‘Homosexists’: Fanatical Misogynists

Irecently used the terms “homosexist” and “homosexism” to describe “Spirit Day,” Oct. 22, 2010 when President Barack H. Obama challenged American youth to view homosexuality as “a source of pride and a source of strength.”

As Socrates says, thinking I coined a new term, I defined the word “homosexist” only to find it listed already in 2008 on “Queers United” as “Word of the Gay:  Homosexism.” “Homosexism” is the belief that gay or lesbian identities are superior to bisexual and/or straight orientations. The “homosexist” viewpoint sometimes leads to discrimination against those who are not homosexual.  Labels: breeder, discrimination, gay power, homosexism, homosexist, superior gay, word of the gay.”

The term, now approved by the indigenous population, also appears on a few other handily cryptic websites, www.marriagereality.org.

Webster defines “homosexual” as “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.” Many homosexuals, aware of their early physical and/or emotional wounding, are now “ex-gays,” while others quietly endure.

However, the suffixes -ist, -ism, -ize connote someone who holds certain principles, doctrines, schools of thought, as in “sexist” or “racist.” Synonyms include “chauvinist, doctrinaire, dogmatist, fanatic, fiend, maniac, monomaniac, opinionated, partisan, persecutor, zealot” – as opposed to “humanitarian, liberal, tolerator.”

“Homosexualists” are zealots, partisans, chauvinists and persecutors, dogmatists in their fanaticism (see “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation”).

Even the left-leaning Wikipedia admits “homosexists” label normal married couples “breeders,” “a term of disparagement used primarily by homosexuals to describe heterosexuals who have produced or will produce offspring.”

The Urban Dictionary explains the slur “breeder” – “A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder a duh. 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples,” offering as a typical usage:

Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? Their … children make a huge mess and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting …

In our study, “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation” (1995), Dr. Charles Johnson and I analyzed the premier “gay” magazine, The Advocate.

Was The Advocate humanitarian, or homosexist? To answer that question, our research rank-ordered the numbers of most-to-least “In Search of” advertisements. The Advocate published ads and essays on sex with boys and on how to seduce “straight” men and boys. I have sanitized the language for this column.

As of this writing, online books and video guides on “seducing straight men” are being sold, including such copy as:

gayforstraight“GAY SEDUCTION”


“How To Seduce Straight Guys: After Reading this Guide, YOU will have the confidence to SEDUCE ANY Straight Guy.”

Our research included an analysis of Bruce Rodgers’ renowned “Queens’ Vernacular: a Gay Lexicon” (1972).

“Encyclopedia of Homosexuality,” editor Wayne Dynes, says “QV” is the foremost gay lexicon, “reissued without change as ‘Gay Talk.'” “The Joys of Gay Sex” authors Silverstein and White agree, as does homosexualist icon Dennis Altman.

However, two brave lesbians protested that the book recollects “misogynistic … concepts and values.” (www.sex-lexis.com)

Misogynistic homosexists?

Since objective researchers rarely study the homosexist press, few would consider “gay” zealots to be sexist misogynists. However, the “Queens’ Vernacular” and “Gay Talk” include only hostile, bigoted, fanatic, maniac, partisan, obscene words to define normal love, marriage, women, men, military men, childbirth, and children.

In 1828, Noah Webster’s “An American Dictionary of the English Language” included 12,000 new words distinguishing Americans from Britons. Webster said, “A national language is a band of national union”; its words shape national thoughts and actions.

Like Webster, homosexualist lexicographer Bruce Rodgers published “A Gay Lexicon” of 12,000 unique words to identify “gay” thoughts and actions. Rodgers’ dictionary offers a “religious” worldview, a “gay” national language for a “gay” nation completely unlike the heterosexual, straight nation. Our research question was: What is the “national language” of the 12,000 words of “A Gay Lexicon”?

Ranked by “QV” words, homosexist life most focused on: 1) sex with boys, 2) prostitution, 3) no time, anonymous sodomy, 3) phallic size, and 5) sadism. Marriage as fidelity or permanence was statistically non-existent.

Webster has one phrase and six words to define boy: “Young unmarried man, fellow, guy, lad, stripling, youth, youngster.” The “QV” has 254 words for “boy,” largely predatory, typical of a doctrinaire homosexism. For example:

Chicken, a young recruit; any boy under the age of consent, heterosexual, fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality; Pluck some feathers: rip off a drumstick; skin some chicken. babette; baby; baby buggy; baby butch; baggage-boy; bait; bait the hook, etc.

Prison had 223 words, 182 words described men as girls, masturbation 147, women 134, military sex 82, and straights 63. Words for women were bigoted and mean, including 67 words for “whore” and 26 for “b—h.” Even sex with military men includes “seacow” as a girl with a sailor boyfriend. As to “straights,” a man who loves a woman is “pig suck.” A “pimp” is “a heterosexual woman’s legally married spouse … what gay men really desire is not another gay man, it’s a straight man.”

If a “homosexual man who has turned to women” is “pig suck,” if boys are “chickens” to be “barbecued,” and if “mother” is one who “introduced another to homosexual activity,” then it is fair to say that a tyrannical, doctrinaire zealotry lurks within “Spirit Day,” a hostile spirit of “homosexism.”

The 12,000 words in the “QV” and “Gay Talk” objectively identify “gay” activists as homosexists, as intolerant aggressors against women and normal sexuality. As “Queers United” says, “Homosexism” is the belief that gay or lesbian identities are superior to bisexual and/or straight orientations.”

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

‘How Evil Works’ Reveals America’s ‘Blind Spot’

Someday I do hope to meet David Kupelian in person.

