Judith Reisman

[[File:Judith Reisman.webp|165px|thumb|right|Judith Reisman]]
{{pundits}}'''Judith Ann Reisman''' {{lived|April 11, 1935|April 9, 2021}} was a wingnut [[social conservative]] activist notable for her crusade against sexologist [[Alfred Kinsey]]. She believed [[homosexuality]] is the cause for the rise of [[Nazism]], that [[pornography]] is pretty much the source of all [[evil]], and that Kinsey was a fraud.<ref>Daniel Radosh.  "[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/12/06/041206ta_talk_radosh Why Know?]" ''The New Yorker''. 2004 December 6.</ref><ref>Judith Reisman, ''[http://www.amazon.com/Kinsey-Sex-Fraud-Indoctrination-People/dp/091031120X Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People]''.  1990.</ref> She wrote for the ''[[WorldNetDaily]]''.<ref>See Reisman's columns at WorldNetDaily [http://www.wnd.com/author/jreisman/ here].</ref>

Reisman was also a visiting professor of law at [[Liberty University]], despite the fact that she received her Ph.D. in communications. She was also Liberty Counsel's favored expert on issues pertaining to [[sexuality]], and her advice was endorsed by [[Rick Santorum]], who also supported a ban on pornography.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120406024842/http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/04/santorums-porn-nonsense/ Santorum’s Porn Nonsense] by Ed Brayton (April 4, 2012) ''Patheos''.</ref>

==Allegations against Kinsey==
Critics have alleged Reisman's preoccupation with Alfred Kinsey is related to the molestation of her daughter, who later died from a [[brain]] aneurysm.<ref name=obsession>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100325101557/http://www.alternet.org/election04/20744/?page=entire Her Kinsey Obsession: Judith Reisman believes sex researcher Alfred Kinsey is responsible for all the cultural decay and sexual permissiveness that she sees. And she's got the ear of the Christian right and the White House] by Max Blumenthal (December 14, 2004, 11:00 PM GMT) ''Alternet''.</ref> Reisman has, for instance, accused Kinsey of being a fraud who employed and relied on [[Pedophilia|pedophiles]] for his research, and even that he himself sexually abused children.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021220/http://www.alternet.org/movies/20692/?page=entire The Joy of Sexology: Does it matter that Alfred Kinsey enjoyed his work more than he let on?] by Christina Larson (December 7, 2004, 11:00 PM GMT) ''Alternet''.</ref> Kinsey biographer James H. Jones has dismissed allegations against Kinsey himself as "groundless".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110410102632/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kinsey/sfeature/sf_forum_0215.html  ''Kinsey''. Online Forum: I have heard that one part of Kinsey's dark side was that he became a pedophile. Do you have any info about this?] Answered by James H. Jones (February 15, 2005) ''PBS'' (archived from March 7 2005).</ref> 

However, Jones agrees in his Pulitzer Prize-nominated biography of Kinsey<ref name=jones>James H. Jones, ''Alfred C. Kinsey: A Life''. New York, WW Norton & Company, 2004, {{isbn|0393327248}}.</ref> that some of the data in Kinsey's research came from “a predatory pedophile. Over the course of his long career as a child molester [a man known as Mr. X] masturbated infants, penetrated children, and performed a variety of other sexual acts on preadolescent boys and girls alike. Betraying a huge [[moral]] blind spot, Kinsey took the records of Mr. X’s criminal acts and transformed them into scientific data."<ref name=jones />{{rp|1253}} Data on child molestation was in fact included in the Kinsey report on men. Furthermore, Jones also reports that towards the end of his life, Kinsey had a "benign view" of pedophilia, with a colleague reporting "[Kinsey] would always tell us … that pedophilia wasn’t as black as it was painted, that it could be, under proper circumstances, beneficial or something like that”.<ref name=jones />{{rp|1257-1258}}

Jones also reports that Kinsey was in fact a deeply disturbed individual who engaged in extreme [[Masochism|masochistic]] acts for sexual pleasure. In 1954 after his funding from the Rockefeller Foundation was cut off, Kinsey went to the basement of his office, “tied a strong, tight knot around his scrotum with one end of the rope dangling from the pipe overhead. The other end he wrapped around his hand. Then, he climbed up on a chair and jumped off, suspending himself in midair”<ref name=jones />{{rp|1824}} while dangling from the rope pulled tight around his gonads. This habit led to a painful and serious pelvic infection. Author Richard Rhodes argues Kinsey got into these habits during his youth as a means of self punishment for his homosexual desires and masturbation habit during his youth.<ref>[https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/02/reviews/971102.02rhodest.html Father of the Sexual Revolution]</ref>  However, recall that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, and Rhodes does not cite any data showing homosexuals of Kinsey's time engaged in similar masochism in statistically significant rates higher than the general population. 

