljuje vlastima za najmanju grešku. Guverner Terminator dolazi po našu decu, a niko ne reaguje" kaže jedan Amerikanac na svom blogu.

Isti korisnik interneta nije propustio da primeti da je Švarceneger pre samo godinu dana stavio veto na prilično sličan predlog zakona.

ZABRANA “Šokirani smo i užasnuti jer je guverner ovime napao tradicionalne porodične vrednosti u Kaliforniji”, izjavila je Karen Ingland, izvršni direktor Instituta Kapitol Risors.
“Tom odlukom, guverner Švarceneger poručuje roditeljima da su njihove vrednosti irelevantne. Mnogi roditelji neće imati drugog izbora nego da povuku svoju decu iz državnih škola koje su sada postale centri za seksualnu indoktrinaciju”.
“Švarceneger je prepustio decu u ruke onih koji će ih upoznati sa alternativnim seksualnim načinom života”, izjavio je Rendi Tomason, predsednik Kampanje za decu i porodicu, koja se protivila planovima. “To znači da će i deca starosti od pet godina biti mentalno zlostavljana u školskim učionicama”.
“Treba da je sramota Švarcenegera i demokratske političare što su osigurali da svaka kalifornijska škola postane homoseksualni-biseksualni-transeksualni centar za indoktrinaciju”, rekao je on.
Zakon koje je odobrio Švarceneger uključuje i SB777, koji zabranjuje bilo šta u državnim školama što bi moglo biti protumačeno kao negativno nastrojeno prema homoseksualnosti, biseksualnosti i drugim alternativnim životnim izborima.
Međutim, nema slične zaštite za učenike sa tradicionalnim ili konzervativnim načinom života ili verovanjima.
“SB777 će za rezultat imati diskriminaciju u suprotnom pravcu i to prema učenicima koji poštuju religiozne i tradicionalne porodične vrednosti”, kaže Meredit Turni iz Instituta Kapitol Risors.
“Ovi učenici su izgubili svoj glas što je direktna posledica neverovatne odluke guvernera”.
“Roditelji žele da budu uvereni da će njihova deca ići u školu da nauče osnove čitanja, pisanja i aritmetike, ne socijalne indoktrinacije koja predstavlja alternativne seksualne načine života”.

Prevod Sare sa  www.medicinari.com


Nemačka federalna institucija podređena Ministarstvu za porodične odnose, objavila je pamflet kojim motivišu očeve da se angažuju u “masiranju polnih organa” svojih kćerki
Nemačka federalna institucija podržava incestualnu pedofiliju
translation from Polish "Rzeczpospolita" daily ^ | July 9, 2007 | Aleksandra Rybinska
Posted on 07/29/2007 4:42:30 AM PDT by JoAnka
Ovo je prevod članka iz poljskih dnevnih novina "Rzeczpospolita".


Nadležni organi ohrabruju na ‘igranje doktora’

Nemačka federalna institucija podređena Ministarstvu za porodične odnose, objavila je pamflet kojim motivišu očeve da se angažuju u “masiranju polnih organa” svojih kćerki

„Očevi ne posvećuju dovoljno pažnje klitorisu i vagini svojih kćerki. Njihova maženja previše retko pripadaju ovim regionima, dok je ovo jedini način da devojčice budu u stanju da razvoju osećaj ponosa prema svom polu” – ovo je citat iz „Ljubav, telo i igranje doktora” - brošure objavljene od Nemačkog federalnog centra za zdravstveno obrazovanje (BZgA). Ova publikacija je upućena roditeljima dece starosti 1-3 godina.

Prema autorima pamfleta, za zdrav razvoj deteta je važno da njen otac pokaže koliko je ponosan na činjenicu da je devojčica. Najbolje je, kada on to radi koristeći svoje ruke: „Deca dodiruju sve delove tela svojih očeva, ponekad ga i uzbuđujući. Očevi bi trebalo da rade isto.”

Brošura takođe obaveštava da majke često detetovom penisu daju ime kućnog ljubimca, dok međutim polni organi devojčice ne dobijaju imena puna ljubavi. Kao rezultat, devojčice počinju da misle da su one gore od dečaka. Eto zašto očevi treba da smisle imena puna ljubavi za kćerkinu vaginu, na primer da je nazovu „kotlić meda”.

Autori pamfleta savetuju roditelje da dozvole „neograničenu masturbaciju” deteta: „Ukoliko devojčica ubacuje predmete u svoju vaginu, roditelji bi trebalo da intervenišu samo ukoliko postoji rizik da se povredi, na primer kada su usne njihovih vagina natečene od trljanja na ručkama stolice. Tada morate reći detetu da se dalje ne povređuje, i u isto vreme objašnjavajući da je stimulisanje polnih organa u redu.”

„Ne” inhibicijama

Masturbacija i dodirivanje polnih organa od strane roditelja pretpostavljeno je da spreči seksualne inhibicije deteta u odraslom dobu: „Deca treba da nauče da ne postoji stvar kao što su sramni delovi tela. Telo je dom, na koji treba da ste ponosni.”

Pesme o vagini

BZgA takođe ima dobar savet za roditelje malo starije dece. Nedavno, kancelarija je objavila priručnik o polnom razvoju dece u obdaništu. U njemu, roditelji mogu da pročitaju da je oponašanje pokreta pri seksualnom činu preporučljivo za razvoj 4-godišnjaka.

Zajedno sa priručnikom, kancelarija je rasturila I knjigu pesama, uključujući „Nos, trbuh i zadnjica”. Jedna od pesama glasi: „Kada dodirnem moje telo, otkrivam šta imam. Ja imam vaginu, jer ja sam devojčica. Vagina nije samo za piškenje. Kada je dodirnem, osećam prijatno podrhtavanje.”

Brošura BZgA se obavezno čita u 9 nemačkih zemalja. Koristi se za obuku negovateljica, vaspitačica i učitelja u osnovnim školama. Preporučena je od mnogih organizacija koje se zvanično bore protiv pedofilije, kao što je German Kunderschutzbund. BZgA, koja je zvanično podređena Ministarstvu za porodične odnose, I rasturaju milione primeraka ove 40-strane brošure svake godine.