I want to thank him.

I’ve eagerly read his blowout WND articles, and of course following “The Marketing of Evil,” I knew I liked and trusted him. In “How Evil Works,” in the lofty tradition of the veteran reporter, Kupelian connects the dots, compassionately and firmly taking us down the fast lane on a journey of inquiry through some very tough territory.

We privileged Americans have developed what Kupelian calls a “blind spot. … We don’t understand evil.” This means we cannot recognize its machinery despite the way judicial and political tyranny, sexual mayhem, political terrorism, and licit and illicit drug use victimize and ruin the lives of millions.

That is a serious “blind spot.”

I’m one of those people who cannot read a book without highlighting ideas and quotes I find important. My copy of Kupelian’s “Evil” is crammed with underlined passages, while I have disfigured his margins by scribbled stars, exclamation points and the words “good” and “great.”

Let me mention a few such “starred” items here.

Aristotle warned that big lies are more believable than little ones, since we ourselves might tell the little ones, but we cannot imagine telling whoppers. Kupelian reawakens us to the BIG liars in our midst, the liars who cause mass trauma.

Noting most governments, historically and cross culturally, “tend toward being tyrannical and predatory,” Kupelian provides a “whirlwind tour of the world’s governments” with solid statistics for his charge.

In North Korea, one man gets “torture and life in prison for possessing a radio.” In China, another communist “worker’s paradise,” bureaucrats enforce sterilization, abortion and infanticide, jailing roughly “500,000 people” without charge or trial and so on. Most governments, Kupelian notes, from the “Far East to Africa to South America are corrupt, predatory and power hungry.”

Here in the USA, government abuse grows daily. That is to be expected, says Kupelian. The closer we get to a vision of man without God, the closer we find ourselves without “strong moral principles.” Under those circumstances, humans are “free to lie, manipulate and steal in a multitude of obvious and subtle ways.”

I gave a large star to his William Penn quote: “If man is not governed by God, he will be ruled by tyrants.” After years of study, I know this to be well said and true.

It’s a roller-coaster ride in “Sexual Anarchy,” through teen “sexting” and middle-school hookups,” to the “ever increasing tolerance of adult-child sex.” I underlined the entire section documenting judicial insanity working its way into our courtrooms.

There are judges who express their personal delight with female teachers who sexually molest boys. Kupelian documents the reprehensible media glamorization of Mary Kay Letourneau who received glowing publicity and money after being impregnated by a boy student she later married.

One New Jersey judge ruled that a 43-year-old teacher who sexually violated a seventh-grade boy was guiltless because there was (illegal) “consent.” Another Kansas judge just wasn’t sure “sex with kids was really bad.” More and more of these kinds of “judges” are being trained by and funneled out of our law schools.

Such law-school graduates imply “evil” judicial decisions in our children’s future, indeed.

Kupelian rightly evaluates the “sexual misconduct in schools with the Catholic Church scandal.”


It turns out that the “physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more that 100 times the abuse by priests.” When it’s a female molester, too often the view is that the boy got lucky. One heartbreaking, stirring quote by Kupelian helps to clarify the subtle price paid by victims of a “sexy” teacher. The father of a boy molested by one such lawless woman reflected sorrowfully, she “took away my best friend, my hunting buddy. I can’t have him back now. He is gone.”

This father’s articulated grief is important for all of us to read, to know, to remember. For the potent emotions ensuing from such a crime usually go unspoken.

Tying up his argument for common sense and moral awareness, Kupelian quotes NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies founder Robert Jastrow, who summarized the nightmare for scientists with “faith in the power of reason.”

After having “scaled the mountain of ignorance,” says Jastrow, the scientist “pulls himself over the final rock” only to find “a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Score 10 for that nightmare!

For centuries, theologians and commoners have largely understood the verity of evil and have struggled to circumvent its noxious consequences.

Kupelian offers hope, encouragement and practical advice. He tells of a Cherokee chief telling his grandson about a fight between two wolves. One wolf represents “fear, anger, pride, envy, lust, greed, arrogance, self pity, resentment, lies and cruelty.”

The other wolf “stands for honesty, kindness, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, friendship, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

This fight goes on inside everyone, including “you” he said.

The grandson pondered and then asked, “Which wolf will win?”

The old chief just answered, “The one you feed.”

Alongside that last line I wrote “Wonderful,” as is “How Evil Works.”

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

U.N. Legalizes Child Porn, Prostitution

Consider the recent WND report on Scotland’s opening up internet pornography to school children at lunch break thanks to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, currently un-ratified by the repressed USA.

The U.N. “child rights” includes conditioning children to “consensual” prostitution and pornography, and the “right” to be used by any scoundrel they “chose.” Protesting parents risk jail or the loony bin.

Although the 2010 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child language avoids the incendiary language of past years, the same child sex sale apparatus applies.

“Article 1 (Definition of the child): The Convention defines a ‘child’ as a person below the age of 18, unless the laws of a particular country set the legal age for adulthood younger …” This deliberately allows any age child to be redefined as adult.

Translation: Countries with legal prostitution or pornography and younger “age of adulthood,” can sell legal child prostitution/pornography. “Rights” authors know adulthood may become any age, depending on the age of the partner(s). Spain’s age of consent is now 13, pornography legal and prostitution effectively legal.

Article 17 says: “(Access to information; mass media): Children have the right to get information that is important to their health and well-being …”

Much international pornographic and fraudulent Planned Parenthood material masqueraded as sex education and AIDS prevention are said to be good for children’s “health and well being.” Similarly, “children’s books” lie and sexually violate the child reader.