So like it or not, Reisman kind of had a point about Kinsey even if she was wrong on other details. However, one moronic objection is that even if Kinsey was a massive sexual deviant, that would not necessarily make anything he wrote wrong on a factual level. According to a article on a comedy website, which somehow is an authoritative source, Albert Einstein was a famous womanizer who cheated on both of his wives--one of whom was his cousin--with ten different women.<ref>[https://www.cracked.com/article_18559_6-famous-geniuses-you-didnt-know-were-perverts.html 6 Famous Geniuses You Didn't Know Were Perverts]</ref> However, this infidelity would not make a single aspect of his work on physics incorrect. But the counterpoint to this foolish argument is that Einsten's reputation was based on physics, not as a marriage therapist or ethics expert. Kinsey's personal sexual views and habits cannot be so easily dismissed, given his career in sex research. For example, research from scholarly sources -- not comedy websites -- has established beyond dispute that children who are sexually abused by adults suffer serious long-term consequences.<ref>Nash, Michael R. et al. “Long-term sequelae of childhood sexual abuse: perceived family environment, psychopathology, and dissociation.” Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 61 2 (1993): 276-83</ref><ref>da Silva, Thiago Dornela Apolinário et al. “Assessment of Child Sexual Abuse in Victimized Women.” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 49 (2023): 1029 - 1042.</ref><ref>Barrera, M.d.G. Domínguez et al. “The Cognitive Impact of Sexual Abuse and PTSD in Children: A Neuropsychological Study.” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 22 (2013): 625 - 638.</ref> Thus, Kinsey's perception that pedophilia was harmless or beneficial is in fact relevant to his larger body of research, as his personal biases are contrary to objective facts on the subject and furthermore his biases may have prevented him from objective analysis of data collected by him and his team. 

In 1991 Reisman sued the Kinsey Institute, its then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University for defamation as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress regarding alleged attempts to [[censor]] her book ''Kinsey, Sex and Fraud''.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=HQIrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=joYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2859%2C564743 Kinsey institute sued by thwarted clinic] (May 9, 1991) ''The Bulletin'' (AP).</ref> The case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice in 1994.<ref>[https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/05/13/anti-lgbt-conspiracy-theorist-judith-reisman-tapped-expert-witness-jamaica ANTI-LGBT CONSPIRACY THEORIST JUDITH REISMAN TAPPED AS EXPERT WITNESS IN JAMAICA]</ref>

==Erototoxins==
{{cquote|The only problem with Dr. Riesman’s elegant “erototoxins” theory was that facts stood in the way of her opinion and testimony.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120913054714/http://biomedicalforensics.com/AAFS/Psychiatry_and_Behavioral_Sciences_EBook.pdf ''FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE Proceedings 2002-2011'']</ref>}}
Reisman declared that there is a physiological mechanism that accounts for the dangers she ascribes to pornography:<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080706203711/http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65772 Internet Porn: Worse Than Crack?] (11.19.04 11:00 am) ''Wired''.</ref> when pornography is viewed, an addictive mixture of chemicals she dubbed "erototoxins" floods the brain, causing harm. She did not really manage to come up with a plausible mechanism or any evidence for the [[hypothesis]], or for that matter any acceptable definition of "harm", but she did [[wishful thinking|express hope]] that [[MRI]] studies will be able to prove the existence of porn-induced physical brain damage. If such damage could be proven (and Reisman was confident that it could), she predicted that there would be a slew of lawsuits against distributors of pornography along the lines of the lawsuits against [[Big Tobacco]]. 

In addition, she claimed, if pornography can "subvert cognition," then "these toxic media should be legally outlawed, as is all other toxic waste, and eliminated from our societal structure." Most importantly, individuals who have suffered brain damage from "pornography are no longer expressing "[[free speech]]" and, for their own good, shouldn't be protected under the [[First Amendment]]."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/14/farout Sex on the brain] by Mark Pilkington (13 July 2005 19.02 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref> One sometimes gets the feeling that her primary concern with regard to these matters was not the well-being of patients.