Perverzan um

Razna mišljenja mogu da se nađu na nemačkim internet forumima. „Užasno”, „perverzno” i „šokantno” – je kako korisnici interneta reaguju najčešće.

Psiholozi imaju slično mišljenje. – Ovo je bolestan pogled na realnost. Deca ne bi trebalo da budu obrazovana o tome na takav način. Moraš da imaš perverzan um da bi mogao tako nešto da napišeš – izjavila je predavač na kliničkoj psihologiji Katoličkog Univerziteta u Lublinu za „Rzeczpospolita”.

BZgA pobija optužbe. – Deca su polna bića I sve vreme traže ispunjenje svojih potreba – izjavio je zvaničnik BZgA Eckhardt Scheffer za „Rzeczpospolita”. – Nije na roditeljima da dozvole ono šta je loše, već na onima koji su to našli za pogrešno.

ALEKSANDRA RYBIŃSKA

Zelim da se zahvalim grupi studenata medicinskog fakulteta koji su izrazili zelju da mi pomognu u prevodu clanaka. Kao rezultat, vec je nekoliko clanaka prevedeno koje cu danas ili sutra postaviti.


HVALA

"Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm"

(Edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005.
New York: Routledge)

Reviewed by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH

"Psychology, psychiatry, and social work
have been captured by an ultra-liberal agenda"

"Misguided political correctness tethers our intellects"

"If psychology is to soar like an eagle,
it needs both a left wing and a right wing."

The above statements do not emerge from the pen of a radical, right-wing, fanatical conservative. Rather, they are the conclusion of a new book written by two self-identified "lifelong liberal activists" and influential leaders of the American Psychological Association (APA), who vigorously oppose the illiberalism of their fellow psychologists.

Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings have been visible presences in the APA in the following roles:

• Wright is a past president of Division 12, founding president of Division 31, founding president of the Council for the Advancement of the Psychological Professions and Sciences (CAPPS), Fellow of the APA, a Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, the recipient of an honorary doctorate and a distinguished practitioner of the National Academies of Practice.
• Cummings is currently distinguished professor, University of Nevada, president of the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health, chairs the boards of both the Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation and CareIntegra. He is past president of the APA Division 12 and Division 29 as well as the recipient of five honorary doctorates for contributions to psychology, education, and the Greek Classics. He is the recipient of psychology's Gold Medal for lifetime contributions to practice.

Wright and Cummings' new book is supported by an Academy Award roster of endorsers, including APA past-president Robert Perloff, Arnold Lazarus, Martin Kalb, Michael Hoyt, Fred Baughman, APA past-president Jack G. Wiggins, Robyn Dawes and David Stein.

The editors of this volume provide compelling arguments for many destructive trends in the mental health professions - most particularly, psychology, but also psychiatry and social work. They demonstrate from an insider's perspective how activism masquerades as science in the APA, and how "diversity" has been redefined into a kind of narrow politicism, where differing worldviews are not only summarily dismissed, but the holders of such views actually punished.

The authors condemn the APA for providing forums only for their preferred worldviews. They particularly note how psychology is undermined when APA makes resolutions and public policy statements on issues for which there is little or inadequate science. Such prostitution of psychology by activist groups within APA is contributing, they say, to the profession's demise as a scientific organization. "Psychology and mental health," Cummings says, "have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry, as well as from compassionate practice in which the welfare of the patient is paramount" (p. xiii).

Cummings and Wright note that "psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultraliberal agenda" (p. xiii) with which they personally agree regarding quite a few aspects, as private citizens. However, they express alarm at the damage that such an agenda is wreaking on psychology as a science and a practice, and the damage that is being done to the credibility of psychologists as professionals.

They reference a principle enunciated by former APA president Leona Tyler, where the advocacy of APA as an organization should be based upon "scientific data and demonstrable professional experience," (p. xiv) leaving individual psychologists or groups of psychologists to advocate as concerned, private citizens. But they decry the "agenda-driven ideologues" in APA who erode psychology as a science. As they note, "The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society" (p. xiv).

They add that "Within psychology today, there are topics that are deemed politically incorrect, and they are neither published nor funded. Journal editors control what is accepted for publication through those chosen to conduct peer reviews... censorship exists... The Monitor on Psychology detests managed care" but "it loves managed news" (p. xiv).

Wright and Cummings express alarm from the "ever-proliferating therapies that are not only without validation but are irresponsible, and often later shown to be harmful" (p. xv). For example, "society spent a number of years sentencing fathers to prison based on false memories, followed by years of releasing them with the court's apology, as accusers became aware of the implanted memories," (p. xv) with practitioners losing their licenses and plagued with lawsuits.

Cummings notes that though he and his co-editor lived through the "abominable" McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts, still, there was "not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness" (p. xv). "Now misguided political correctness tethers our intellects. Those viewed as conservative are looked down upon as lacking intelligence" (p. xv).

The pervasiveness of this intimidation was not appreciated by the editors until they began to talk with potential contributors to this book - "many of whom declined to be included, fearing loss of tenure or stature, and citing previous ridicule and even vicious attacks..." (p. xv). They conclude that "Political diversity is so absent in mental health circles that most psychologists and social workers live in a bubble. So seldom does anyone express ideological disagreement with colleagues that they believe all intelligent people think as they do. They are aware that conservatives exist, but regard the term 'intelligent conservative' as an oxymoron" (p. xvi).

Cummings notes that the intellectual bubble was "so encapsulating that psychologists were shocked" when the House of Representatives and the Senate censured APA for publishing a "meta-analysis and interview study of college students who had been molested as children" (p. xvii) (Though radio talk-show host Dr. Laura was blamed for the outcry, original responsibility for the publicity should have been given to NARTH, which first surfaced the study and gave it to Dr. Laura). "The condemnation [of APA] was unanimous in both the House and the Senate...even the two psychologist-members of the House abstained rather than vote nay" (p.xvii). Thus, "the humiliation was complete" (p. xvii).

Even more inept was APA's testimony before Congress, where they focused heavily on the "side of academic freedom and uncensored scientific research," rather than focusing on the harm of pedophilia.