Article 13 is the pornography access act: “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression … [to] receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.”

So a Scottish pedophile educator organizes access to “all” media for any age, one to 18. Free “expression … regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media,” it’s a child’s choice.

Article 15 gives children of any age “freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights” if they are legal and don’t violate public safety, etc. It is illegal for parents to stop children from bad actions, etc. Billions can be made via these child “protective” articles.

Article 16: allows the lockup for parents who interfere with a pimp for children are protected against “arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy … honour and reputation.”

Article 24 provides “health care” family planning education and services, “abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.”

Translation: child contraception, venereal vaccination and abortion as child “protections” in international care documents

No “rights” identify sexually graphic images as “materials that could harm children.”

UNICEF folks as all good guys? In the Spring 1991 issue of the Journal of Pedophilia, the author laments the conviction of UNICEF’s Belgian director for the child rape, torture, prostitution and pornography in the U.N. cellar lab. Pedophiles protested that, “Since the Dutroux [UNICEF] affaire in Belgium, television and the newspapers are full with news about pedophilia in a pejorative and negative way.”

Gosh, no American newspapers. Although the conviction of a notorious pedophile ring that regularly assaulted children in the official UNICEF basement could be of significant interest to Americans, neither UNICEF nor the U.S. press found this “news fit to print,” protecting UNICEF’s image and income.

UNICEF has provided basic nutrition, water safety, sanitation, emergency services and the three Rs. However, UNICEF’s “children’s sexual rights” means the fox is guarding the chicken coop and eating well.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on September 4, 2010. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Kinsey Consequences: It’s Rotten Research-ers. Part 4.

Table 1 at left says that 49% of all recent cyberporn abusers were “parents” of the child. Certainly pornography in the home means that those adults in the home have a higher probability of sexual assault of children under their care.

Therefore this 2004, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children chart pointing.

However, when looking at “rotten research” we need to always ask if an ideological vision is slanting what the researchers say. So, what is a “parent” in our justice department statistics? Knowing full well the bias against biological parents as caretakers of their children, I queried John Rabun, NCMEC COO to find out if that bias held in the “parental” abusers cited above. I am reprinting Mr. Rabun’s December 18, 2004 email to me:


Parent is a term of law that has to do with who has legal rights and responsibilities to/for a minor. Most times that is the biological parent but more and more it’s the person who has been awarded care of the minor by a Family/Juvenile Court. The other legal term for this person is “legal guardian” which is not necessarily the step-father/mother as that person may be more simply living with their mate and may have NO rights/obligations to the minor in that home per se.

If by living arrangement or “common law,” the step-parent is fulfilling the parent role, then he/she would also be included in our term “parent” but wouldn’t be the short term, live-in boyfriend (otherwise we would use “close friend”).”

So, on the evidence, cyberporn is a domestic terrorism priority as reports of cyberporn child sexual exposure and/or harassment soared 2,222%

From 4,573 to 106,201 cases between 1998 and 2004. Some of these cases resulted in direct physical harm to the child, others in coarsening and shock, but all cause emotional damage along with brain structural changes of unknown and unknowable magnitude.

Biological Versus “Other” Parental Abuse Rates

Misleading “family” definitions take on an ideological cast in the context of the massive research produced by the OJJDP and DOJ premier child abuse expert, David Finkelhor. In 1979, Professor Finkelhor warned in Sexually Victimized Children of the increased sexual risk to children in a nonbiological family environment, warning especially of stepparent family hazards. Why then, having stated in 1979 that stepfathers were “almost 150 percent” more responsible for “family” sexual abuse, does Finklehor neither note that fact or distinguish between step fathers and birth fathers in his many research papers on child abuse in the family?

[T]he addition of a stepfather to a girl’s family causes her vulnerability to skyrocket. Girls who are merely without fathers were about 50 percent more vulnerable than the average girl, but girls with stepfathers were almost 150 percent more vulnerable ….Clinicians have noted that in many cases of father-daughter incest the offender was really a stepfather…. Indeed our data give support to this picture. The rate of father-daughter incest is much higher in the families with stepfathers than in any other subgroup in the whole survey—almost five times higher….[G]irls in these families are more vulnerable to stepbrothers, stepsisters, step cousins…[and possibly] a coterie of friends and acquaintances who are not so protective toward a stepdaughter. (Emphasis added)[1].

However, after stating in 1979 that the evidence was clear regarding the danger to children from non biological fathers, Finkelhor deliberately adds the number of predators who are step fathers with those who are birth fathers together and calls this group “parent” and “family.” Why do that? Whose interests are served by such a false classification? Is this flawed redefinition based on a personal or an ideological decision? And, why has no one protested? Why do neither DOJ or OJJDP investigate these repeatedly misleading definitions? Why do neither DOJ nor OJJDP investigate what else of this nature may be falsely disseminated via their “child abuse” reports?

“Report on the Nation’s Youth” (June 2000).

In June 2000 Finkelhor et al produced a “Report on the Nation’s Youth” in which the authors explained that there were “several thousand” child abuse incidents that year due to online solicitations, and “almost all of these would go unreported.”

Based on the results of this study, it appears that several million young people ages 10 through 17 get propositioned on the Internet every year…. If even some small percentage of these encounters results in offline sexual assault or illegal sexual contact — a percentage smaller than we could detect in this survey—it would amount to several thousand incidents.

Youth and parents do not report these experiences and do not know where to report them…. Even the most serious episodes were rarely reported[2].