When Rick Santorum claimed that "a wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences," the "research" he referred to was largely the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] rants of Judith Reisman.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120322145928/http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/santorums_bad_porn_science/singleton/ Santorum's bad porn science: The candidate claims that "a wealth of research" shows porn "causes profound brain changes." Experts say he's wrong] by Tracy Clark-Flory (Mar 20, 2012 1:20 PM PDT) ''Salon''.</ref>

==Campaign against pornography==
In 1983 Reisman gave a talk on [[CNN]]’s Crossfire about "connections between [[sex education]], sex educators, and the pornography industry". Despite the lack of evidence for her already highly dubious claims and reliance on [[pseudoscience]], she was subsequently invited by the United States Department of Justice (when [[Reagan]] was president) to apply for a grant to conduct a "study at American University to determine whether Playboy, Hustler, and other more explicit materials are linked to violence by juveniles." The grant, for the amount of $734,371, was approved without competition. In short, the Department of Justice gave Reisman $734,371 to spend three years reading porn. The project was rather predictably criticized for its costs, with Pamela Swain, director of research, evaluation and program claiming that the study could be accomplished for $60,000.<ref>[http://archive.ph/1xibm Memo: $798,000 Porn Study Could be Made for $60,000] (Mar 5, 1984) ''The Palm Beach Post'' (AP) (archived from 24 Jan 2013 15:40:10 UTC).</ref> 

The resulting report "Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler",<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160608035606/http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/CCV-Full-Report.pdf Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler] by Judith A. Reisman (1990) Huntington House.</ref> was also rather predictably criticized for its lack of quality. In the report Reisman claimed that among "372 issues of Playboy, 184 issues of Penthouse and 125 issues of Hustler" she had found "2,016 cartoons that included children apparently under the age of 17 and 3,988 other pictures, photographs, and drawings that depict infants or youths." Sex crime researcher Avedon Carol commented that the report was a "scientific disaster, riddled with researcher [[bias]] and baseless assumptions", and criminologist Robert Figlio pointed out that "The term ‘child’ used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless." American University refused to publish the completed work.

Despite its lack of methodological credibility the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography concurred with the report, with the result that several stores stopped selling Playboy and Penthouse.

==Homophobia==
{{main|Homophobia}}
Reisman was a supporter of [[Scott Lively]] and his completely insane screed, ''The Pink Swastika''. She [[Nazi analogies|claimed]] that she believed that a [[homosexual]] movement in Germany gave rise to the Nazi Party and the [[Holocaust]].<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/12/06/041206ta_talk_radosh Why Know?] by Daniel Radosh (December 6, 2004) ''The New Yorker''.</ref> She enthusiastically and unconditionally endorsed criminalization of homosexuality,<ref>[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/judith-reisman Judith Reisman: All Posts About Judith Reisman] ''Right Wing Watch''.</ref> despite the fact that homosexuals were actually one of the Nazis' target groups for annihilation.

Reisman claimed that the homosexuals employ [[Homosexual recruitment|recruitment techniques]] that rival those of the United States Marine Corps<ref name=obsession/> to transform innocent children into raving homosexuals. According to Reisman homosexual "[[Don't ask, don't tell|recruitment is loud]]; [[Closet|it is clear]]; [[Paranoia|it is everywhere]]."

===Gay people are the fault of Kinsey===
When the Supreme Court declared laws against sodomy unconstitutional in ''Lawrence v. Texas'', Reisman said that "tracing [Justice Anthony] Kennedy's opinion back to its origin reveals that the majority relied on only one sex "science" resource as the Court's primary authority on sex and sodomy—namely, the bi/homosexual, sadomasochistic, proven fraud, Prof. Alfred C. Kinsey."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20030831022247/https://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=1565 Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent 'Science']</ref> Of course, given the Supreme Court is a legal institution which decided this case on the basis of if the Constitution provided citizens the right to privacy, Kinsey's research could have been wrong on every account and it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. 

She said the same thing in regards to same-sex marriage, telling the Supreme Court in 2015 that it shouldn't "permit the institution of marriage to become the latest victim of the Kinseyan model of American society.”<ref>[https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-wildest-arguments-against-marriage-equality-msna580466 Here are the wildest arguments against marriage equality]</ref>

==Satanic Panic==
{{main|Satanic Panic}}
Reisman was one of those who endorsed [[Lauren Stratford]]'s book ''Satan's Underground'', calling Stratford's testimony "only too credible."

Turns out it wasn't.

==See also==
*[[Alfred Kinsey]]
*[[Rick Santorum]]
*[[Scott Lively]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Magnus Hirschfeld}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Reisman, Judith}}
[[Category:Homophobes]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:Purity culture]]
[[Category:Right-wing activists]]

Categories: Homophobes, Pseudoscience promoters, Purity culture, Right-wing activists