Sociopolitical diversity is so badly needed in APA, that "If psychology is to soar like an eagle, it needs both a left wing and a right wing ...We must broaden the debate by reducing the ridicule and intimidation of ideas contrary to the thinking of the establishment in the field of psychology" (p. xiviii).

Once there was a time in the history of psychology, Wright reminds us, where the discipline was enamored with parapsychology and mind-reading, a misadventure to which federal dollars actually flowed. Though that era has faded, two aspects of that era still persist:

1. The federal government and private institutions continue to waste millions of dollars on hobby psychological and politically correct research while neglecting to fund more basic, meaningful research; and
2. society continues to believe that mental health practitioners possess some kind of omniscience when it comes to human affairs" (p. xxiii).

Wright exposes the "proliferation of philosophies, practices and procedures that, at best are self-serving, and, at worst, destructive to the integrity of psychology and contrary to the concept of helping patients become mentally healthy and independent" (p. xxiv). He attributes these changes to the cultural preoccupation with political correctness, sensitivity, and diversity.

Wright notes that the damage done by the obsession with political correctness prevents important research from being conducted, and contributes to personal attacks on the researchers themselves (p. xxvii). Accusations of bias, racism and bigotry have a chilling effect not only upon the research and the researchers, but upon the training of mental-health professionals and the delivery of services (p.xxviii).

Gay Activism in APA

The issue of homosexuality is illustrative of how political correctness and a narrow definition of "diversity" have dominated APA. Wright notes,

In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate 'gayness,' on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree with this premise are termed homophobic.

Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right to choose the therapist and determine the therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so (pp. xxx).

Advocacy Without Evidence of Efficacy

Wright says there are many treatments advocated by psychology with little or no evidence of efficacy - for example, grief and trauma counseling, treatment of repressed memories regarding sexual abuse, as well as the extensive use (or abuse) of medications for questionable diagnoses of depression and ADD/ADHD.

Continuing Education Requirements

He is equally as harsh on Continuing Education (CE) requirements, which he views as the "endless creativity in expanding personal income" and "exploiting state licensing laws mandating continuing education...No matter that CE offerings often tend to be of poor quality, dubious value, poorly taught, frequently misinformative, and contributors to the rising costs of all professional services" (p.xxxii).

Political Correctness, Sensitivity and Diversity

Cummings and O'Donohue conclude that psychology has surrendered its professionalism and its science to political correctness. They offer the following examples: APA's support for absolving responsibility for aberrant behavior when it is "hardwired"; the broadening of the concept of victimology where "everyone is a victim, but no one is crazy"; and the reformulation of psychiatric diagnosis because of pressure from activists (p. 8).

The author's view of the 1973 and 1974 decisions reclassifying homosexuality is worthy of quoting here:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.

Psychiatry's House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence (p. 9).

The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a "proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions." Cummings "watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research" (p. 9).

Unfortunately, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association had established precedents "forever that medical and psychological diagnoses are subject to political fiat" (p. 9). As a result, the authors note, "Diagnosis today in psychology and psychiatry is cluttered with politically correct verbiage, which seemingly has taken precedence over sound professional experience and scientific validation" (p. 9).

The book provides numerous examples where political correctness has influenced the treatment process, sometimes in positive, and other times in negative ways. They describe ways in which crisis counseling can actually impair recovery (p. 14), how psychology has underestimated the human capacity for resilience by messages of victimhood, and how the best practice issues (which emerged from the recovered-memories fiasco) simply do not exist in organized psychology. They note with dismay that political correctness actually interferes with research efforts: "Within the concept of letting a thousand flowers bloom, psychology has rendered itself incapable of addressing the issue of best practices" (p. 16), while sometimes permitting harmful practices such as rebirthing (in which some children have died).

Activists Push to Label Treatment of Unwanted SSA "Unethical"

Though APA is either unwilling or unable to evaluate its treatment practices, the authors note that:

... this did not prevent its Council of Representatives in 2002 from stampeding into a motion to declare the treatment of homosexuality unethical. This was done with the intent of perpetuating homosexuality, even when the homosexual patient willingly and even eagerly seeks treatment. The argument was that because homosexuality is not an illness, its treatment is unnecessary and unethical.

Curiously, and rightly so, there was no counterargument against psychological interventions conducted by gay therapists to help patients be gay,...Vigorously pushed by the gay lobby, it was eventually seen by a sufficient number of Council members as runaway political correctness and was defeated by the narrowest of margins.

In a series of courageous letters to the various components of APA, former president Robert Perloff referred to the willingness of many psychologists to trample patients' rights to treatment in the interest of political correctness. He pointed out that making such treatment unethical would deprive a patient of a treatment choice because the threat of sanctions would eliminate any psychologist who engaged in such treatment. Although the resolution was narrowly defeated, this has not stopped its proponents from deriding colleagues who provide such treatment to patients seeking it (p. 18).

Cummings and O'Donohue enumerate particular problems associated with the practice of political correctness, especially in regards to beliefs and speech. They include the following:

... proscriptions and prescriptions associated with political correctness are generated by fiat rather than reasoned argument...political correctness frequently rests on the notion that a speech or belief is "offensive" to someone...by focusing exclusively on "offensiveness," political correctness misses more overriding considerations such as legal rights to free speech...the remedies and punishments for real or apparent transgressions of the PC rules tend to be overly severe... (p. 19).

Understanding Political Correctness

The authors note that there is no empirical data on political correctness because it is "politically incorrect to question political correctness" (p. 22). They pose two questions regarding political correctness, and offer a number of hypotheses for potential testing. The questions are: "What psychological functions does political correctness fulfill for the individual?" and "What is the attraction of political correctness to certain personalities?" The hypotheses offered to understand these behavioral phenomena include:

• Political Correctness Harbors Hostility
• Political Correctness Reflects Narcissism
• Political Correctness Masks Histrionics
• Political Correctness Functions as Instant Morality
• Political Correctness Wields Power
• Political Correctness Serves as Distraction
• Political Correctness Involves Intimidation
• Political Correctness Lacks Alternatives

The empirical study of the above questions may offer valuable data on the phenomenon of political correctness. Meanwhile, the authors note how this understudied phenomenon is hostile to science by allowing the dismissal of any finding not consistent with a particular ideology or agenda: "Thus, political correctness and the postmodernism that currently pervades academic psychology go hand in hand" (p. 24).