Bear this report of thousands of unreported cyberporn abducted children as we proceed. Let’s briefly look at four more US Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports:

13 “Child Abuse Reported to the Police” by Finkelhor et al.,

14. “Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases” by Finkelhor et al. and

15. “Pornography Crimes Involving Juveniles,” by Finkelhor et al.

16. “America’s Children: Key National Indicators Of Well-Being,” a 20 Agency report.


CONTEXT: in 1990 the National Incidence Study of “Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Throwaway Children in America” (NISMART) was conducted by Finkehor, Hotaling and Sedlak. These were undertaken in response to the mandate of the 1984 Missing Children’s Assistance Act that requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to conduct periodic studies to determine the actual number of children reported missing and the number of missing children who are recovered for a given year.

Finkelhor said a “family member” was “anyone with a romantic or sexual involvement with at parent” (p. ix). With that definition, sexual abuse by “family members” would go sky-high.




[1] David Finkelhor, Sexually Victimized Children, The Free Press/Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1979 pp. 122-123.

[2] David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, Janis Wolak , “Crimes Against Children Research Center,” June 2000. National Center For Missing & Exploited Children, Pp, 33-34.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

The Story of Shelley Lubben, Former Porn Star

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Chris Hedges, in Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, writes that the “cruelty” of the “new” pornography “takes a toll on the bodies, as well as the emotions, of porn actresses.” But someone is trying to help them:

The Pink Cross booth has a table of anti-porn tracts and is set up in the far corner of the Sands Expos Convention Center in Las Vegas. It is an unlikely participant at the annual Adult Video News (AVN) expo. Pink Cross is a Christian outreach program for women in the porno industry, run by ex-porn star Shelley Lubben.

I first watched Shelley Lubben on YouTube in early 2009. An “ex-porn star,” she has created the Pink Cross (www.thepinkcross.org) as a public charity to reach out to “adult industry workers, offering emotional, financial and transitional support.” In the YouTube segment, filmed before a church audience, Shelley describes her past life and her current work. A tall, stately woman, she treads the boards, moving her hands to emphasize her words, looking directly and earnestly at her listeners.

As a veteran student of pornography and prostitution, I did not expect to learn anything new from watching Shelley Lubben’s public testimony. I was wrong. Shelley’s description of the sexual violence and degradation of modern pornography was a shock, even to me. It made me think that it made perfect sense to hear that she had left her economically rewarding “star” roles to return to a safer life doing “straight” prostitution. The “glamour” of porn is only a mask:

You have to do what they want on the sets. . . . Girls . . . feel like stars. They get attention. . . . They don’t realize the degradation. . . . Raised on porn, [they] don’t even ask if it’s wrong. . . . They get into drugs to numb themselves. They get their [bodies] ripped. . . . They get HPV and herpes, and they turn themselves off emotionally and die.

Shelley says such women totally lose their identity and live on drugs and alcohol. They cannot plan, save their money, or eat properly. The survivors commonly have only sexual diseases and “fake boobs” to show for their lives in porn. She used to be one of them.

The Back Story

In the autobiography she wrote for her website (www.shelleylubben.com), Shelley, born in 1968, notes that she attended “a good church” with her family and that, “as a little girl, I knew and loved Jesus very much.” Unfortunately, her stable if unaffectionate family moved to another location and stopped going to church. Television became the basis of their family life. A creative child, Shelley put on her own plays at her elementary school, with the approval of her amazed first-grade teacher.

Then, at age nine, a classmate and the girl’s teenage brother sexually molested Shelley. With no one to turn to or redress her abuse, Shelley defused her anxiety via autoeroticism and furtive sexual forays with both girls and boys. “It felt good to be wanted by someone and to receive attention, but at the same time I felt dirty. I didn’t recognize until much later that my entire childhood had been sexually hijacked.”

She carried shame and self-blame into her teen years. “It must be something evil in me,” she thought. She “started having sex at age 16” and became a “rebellious resentful teenager who acted out to get attention.” Hoping to keep peace in the home, her parents let Shelley dress up as a Playboy bunny and date strange boys, who led her into drug and alcohol abuse. The family tried counseling to no avail. Unable to understand what to do, her parents “told me to leave home at age 18.”

She landed in the San Fernando valley with no food and no money. “A ‘nice’ man saw I was upset and told me how sorry he was.” Still shocked and angry about being kicked out the house, so “that I didn’t care any more . . . I sold myself for $35.”

Thus Shelley entered the “glamorous” life of prostitution, but the money, jewelry, and gifts soon included bizarre sex with strangers who stalked her, slashed her tires, and threatened to kill her if she demurred from performing certain sex acts. One man tried to kill her with his truck, and she often had to lie her way out of frightening situations. During her eight years as a prostitute and exotic dancer, she had two miscarriages and one birth. Little Tiffany grew up living “with a lewd wild woman.”

Now a single mom, “Jesus kept tugging at my heart,” Shelley writes, “but I ignored him. I figured, God wasn’t taking care of me, so I had to do whatever I could to survive.”

Most of her prostitution money went for drugs and alcohol to blot out the trauma of her life. To avoid the rapes and arrests for prostitution, she turned to pornography because “it seemed safer and more legal.” However, even prostitution did not involve the brutal kinds of rape and degradation that she endured while “starring” in pornography. Soon she was required to do very hardcore scenes.

[O]nly more drugs and alcohol could get me through them. . . . I sold what was left of my heart, mind and femininity to the porn industry and the woman and person in me died completely on the porn set.” After becoming infected with herpes, I quietly left the porn industry but went back to prostitution to survive.