The authors assert that political correctness is hostile to certain research questions that may be unpopular, and can have a chilling effect on science. Further, political correctness can view certain questions as settled moral issues rather than empirical questions requiring scientific investigations. The authors note, for example. "...the status of homosexuality is a settled moral question in the PC movement," citing, for example, that the National Endowment for the Arts would likely view those who object to the painting Piss Christ as infringing on freedom of expression, while finding a similar painting titled Piss Gay as offensive and morally wrong (p. 24).

Finally, they note that the political correctness is so ingrained in many of the institutions of science, academia and government agencies, that priorities and policies are influenced such as those affecting AIDS funding as opposed to funding for breast cancer, or the practice of evaluating grants by federally determined categories of minority inclusion (p. 25).

O'Donohue offers a critical examination of cultural sensitivity, noting that though the need for cultural sensitivity is repeatedly cited in the mainstream literature, the definition of that term remain elusive. He points out the difficulty in defining culture, and how race and ethnicity create problems with group membership, citing the benefits and costs of using ethnic groups as variables. He concludes that:

Given the complications, culture as a global construct may not prove particularly useful to our activities as scientist-practitioners in psychology. It may also be premature to make ethical prescriptions based on this construct, given the state of our knowledge at this time. We counsel a cautious stance. Before we rush to be accepted as culturally sensitive, we need to define the applicability of this concept to psychology and assess its potential contributions to the field. These benefits must be weighed against the real pitfall of allowing cultural considerations to weaken our ability to provide efficient therapy and effective research (pp. 42- 43).

In the book, Ofer Zur provides a politically incorrect treatise of the psychology of victimhood. Zur approaches victimization by moving away from blame, instead examining how culture perpetuates violence systems. Using a systems approach, he avoids blaming and focuses on healing. He concludes that:

Understanding types, origins, and mode of operations of victims will allow therapists and non-therapists alike to recognize, prevent, and intervene in violent systems, enabling all participants to live better lives. For this to occur, victims must be helped to overcome their feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and low self-esteem. They must not focus on blame, and they must avoid self-righteousness. Victims have to believe that they have a say in what happens to them and learn to overcome their victim patterns. The healing process should empower them to become conscious contributors to the unfolding of their lives, which can become dignified and meaningful (p. 62).

The last chapter in this section is titled, "Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional and Value Issues." The authors of this section, O' Donohue and Caselles, note that "homophobia is a potentially important construct, given the significant amount of violence and other violations of rights that homosexuals experience, and the reactions that the relatively recent complexities of AIDS have evoked toward homosexuals and homosexuality" (p. 65).

O'Donohue and Caselles offer a brief history of homosexuality relative to psychiatric nomenclature, highlighting how the issue became politicized and how activism against the backdrop of the social climate of the '60s ushered in a reclassification. Activists selectively used the writings of the renegade psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz, who viewed much of psychiatry as fraudulent and believed that it functioned to oppress and suppress those who held unacceptable ideas. Gay activists translated Szasz's views selectively to support them in their efforts to attack the psychiatric profession for using the language of science to condemn value positions, essentially their valuing of homosexuality. Ironically, Szasz's views of homosexuality were similar to the prevailing views at the time:

Ever since the Freudian revolution, and especially since the Second World War, it has become intellectually fashionable to hold that homosexuality is neither a sin nor a crime, but a disease. This claim means either that homosexuality is a condition somewhat similar to ordinary organic maladies, perhaps caused by some genetic error or endocrine imbalance, or that it is an expression of psychosexual immaturity, probably caused by certain kinds of personal and social circumstances in early life.

I believe it is very likely that homosexuality is, indeed a disease in the second sense and perhaps sometimes even in the stricter sense. Nevertheless, if we believe that, by categorizing homosexuality as a disease, we have succeeded in removing it from the realm of moral judgment, we are in error (p. 67).

Thus a selective use or misinterpretation of Szasz provided the impetus for activists to pursue their agenda. Homosexuality as a Moral Issue

Subsequent to the nosological revision, attention was turned away from the etiology and treatment of homosexuality and to the negative attitude toward homosexuals. Thus the birth of the term "homophobia," coined by Weinberg in 1972, suggesting those who held negative attitudes toward homosexuality should not be considered mentally healthy (p. 68).

Though "research" on homophobia is plentiful in the literature, there are many unanswered questions about the adequacy of the measurements used. The authors conclude that existing psychometric measures of homophobia do not meet the standards of science to any degree that would make them useful (pp. 70-71). They also note that there are value issues inherent in the idea of "homophobia." Ironically, they cite the very points made by Szasz and often embraced by gay activists to consider the moral value of homosexual acts. Specifically, they reference the position that "certain value, moral, aesthetic, and political questions and positions in a free society should not be closed and suppressed by mental-health professionals and behavioral science research. The moral status of homosexuality is one of them" (p. 79).

Noting that there are readily available arguments for the moral impermissibility of homosexual acts, and that they are not obviously unsound, they cite the vast number of religions whose view is based on revelation from God, and invoke the Szaszian point that it is not the purview of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists to judge as abnormal or irrational a belief in God, or specific beliefs regarding what God has revealed. They note that these are "properly open issues that citizens of a free society should debate and decide upon, free of the interference of the mental health profession's attempt to make either ethical position a mental health issue" (p. 79).

In addition, there are secular arguments that make the case for the immorality of homosexuality; for example, Kant thought that homosexual acts violate the categorical imperative:

A second crimen carnis contra naturm (immoral acts against our animal nature) is intercourse between sexus homogenii, in which the object of sexual impulse is a human being but there is homogeneity instead heterogeneity of sex, as when a woman satisfies her desire on a woman, or a man on a man. This practice too is contrary to the ends of humanity; for the end of humanity is respect of sexuality is to preserve the species is without debasing the person; but in this instance the species is not being preserved (as it can be by a crimen carnis secundum naturam), but the person is set aside, the self is degraded below the level of animals, and humanity is dishonored (p. 79).

Similar arguments concerning the immorality of homosexuality, based on the philosophical concept of natural law, are given by Plato and Aquinas and more modern ethicists such as Ruddick (p. 79). There are also more utilitarian arguments. The authors are clear that these arguments have not been "proven true," but rather are open possibilities. They conclude that "ethical arguments exist that take homosexuality to be morally wrong and that they are not obviously unsound" (p. 80). Thus the authors not only open the debate on the legitimacy of "homophobia" as a construct, but also allow for the discussion of the immorality of homosexuality based on natural law.

This latter debate is long overdue, and is rightly not the purview of APA, but rather the purview of the citizens of a free society. Interestingly enough, this view has been articulated by a self-identified lesbian activist, Anne Fausto-Sterling, the developmental biologist from Brown University, who noted that the way we "consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral question" (Dreifus, C. 2001, Exploring What Makes Us Male or Female. New York Times, Science Section, January 2).

Mental Healthcare Economics

The second section of the book focuses on Mental Healthcare Economics with an opening article by Nicholas Cummings entitled, "Expanding A Shrinking Economic Base: The Right Way, The Wrong Way, and the Mental Health Way." Subsequent to providing a brief history of reimbursement for mental health services, Cummings noted how managed care eroded psychology's economic base, causing psychologists to experience a kind of economic illiteracy, not knowing how to create a viable, clinically-driven system. Consequences of this economic illiteracy combined with the industrialization of healthcare ushered in the inventions of syndromes as a way of expanding the economic base, such as the Dissociative Identity Disorder, Reverse Seasonal Affective Disorder, Compassion Fatigue Syndrome, and the Battered Woman Syndrome. Such inventiveness has extended to ADD/ADHD as well as depression in a way that included persons that would not historically have been included.

Cummings notes that psychology seems devoted to the creation of such disorders with no semblance of scientific validation of clinical effectiveness or efficacy, but with the potential for expanding a shrinking economic psychotherapy base. He advises, "Following carefully thought-out economic principles, backed by solid science, not only will increase psychology's patient base but will go a long way toward restoring the field's fading reputation" (p. 109).

William Glasser's chapter on psychiatry is ominous: "Warning: Psychiatry Can Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health." Glasser decries labeling people as mentally ill and accuses psychiatry of maintaining the fiction of mental illness and disregarding mental health. He advocates helping people to help themselves, suggesting that unsatisfying relationships are the main causes of unhappiness. Though the chapter seemed to somewhat out of place, the message seems to be that encouraging individuals to help themselves, perhaps in such groups as AA, would substantially reduce costs associated with improving mental health.

Perhaps the most explosive chapter in this section concerns "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" authored by Rogers H. Wright. Noting that fads will occur in the "diagnosis" and treatment of aberrant behaviors, Wright argues that in the case of deficiencies of attention and hyperactivity that such behavioral aberrancies are frequently indicative of a transitory state within the organism, not of a disorder. He deems that it is a major disservice to elevate symptoms such as anxiety and hyperactivity to the level of a syndrome, diagnosing ADD/ADHD, combining individuals with very different needs and very different problems together.

Wright cites the Cummings and Wiggins (2001) research, which used behavioral interventions as well as firm male therapists and positive role models to treat children who were taking psychotropic medications. "After an average of nearly eleven treatments with the parent and approximately six with the child, the percentage of boys on medication was reduced from sixty-one percent to eleven percent, and the percentage of girls on medication went from twenty-three percent to two percent. These dramatic results occurred despite very strict requirements for discontinuing the medication, which seems to point to an alarming overdiagnosis and overmedication of ADD/ADHD and greater efficacy on behavioral interventions than is generally believed to be the case by the mental health community" (p. 135).

Finally in this section, Wright addresses "The Myth of Continuing Education: A Look at Some Intended and (Maybe) Unintended Consequences." He questions whether CE programs are effective, noting that there has been little attempt in evaluating the content quality. He surmises, "Consequently, and bluntly stated, CE is one hell of a big business with a great many vested interests (state regulatory agencies, national and state professional associations, and continuing education vendors including colleges and universities). These entities rake in really big bucks, adding staggering and incalculable costs to the price of delivered professional services" (p. 147). Wright chronicles the various CE courses, suggesting that this evolving enterprise approximates the "proportions of a scam" (P. 149).

He is particularly critical of plethora of CE courses in human sexuality suggesting "the hidden motive...is to assure that the latest in political correctness has been imparted to the ignorant practitioner" (p. 149). Finally, Wright notes that no amount of "weekend training" can provide competence needed in critical areas. He notes, "In fact, in my experience, all too frequent consequence of CE training is that it encourages the impulsive and headstrong provider to venture into new areas best left to others" (p. 151).

Political Influence on Science and Practice

The final section of the book focuses on the political influence on science and practice. The first chapter in this section focuses on the suppression of unpopular or politically incorrect research. Central to this chapter was ill-treatment of Arthur Jensen (researcher on intelligence) one of the fifty most "eminent psychologists of the twentieth century" (p. 156). The ferocity of the attacks on Jensen were chronicled and attributed to "self-serving censorship" (p. 156) with accusations of Jensen being as "barbaric as Hitler" (p. 161). An ethics investigation proved the charges were spurious, finding no ethical violations with his research.

Yet such mean-spiritedness continues. The potential consequences may be horrific: "In the meantime, inadequate learning and reasoning abilities put many people at risk for taking medications in health-damaging ways, failing to grasp the merits of preventive precautions against chronic disease and accidents, and failing to properly implement potentially more effective but complex new treatment regimens for heart disease, hypertension, and other killers. To intentionally ignore differences in mental competence is unconscionable. It is social science malpractice against the very people whom the 'untruth' is supposedly meant to protect" (p. 182).

Harmful or Untested Treatments

In the chapter on "Pseudoscience, Nonscience, and Nonsense in Clinical Psychology," Lilenfield et al conclude that there is persuasive evidence that some forms of psychotherapy can be harmful" (p. 187). They note the burgeoning industry of pseudoscientific and unscientific psychotherapies (p. 187). They are particularly skeptical of the pervasiveness of postmodernism, noting a lack of outcome studies associated with postmodern therapies (p. 194).