The Rescue

In 1994 Shelley met her husband Garrett at a bar. At first she refused his requests for a date, but when she finally accepted and the two went out, they became instant friends. Garret was raised in a Christian home and had attended a Christian school. He wanted to rescue Shelley. She says, “He was a friend to a prostitute, just like Jesus. We knew God was working in our lives, so we turned back to Jesus and got married on February 14, 1995.”

It was a rough marriage, but Shelley says God sent them to a church called Champions Centre in Tacoma, Washington, where they learned “to live a champion life.”

With God, I had true forgiveness from all my sins and a chance to grow into a whole new person without being perfect first. That was a relief! I learned that God loved me unconditionally, regardless of my past, and even had a plan for my future. God had a plan for my life? It was like someone turned the light on for me.

Shelley says she “practiced God’s principles in everything I did.” She learned web design and operated her own web design business for four years. She also attended college and got a bachelor’s degree in theology and counseling. She had walked into Champions Centre “broken and shattered,” she says. Eight years later, she was a

Champion woman healed and excited to live life! God restored me from drugs, alcohol addiction, painful memories, mental illness, sexual addiction, sexual trauma, and the guilt and shame from my past. . . . He also restored my femininity and healed my sexuality, which is a major miracle for me.

Shelley reports herself cured not only of herpes but also of cervical cancer. In addition, she says, “God also healed our marriage in a remarkable way. Garrett and I have a beautiful and loving relationship and are best friends!” Their “three beautiful daughters are being raised as Champions,” and, says Shelley, her daughter Tiffany has forgiven her and “allows me to be a mother to her.”

The Ministry

As a child, Shelley had dreamed of being a preacher. Having received her bachelor’s of theology degree, she is indeed a preacher now, sharing her testimony of transformation and rescue out of drugs, porn, and prostitution “by the power of Jesus Christ.” Her website says:

Now happily married to Garrett, her husband, and the mother of three daughters, Shelley takes a message of transformation against-all-odds to prisons, TV, radio, film, conferences and rescue missions. She has been a guest on talk shows such as Dr. Phil, Michael Reagan and most recently, FOXNews. Her message is one of exposing the $57 billion porn industry for what it is—full of lies and deceit, addiction and broken lives. Shelley maintains that women who turn to the industry to make money “probably didn’t grow up in healthy childhoods.

“Almost all pornography performers were sexually assaulted as children,” she says, but hide their broken hearts. “That would kill the fantasy, now wouldn’t it?” She told Chris Hedges:

Porn is like any other addiction. . . . First, you are curious. Then you need harder and harder drugs to get off. You need gang bangs and bestiality and child porn. Porn gets grosser and grosser. . . . And meanwhile the addicts make their wives feel like they can’t live up to the illusion of the porn star. . . . He wants what isn’t real. Porn destroys intimacy.

She says, “God now sends me out to proclaim to the world the reality of his awesome love. I also want everyone to know that whatever God did for me, he will do for you. He’ll do this because he loves you and sent his Son Jesus in order to give you a whole new life.”

Shelley tells the women she rescues that God has a plan for their lives and that they “were made for greater things.” Her website offers the real stories of these women, and includes a tragic Dead Porn Stars Memorial.

Shelley’s story is indeed inspirational. “All I wanted was a normal life. Then I discovered the truth. Sure enough, I finally found the life I always wanted.”

In 2003 Bailey was “investigated” for describing his sex with a transvestite subject in his book, without her/his informed consent.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on March 17, 2010 at MovieGuide.org. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Kinsey Consequences: It’s Rotten Research-ers. Part 3.

A Few Sample Case Studies

The following briefly are a spectrum of contemporary federal reports and/or findings that use fraudulent and criminal Kinseyan data and disciples as authorities for the nation’s legal and public policy decisions. Chapters 8 and 9 document the effects of these frauds in more detail.

1. 1969 U.S. INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH (NIMH) “TASK FORCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY” Kinsey’s co-author and Institute Director, Dr. Paul Gebhard as well as Dr. John Money (a contributor to The Journal Of Paedophilia) typified the “fourteen experts” on human sexuality whose formal report cited Kinsey’s data as authority to urge nationwide legalization of homosexuality[1]

2. 1969 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE) and the U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE (PHS) Almost all DoE and PHS reports post 1969 which address human sexuality cite to Kinsey and/or his disciples as their key authorities

3. 1974 U.S. CONGRESS CREATES “STATUS OFFENDER” LEGISLATION. This well intentioned legislation made it illegal to place minors in protective custody unless they were committing “adult” crimes, hence opening the floodgates to child prostitution and child pornography. The view of children as wholly autonomous and as not requiring some kind of protective intervention by the state reflects a dramatic shift from the evolution to traditional American views of child care to the Kinseyan view of the child as unharmed by broad freedom and license.

4. 1977-1985 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DO J) “THE NATIONAL SURVEY OF CRIME SEVERITY” (SET PRECEDENT FOR FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES, CIRCA 1990’s): In his academic scholarship, Principal Investigator, Marvin Wolfgang, former member of the President’s Commission on Pornography and Obscenity (1970) cites Kinsey and his colleagues for sexual authority, the Commissioners having been trained at the Kinsey Institute during a “sexuality” site visit. The Kinsey model is reflected above in the NSCS sentencing guidelines. By excluding child rape or other forms of serious child abuse as crimes, the authors mischievously directed judges and juries nationwide into dismissals of child sex crimes, and into leniency and paroles for violent crimes against children, inevitably also trivializing violent sex crimes against women and legitimizing sundry other Kinseyan pansexual standards.