They are equally as critical of self-help books which promise simplistic solutions to complex problems, noting that the overwhelming majority of such efforts have not been subjected to empirical scrutiny (p. 195). The authors cite research that supports potentially harmful effects of a number of therapies including attachment therapies, critical incident debriefing, peer group interventions for conduct problems, scared straight programs for conduct problems, recovered memories interventions, DID-oriented therapy and facilitated communication. In each case, the authors provide compelling evidence for potential harm. (pp. 196 -204).

A chapter devoted to children called "The Diseasing of America's Children" addresses the myth that childhood behavior disorders are caused by genes, noting that there is no good scientific evidence. Rosemond concludes, "The perpetrators of the disease model of behavior disorders engage in disingenuous misleading arguments" (p. 223). He notes that psychologists have confused biological conditions with developmental ones, citing the DSM criteria for a pathological antisocial condition which he says "perfectly describes the terrible twos!" (p. 226).

Subsequent to the exit from the '60's culture, a fully postmodern society emerged and "the rise of clinical psychology coincided with the paradigm shift, and psychologists (and other mental health professionals) did more than any other professional group to demonize the traditional marriage (supposedly bad for women), the traditional family (supposedly inherently pathological, and traditional child rearing (supposedly bad for children)" (p. 226). The negative consequences of postmodernism included the dangerous shift in pediatrics: "...the tendency to isolate a child's behavior from its context and judge the behavior, rather than the parent's management of it, as the problem" (p. 233).

The chapter on "Abortion, Boxing , and Zionism: Politics and the APA" examines the number of resolutions issued by APA usually via its Public Interest Directorate including topics such as limiting the access to abortion, television violence and children, AIDS education, academic freedom and the legality of boxing. They note that such positions are taken with little supporting evidence.

The authors caution that the possibility of harm exists when there is not supporting evidence. For example, in the case of abortion, the author suggests that "Unless the APA has extremely compelling data to show the utter illegitimacy of the anti-abortion stance, it might be prudent not to take a position on this divisive issue, both out of respect for the diversity of opinion surrounding this issue, and to avoid placing member-psychologists in an unnecessarily difficult situation" (pp. 242-243). The authors recommend that the "APA constrain its political activity to issues in which psychologists have legitimate expertise"(p. 250)

In the chapter on "The Dumbing Down of Psychology: Faulty Beliefs About Boundary Crossings and Dual Relationships," Ofer Zur focuses on non-sexual relationships in psychotherapy, suggesting that multiple roles do exist between a therapist and client and noting that such relationships can be normal and healthy. Not advocating a blanket endorsement to dismantling therapeutic boundaries or promoting indiscriminant employment of dual relationships in therapy, Zur emphasizes that the "goal of the therapist should be the client's care, healing, dignity, and well-being rather than the avoidance of risk or blind adherence to a certain treatment dogma" (p. 255).

In the chapter on "Social Justice in Community Psychology," the authors noted that though "social justice plays a critical role in defining community psychology, yet this construct has evaded explication and critical analysis" (p. 283). The authors observe that the mainstream political left has influenced community psychology to the extent of excluding the diversity of opinion and to defining "political conservatism as abnormal" (p. 284).

Finally, Richard E. Redding addresses "Sociopolitical Diversity in Psychology: The Case for Pluralism." The evidence is clear, he says - "most psychologists are politically liberal" and "conservatives are vastly underrepresented in the profession." He says that "there is a struggle about what is sayable within our discipline, and about what need not be said, about what can be assumed and what requires explanation, about what questions can be asked and what constitutes legitimate answers" (p. 303). He concludes:

This lack of political diversity has unintended negative consequences and is detrimental to psychology in ways that conflict with the profession's core values and ethical principles. It biases research on social policy issues, damages psychology's credibility with policy makers and the public, impedes serving conservative clients, results in de facto discrimination against conservative students and scholars, and has a chilling effect on liberal education.

Redding notes the problematic consequences of liberal hegemony, including biases in policy research where "psychologists who research social issues often have values invested in those issues" (p. 306). He noted the conflicting liberal bias in adolescent competence where adolescents should make medical decisions, such as in the case of abortion, but should not be tried and punished as adults because they are immature (p.307).

He cites liberal bias influencing research and interpretation in gay and lesbian parenting:

Much of the extant research that finds no negative effects of gay parenting on children has serious limitations, for example, small sample size, nonrepresentative and self-selected samples, reliance on self-reporting subject to social desirability biases, and lacking longitudinal data. These limitations are often downplayed by advocates, who also frequently fail to consider fully the potential importance of having both male and female nurturance and role models for children (p. 308).

Bias Revealed Against Conservative Graduate School Applicants

Redding references the famous Gartner study, which empirically demonstrated the discrimination against those with conservative views in graduate school admissions. Professors in APA-approved clinical psychology departments were provided with graduate school applications including grade-point-averages, GRE scores and personal statements that differed only in whether the applicant volunteered that he was a conservative Christian. "Professors rated the nonconservative applicants significantly higher in all areas, had fewer doubts about their abilities, felt more positively about their abilities to be good psychologists and rated them more likely to be admitted to their graduate program. The findings suggest an admission bias against religious conservatives, which violates the APA's ethical principles and antidiscrimination laws" (p. 312).

Redding concludes that the lack of political diversity has chilling effect on liberal education and that "We should encourage conservatives to join our ranks and foster a true sociopolitical dialogue in our research, practice, and teaching. It is in our self-interest to do so. Otherwise, we pay a terrible price that is a consequence of partisan narrow-mindedness. Political narrowness and insularity limit and deaden a discipline" (p. 318).

Conclusion

This new book provides a window into the American Psychological Association and into psychology in way hithertofore only suspected. The courage demonstrated by Wright and Cummings is unparalleled. Their professional and scientific accomplishments and their positions of prominence in the American Psychological Association, along with their reasoned, evidence-based arguments, make their work essentially unassailable. Though the authors of the various chapters are critical in their judgments, their judgments are supported by evidence and their informed opinions.

The book offers a clear message to APA: your survival will depend on real diversity - the inclusion of those with different worldviews, on psychology maintaining its integrity as a scientific organization, on research and practice that is devoid of activism and political correctness, and on resolutions grounded in science.

APA would do well to heed the wisdom of its own prominent members who have not only identified the destructive trends in mental health, but offer compelling arguments for re-evaluation of the policies and practices of APA. The book's cover depicts "the image of overgrown ruins" which symbolize "the desolate future of the mental health field if they are left to continue on their current paths to destruction."

Destructive Trends in Mental Health deserves the distinction of being the most important book of the decade, perhaps of the last several decades, in mental health. Its authors have re-instilled faith in psychology--faith that there remain honorable men and women whose passion for the profession will no longer allow them to stay silent in the midst of abuses of power, acts of discrimination and worldview intolerance, and the repeated misrepresentation of activism as science. Perhaps if APA does not begin to regulate itself, the legislatures, the public and the courts will.

Kurir 07.08.2007. strana 2

Patrijarh opet meta na B92

Njegova Svetost Patrijarh Pavle ponovo se našao na meti grupe za gej i lezbejska prava "Kvirija" preko internet sajta www.b92.net! Ovog puta "Kvirija" je na blogu ove medijske kuće najbestidnije ocrnila našeg verskog poglavara jer se svojim autoritetom založio za ukidanje poreza na bebi opremu.
U tekstu naslovljenom "Patrijarh i čipkane gaćice" aktivista gej i lezbo grupacije Boban Stojanović žestoko je ispljuvao poglavara SPC:
- Patrijarha ne zarezujem ni tri posto, ni kao svetost ni kao poglavara koje već crkve, jer sam građanin i ateista i samo me u okviru tih granica patrijarh i zanima. Dakle, zanimame šta to on radi i kako deluje kao Gojrko Stojčević - jednakopravni građanin ove države, kao i većina nas - objasnio je Stojanović.
On u izjavi za Kurir kaže da ga nervira to što je "patrijarh neupitni autoritet i što je njegovu intervenciju država uvažila prilikom ukidanja poreza, a čak 35000 glasova građana nije". Iako priznaje da problem nije u Pavlu, već u vlasti koja ga sluša, Stojanović objašnjava da je u tekstu napravio namernu rokadu, pa je umesto Koštunice napao patrijarha.
Posebnu pažnju nam je privukla i fotomontaža ispod Stojanovićevog bloja koju je postavio izvesni pedjadboj.
Na slici "Ah ti manekeni i poziranje" srpski patrijarh je predstavljen kako visi u paklu dok ga rashladjuje "Eldži"klima uredjaj! Ispod montaže stoji potpis "u paklu je vruće, Eldži uredjaji na svakom mestu u svako vreme". Stojanović kaže da on kao autor bloga odredjuje koji će komentari biti postavljeni, i da u toj montaži nije video ništa sporno!
J. Jovanović

Son Suing Mother and Lesbian Partner for Horrifying Abuse

By Hilary White

AKRON, Ohio, August 2, 2007  -  19 year-old Darrell Shaffer is suing his mother Mary Rowles, her lesbian partner Alice Jenkins, the Summit County Children's Services Board, the agency's former director, and agency social workers for the horrifying abuse and neglect he and his brothers suffered for years.

Jenkins and Rowles pleaded guilty and were convicted in 2003 of 55 counts of abuse and neglect that included savage beatings, starvation, being locked in a closet and forced to eat animal feces. When they were apprehended by police, the boys were found to be severely malnourished; one boy was 8 years old and weighed only 28 pounds.

In January 2004, the women were each sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and are being held at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville. Shaffer is the eldest of five boys who, at the time of the two women's arrest, were aged six, eight, ten, thirteen and fourteen. Their sister, 12 years old at the time, was not harmed, police said.

Shaffer is asking for $25,000 from each of the defendants. The suit says that local child services made at least three visits to the home between July 1998 and April 2003: "During each of these home visits, there was open, obvious and overwhelming evidence of ongoing abuse of, and neglect to [Shaffer] and his siblings. Nonetheless, defendants...took no further action to protect [Shaffer] and his siblings."

Mary Rowles, the children's mother, had been in a lesbian relationship with Alice Jenkins, described as the "man" in the relationship, for seven years at the time of the arrest. The children were told to call Jenkins "dad", and police said that although they were clearly afraid of their mother, they were "terrified" of Jenkins.

Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh said the boys told police that Jenkins beat them with a hammer, kicked one in the groin with steel-toed boots and forced them to eat dog and cat feces as punishment for sneaking out of their urine-soaked closet and stealing food.

Reports say that Rowles had "adversarial" relationships with the true fathers of her children, but at least one of the men applied for custody of two of the children and complained to Children's Services about the abuse. In May 2003 Brady Postlethwaite and his wife said they had repeatedly tried to get help for the children, but said "we were just called liars."

Testimony at a custody hearing in March 2001 revealed that Summit County Children's Services and Akron police were aware of the allegations but did nothing. Postlethwaite said he and his wife "were told if we made any more complaints we'd be arrested."

Before their convictions, Rowles and Jenkins told press they were proud to be gay.

German federal institution advocates incestual pedophilia
translation from Polish "Rzeczpospolita" daily ^ | July 9, 2007 | Aleksandra Rybinska

Posted on 07/29/2007 4:42:30 AM PDT by JoAnka

This is a translation of an article from the Polish "Rzeczpospolita" daily.


Authorities encourage ‘playing doctor’

A [German] federal institution subordinate to the Ministry for Family Affairs has published a pamphlet urging fathers to engage in “massaging sexual organs” of their daughters

„Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughter. Their caress too seldom pertains to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride from their sex” – this is a quotation from „Love, body and playing doctor” - a brochure published by the [German] Federal Health Education Center (BZgA). The publication is addressed to parents of children aged 1-3 years old.

According to the pamphlet authors, it is important for a healthy development of the child that her father shows how proud he is of the fact that she is a girl. It is best, when he does that using his hands: „The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same.”

The brochure also informs that mothers often give their child’s penis a pet name, whereas a girl’s sexual organs don’t get affectionate names. As a result, girls starts to think they are worse than boys. That is why fathers should think of affectionate names for their daugther’s vagina, for example calling it „a pot of honey”.

The pamhplet authors advice parents to allow „unlimimted masturbation” of the child: „If a girl inserts objects to her vagina, the parent should intervene only if there is a risk that she hurts herself, for example when the lips of her vagina are swollen from rubbing against an armchair. Then you have to tell the child not to hurt herself further, at the same time explaining that stimulating the genital organs is all right.”