5. 1986 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, (NRC) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES on ‘TEENAGE SEX.’ When he was Secretary of Education, William Bennett pointed out that the report of the NRC (apparently chartered by Congress, hence an authoritative arm of the federal government) called for condoms in schools despite the data that disproved this as a solution to early sexual activity. A review of this NRC report finds Kinsey’s pansexual philosophy and disciples extensively cited as authority.

6. 1989 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, (NRC) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: “AIDS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND INTRAVENOUS DRUG USE.” Kinsey’s former chief researcher, John Gagnon is part of the research team. The report fully cites to Kinsey and his disciples as sexual authority, suggesting that while Kinsey did outstanding work, these data are not too useable since they were derived largely from white, college males. This false claim about the nature of the fraud serves many purposes, among which, a) it intimates that the deviancy data are understated rather than overstated, hence b) it allows continued, even fuller use of the data. Were the NRC to admit that the data reflect prisoners, sex offenders, homosexual males, boy prostitutes, thieves, hold-up men and feeble-minded subjects, Kinsey’s data would be used to define abnormal males, by definition. After claiming it’s flaws, the authors deify and continue to cite Kinsey as authority, finding homosexuality and other nontraditional sex to be normal

7. 1989 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JUVENILE JUSTICE (Do J) “REPORT TO THE NATION ON CRIME AND JUSTICE.” This DoJ report on crime purges the 1986 Attorney General’s Commission report on Pornography that found massive crimes of child abuse and child pornography. Hence, the crime report “to the nation” does not list child pornography as a crime. Moreover, the AG’s Pornography Commission testimony from the former director of SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, as well as Kinsey colleagues C.A. Tripp, John Money and others would have significantly impacted the Commission’s findings.

8. 1989 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (OJJDP) “THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF MISSING CHILDREN.” Three months prior to the following HHS Youth Suicide Report, among other unsubstantiated Kinseyan claims, the OJJDP researchers said the “data” found religious and parental “harassment” of biologically homosexual children to be responsible for child runaways, prostitutes and suicides. Finkehor et. al., have long cited Kinsey and his disciples as scientific authority and this OJJDP report reflects the author’s continued reliance on the Kinsey “model” of homosexuality, prostitution, pornography and the like.

9. 1989 ADAMHA: ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION IN ADAMHA NEWS “The Most Forgotten Teens” builds on the Kinseyan authority, blaming children’s emotional problems ‘not on the many causal factors which often lead youths into homosexual conduct, but on social hostility to homosexuality. The article ignores the extant data on adult or older juvenile sex abuse, etc., as precipitating many harmful responses, including homosexual acting-out.

10. 1989 U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)” THE SECRETARY’S TASK FORCE ON YOUTH SUICIDE.” This report cites Dr Kinsey and his disciples as sexual authorities to disregard any environmental factors triggering homosexual conduct, claiming a biological imperative and blaming parents, churches and traditional American values as causing the suicides of “gay youth”

11. 1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) “HOMOSEXUALITY AND PERSONNEL SECURITY.” The author, Theodore Sarbin cites as his human sexuality authorities, Kinsey and his disciples, including Dr John Money and Verne Bullough, self-identified pedophile editor of The Journal of Paedophilia Hence, Sarbin disengenuously concludes that “no empirical data have been developed to support any connection between homosexuality and security” (p 31)

The above eleven are a few of similar reports that sway or direct current laws and public policies on human sexuality. Now, just briefly let’s look at several other recent research gems on children: First, the cyberporn data on parental assault, next the alleged “decline” in child sex abuse and the harmlessness of pornography for children and finally a “well being” report that says children are safer today than in the days of Ozzie and Harriet.



[1] Karlan, Arno, interview in Sexuality and Homosexuality (1971). NYC: W.W. Norton & CO., Inc., p. 612

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Kinsey Consequences: It’s Rotten Research-ers. Part 2.

Rotten Research Yields Rotten Results

Kinsey’s research was based on fraud. Yet, this “Patron Saint of Sex,” (Esquire) who launched “the first wave of the sexual revolution” is, said sexologist Morton Hunt (and more recently, Dr. Ruth), the giant on whose shoulders all sex researchers since his time have stood. WebMD reports that “Ruth Westheimer, PhD” regularly pays “some type of homage to famed 1950s sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, PhD.” saying “we are taught that if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you can see farther.”[1]

Homosexual researchers John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, in their book Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, also give proper credit to Kinseyan research for changing society. “[T]he strongest assault on sexual reticence in the public realm emerged not from the pornographic fringe, nor from the popular culture, but from the respectable domain of science,” with the publication of Kinsey’s Male and Female reports. By allegedly proving that Americans were sexual buccaneers pretending to be sexually chaste, meant “cultural values surrounding sex needed revision.”[2]

D’Emilio and Freedman said that Kinsey’s “scientific credentials gave legitimacy” to the media publicity and the public had to believe his claims were somewhat true. The authors also credited “The Kinsey studies, as much as pornography, [for shaping] the context in which the Supreme Court responded to the obscenity issue.”[3]

And, in 2003 D’Emilio and Freedman’s rotten research in Intimate Matters—as it relied largely on Kinsey and other rotten research relying on Kinsey—became a key authority cited by US Supreme Court Justice, Anthony M. Kennedy for the Court’s majority decision to legalize sodomy. Yes, Yes, rotten research yields rotten results.

Kinseyfying Medical/Academia For Now and Tomorrow

Rotten Research tentacles reach out to infect us all. Kinsey lectured to medical groups nationwide, and by the hundreds of thousands to overwhelming crowds, like that at left, university youth who came to worship at the feet of the new sexuality guru. These were our future leaders, writers, entertainers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, prosecutors, and the like. Christie Hefner reported that in the 1960s the Playboy Foundation became the major research sponsor of the Masters and Johnson Institute and made the initial grant to establish an Office of Research Services of the Sex Information and Education. Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) [4]. The latter organization is heavily involved in the incorporation of Kinsey’s basic sexual philosophy into school sex education programs, explained elsewhere in this book.

In 1971, Playboy, according to Hefner junior, “awarded a grant to establish a pilot program at the University of Minnesota” with the aim of “changing the attitudes of men and women medical students.”[5] Why bring rotten research into the medical community? Because, said Hefner, “today’s medical students and practicing physicians perpetuate arbitrary judgments about normal and abnormal sexuality… [and] are ignorant of the variety of possible human sexual expression.” This was corrected by the infusion of pornography money into the medical community.

Following in Kinsey’s footsteps, “sexologists” invaded the medical schools with Kinsey’s infamous scale (left) claiming to “prove” that 10% to 37% of men are sometime homosexual and that all humans are naturally bisexual. This opened the door to Playboy in the wings, laying down track for its future medical consumers.

In the early 1970s young, naïve medical residents in most of the major medical schools were doused with Kinsey’s “science” followed up by Hefner’s “pamphleteering” via allegedly scientific pornographic shows. The Sexual Attitude Restructuring was allegedly to “desensitize” students so they could more easily accept and treat their patient’s sexual problems. No, these were not slides of venereal disease, such unpleasant images were carefully avoided. The medical SAR included “obscene” or “erotic” or “pornographic” films and slides of sex between women and men, same sex, animals and sometimes children, as were all of the SAR presentations.




[1] Denise Mann WebMD Feature http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/103990.htm (undated, Nov. 2004).

[2] John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, Harper & Row, 1988.

[3] D’Emilio and Freedman, Ibid.

[4]Christie Hefner, in the Foreword to Sexuality and Medicine, Volume 11, Earl E. Shelp (ed.), Reidel Publishing Co., 1987.

[5]Hefner, Ibid.

[1] Karlan, Arno, interview in Sexuality and Homosexuality (1971). NYC: W.W. Norton & CO., Inc., p. 612

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Kinsey Film Lies, Defames World War II Americans

In 1948, “illegitimacy,” abortion and rape rates were some hundreds of percentiles less than today, when even elementary school children are sexually “literate.” Yet that year, an impotent, closeted bi-homosexual pedophilic psychopath “proved” to the world that American GI’s and Rosie the Riveters were wildly randy adventurers who were also so sexually witless that they often didn’t even know where children came from.

It is shameful to see how the courageous men and women who gave their lives for our freedom in World War II continue to be defamed as sexually immature Neanderthals in the artsy film flop, “Kinsey,” written and directed by homosexual swami, Bill Condon.

However, largely due to the efforts of “The Kinsey Truth Coalition” – over a dozen key conservative organizations – these reprehensible lies have caused a backlash, even in Tinseltown. One film critic despaired that “Kinsey” was not only “shut out at the Golden Globes,” Liam Neeson (who played Alfred Kinsey) was not even nominated for an Oscar.

Another film lush whined that “any other year, “Kinsey” could have won an Oscar, for “Condon’s Kinsey had … something to say about sexual politics and identity. Its sole major nomination, for Laura Linney [as Mrs. K.] is perhaps insufficient recognition.”

The American public snubbed “Kinsey”! Despite its Ford Foundation financed media blitzkrieg, “Kinsey” did not even recoup investments. It racked up $9 million at the box office vs. Mel Gibson’s “Passion” at $400 million sales.

Condon complained that the primitive public – like the New Jersey women who picketed the “Kinsey” filming last August – objected to Kinsey’s “methodology” and sex life. No matter. I am told that the Kinsey Institute propaganda flick will tour our campuses – largely gratis. This will be easier pickings.

Since Fox barred me twice from its early screenings, I finally saw “Kinsey” locally. So, here are a few observations.

Kinsey’s “research” for “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) took place at the height of World War II. Condon, like Kinsey, obliterated the entire war era. Women were running the nation’s industries. Nearly every able-bodied father, husband and son – except Kinsey and his sexually willing boy toy team – was overseas fighting for our liberty.

Condon hides the war as well as Kinsey’s snaring scarce gas and tire rations for himself and his draft-dodging young mates. Thus did their gay little band travel widely to “study” prisons, lavender bathhouses, bars and such.

Condon also hides the fact that Kinsey, a eugenicist, was intimate with several Nazis, a convicted traitor and another helpful pedophile in Frankfort, whom he cautioned to “watch out” for the authorities.

Until Kinsey “enlightened” us, Americans called sex “the marital act” and thought you should see the person you did “it” with (that is, eye-to-eye, lip-to-lip, breast-to-chest, and all the rest).

Before I discuss additional “documentary” lies, let briefly note key players in this recent attempt to reconstruct Kinsey’s credibility by the Kinsey Institute, Ford Foundation, Indiana University and others:

  • First: Kinsey film distributor Fox Searchlight. Fox trafficked in “youthful” frontal male nudes in “The Dreamers” and drug-using 13-year-old girls having sex with old men in “Thirteen.” Fox seems prepared to promote wide-scale pubescent pornography.
  • Next: “Kinsey” Executive Producer Frances Ford Coppola. Hollywood director and child pornographer Victor Salva sodomized 12-year-old boys on a Coppola-Salva film he directed. When Salva was released from prison, Coppola immediately rehired the molester for another homoerotic teen horror flick.
  • Then: Homosexual propagandist Bill Condon wrote and directed “Kinsey,” the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” mentor. Follow the lust and then the money.
  • Finally: Lead actors Neeson and Linney. They claim theirs was a labor of love – that they want to promote Kinsey’s message of sexual tolerance.