„No” to inhibitions

Masturbation and touching genital organs by the parents is supposed to prevent sexual inhbitions of the child in their adulthood: „Children should learn that there is no such thing as shameful parts of the body. The body is a home, which you should be proud of.”

Songs about vagina

BZgA also has good advice for parents of slightly older kids. Recently, the office published a manual about the sexual development of kindergarten kids. In it, parents can read that imitating copulation moves is recommended for a 4-year-old’s development.

Together with the manual, the office sends out a book of songs, including „Nose, belly and bottom”. One of the songs reads: „When I touch my body, I discover what I have. I have a vagina, because I am a girl. Vagina is not only for peeing. When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle.”

The BZgA bruchure is an obligatory read in nine German lands. It is used for training nursery, kindergarten and elementary school teachers. It is recommended by many organizations oficially fighting pedophilia, such as the German Kunderschutzbund. BZgA, which is a formal subordinate of the Ministry for Family Affairs, sends out millions of copies of the 40-pages brochure every year.

Perverted mind

Different opinions can be found on various German internet fora. „Appaling”, „perverted” and „shocking” – is how internet users react most often.

Pshychologists have similar opinions. – This is a pathological view on reality. Children should not be educated about it in such a way. You have to have a perverted mind to write something like that – one clinical psychology lecturer of the Catholic University of Lublin told „Rzeczpospolita”.

BZgA refutes the accusations. – Children are sexual beings and all the time they seek to fulfill their needs – BZgA official Eckhardt Scheffer told „Rzeczpospolita”. – It is not the parents that allow it who are bad, but those who find it wrong

ALEKSANDRA RYBIŃSKA

By John-Henry Westen

JOHANNESBURG, March 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Writing in the South African paper, The Star, journalist Baldwin Ndaba reports on the outcome of a court case concerning the death of four year old Jandre Botha, a young boy who according to evidence given in court was beaten to death after refusing to call his mother's lesbian love "Daddy". 

On Wednesday, Vereeniging Regional Court magistrate Rita Willemse found Engeline de Nysschen (33), and the child's mother Hanelie Botha (31) guilty of murder in the death of the child.  While de Nysschen was found to have inflicted the violence, the judge ruled against Botha for failing to act in the face of repeated physical abuse of her child by de Nysschen, and lying in order to protect her.

Court testimony from employees of the lesbian couple indicated that a major assault on the boy occurred as he refused repeated requests to call de Nysschen "Daddy".

Botha claimed that her child had died after slipping in the bath, but medical experts dismissed the claim noting injuries, including a fractured skull and brain damage, as well as broken legs, collarbone, hands and pelvis which were sustained over time.

A pre-sentencing report is expected June 26.

See the account in The Star here:
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.***?fSectionId=128&fArtic...

Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls, Some Attacked in School Washrooms

By John-Henry Westen

MEMPHIS, July 3, 2007 - Last week, the Fox News' O'Reilly Factor exposed the increasing trend of lesbian gang violence terrorizing neighbourhoods and schools, especially in large cities across the United States. According to FOX News crime analyst Rod Wheeler there are some 150 such gangs in the DC area alone, including Washington, Maryland, and Virginia.

The gangs, known as Dykes Taking Over (DTO) or Gays Taking Over, are forcing children into homosexuality. Wheeler told host Bill O'Reilly: "there is this national underground network, if you will, Bill, of women that's lesbians and also some men groups that's actually recruiting kids as young as 10 years old in a lot of the schools in the communities all across the country."

In addition to carrying weapons and violently attacking people the lesbian gangs rape girl victims they recruit. "As a matter of fact," said Wheeler, "some of the kids have actually reported that they were actually forced into, you know, performing sex acts and doing sex acts with some of these people." (see the O'Reilly Factor segment: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CFgXVyeGh2A )

An Eyewitness News Everywhere report from earlier this year brought in a police officer from the Memphis police department to discuss the growing problem of GTO gang violence in schools. Deputy Beverly Cobb from the Shelby County (Memphis) Gang Unit told Eyewitness News that GTO gang members "will sodomize [with sex toys] and will force (victims) to do all sexual acts, they are forcing themselves on our young girls in all our schools."

Deputy Cobb noted that the assaults are becoming more frequent and more violent. The GTO's she says, "carry weapons . . . they will use them quicker than any male that I've ever come upon . . . to try and fight them you'll get hurt."

Two jailed GTO members who were imprisoned for robbery claim that the group which formed over a decade ago was originally set up as a support group for lesbians. They admit however that the current generation of GTO members are raping girls and the Eyewitness News report notes that some GTO members are attacking other inmates in prison. (See the Eyewitness News report here: http://blip.tv/file/165392/ )

Homosexual activist bloggers are denouncing the O'Reilly Factor expose as falsehood. The Eyewitness News report, however, also noted that homosexual activists had complained of the news special report. It was presented, said the news station, out of concern for children and parents. GTO incidents were reported in at least ten high schools in the Memphis area.

The story on the GTO gangs is an old one but the story has not received wide media coverage.

An NBC10 report from Philadelphia in 2004 titled "Students fear 'lesbian gang' at school" noted DTO members were harassing other students. Young female students were interviewed for the report and told of being bullied to becoming lesbians, of being groped and harassed in gym and girls bathrooms. (see the NBC10 report: http://www.nbc10.com/news/2857417/detail.html )

Violence by gays and lesbians is largely underreported in the mainstream media. In 2004, a report by REAL Women Canada pointed out that homosexual parenting would be harmful to children. One of the points made in the report speaks of "a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships."

"A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships," says the report. "The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse." The findings, says REAL Women are verified by other studies.

Napomena:

Linkove morate da kopirate u browser da bi dosli do sajtova.

Madrid, Jun. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A Spanish homosexual activist and Socialist parliamentarian, Pedro Zerolo, is demanding that Poland be expelled from the European Union if the nation passes legislation banning homosexual propaganda in public schools.

Arguing that every European Union should afford equal rights to homosexuals, Zerolo said that policy under discussion for Polish schools violates that principle. He concluded his statement by inviting Poland to leave the Union, saying, “There are the doors!”