Now, the hagiodrama.

Fox-Coppola-Condon claimed that Kinsey’s books “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” (1951) launched the sexual revolution. This was true – triggering worldwide sexual promiscuity.

But, so many lies. How may we count the ways? Here are a few. See my book, “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences,” for full documentation.

  • The film implies that Kinsey was a flawed genius “scientist” who just “worshiped data.” No. A “the ends justifies the means” Machiavellian, Kinsey cooked up phony data in his lab. Statistics in hand, he goose-stepped behind Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels with lies so big few could challenge them.
  • The film implies that Kinsey had a population sample. No. Kinsey manufactured a “10 to 37 percent” homosexual male population in order to normalize homosexuality. He manufactured a female promiscuity myth that led to “no fault divorce,” resulting in collapsed marriages and largely victimized women and children.
  • The film lied that Kinsey was hounded to an untimely death by dumb, religious Americans. His untimely death was surely exacerbated by his traumatized immune system compromised by an often fatal venereal disease called “Orchitis.”
  • The film lied that until Kinsey, Americans were “hypocrites” who went to church on Sunday, were afraid of sex, were commonly unfaithful, had sex before marriage and regularly aborted.
  • The film lied that Kinsey proved solo sex creates happy marriages. Kinsey was impotent, relying on pornography, masturbation and homosexual adultery for virility.
  • The film lied that Mrs. K’s physiology blocked Kinsey’s consummation of their marriage. Even Condon’s hagiographical expert, Gathorne-Hardy, said the gynecological problem did not prevent intercourse.

Condon puts the couple in a cozy honeymoon bed with white linen sheets and plump, inviting pillows. Kinsey hagiographer Cornelia Christenson documented the truth. Kinsey planned a dangerous, freezing hiking honeymoon to break in and control his bride – no linen sheets or fluffy comforters:

[They hiked] … straight up … Mount Washington in a blizzard. Clara had never seen a mountain before … Alfred … led the way, with his new bride lagging behind … The evening routine was to take off their boots and belts and to put on clean socks, plus all the extra clothing available, before climbing into their blankets.

Kinsey deliberately fashioned a honeymoon to deter “the marital act” – a hiking expedition that risked his young wife’s life. Why? Decades of “nudist” pornography and brutalizing self-abuse are crippling.

Kinsey later added college boys to his sadomasochistic rituals. He would always battle his impotence.

Moving right along, Condon’s own homosexuality dominated “Kinsey.” He has Mrs. Kinsey explain that Kinsey was huge. So, following a little nip below, Condon has the young bride grip the bedstead as Kinsey did what he knew best, homosexual sodomy.

Although we don’t see the anatomical parts of the act, this was not quite champagne and roses. (Pre-“Kinsey,” the scene would be illegal.)

  • The film lied that Mrs. Kinsey was a spunky sexual savant. She did what Kinsey wanted just as Laura Linney did what Condon wanted. Kinsey was the ultimate control freak, dominating everyone. Wife “Mac” needed Kinsey’s approval when buying groceries. She dutifully typed up the ghastly records of rape and torture of infants and children regularly sent to Kinsey by his New Mexico pedophile, Rex King. The little woman was expected to sexually perform when and with whom Kinsey wanted. He prostituted her and she obeyed, lying to the world. Likewise, Condon has Linney laugh gaily, just oh-so happy to be sodomized – a painful, debauched and disembodied homosexual act that leads to incontinence, AIDS, etc.
  • The film lied that Kinsey or Pomeroy abhorred the men who raped children for Kinsey. Instead they lauded these men and urged them on.
  • The film lied that Kinsey “interviewed” just one mass child rapist. Kinsey had dozens of men sexually abusing children for his “science” and he encouraged them all.
  • The film lied that Kinsey hated force. Kinsey was a sadomasochist, a psychopath who had to give and receive pain. Remember, Kinsey reported that children who fought to escape the rapist “partner” and who had convulsions “enjoyed” the “experience.”
  • The film lied that Kinsey had only one homosexual “lover” and that the young Clyde Martin seduced Kinsey. Kinsey seduced this boy and others.
  • The film lied that only “conservatives” and religious objected to Kinsey’s bogus research. Many leftist scientists like Abraham Maslow, Lionel Trilling and even Margaret Mead, condemned Kinsey for betraying science by creating false data about American sexual life.
  • The film lied that World War II Americans were sexually ignorant. In 1948, as Kinsey’s “Male” volume hit the nation, a campaign to control the nation’s two sexually transmitted diseases was launched to inform the public that chastity and fidelity would ensure sexual health. It did.

By 1957 America reached its lowest rate of 3.9 new STD cases per 100,000 adults. By 2000, 20- to 24-year-old men had a gonorrhea rate of 589.8 cases per 100,000 and females 656.6 per 100,000. In 1957, children did not show up in rates of venereal disease. Today, STDs infect 8,000 teenagers daily and one in four of sexually active youngsters.

Annually, we record 70,000 new cases of syphilis; 650,00 gonorrhea; 64,000 AIDS; 3 million Chlamydia; 5 million trichomoniasis; 1 million genital herpes; 5.5 million human papillomavirus, plus roughly 20 other STDs. Gone are the pre-Kinsey days of “only” syphilis and gonorrhea. Millions needlessly die due to Kinsey’s sexual frauds glamorized in the Condon film.

Condon – like Kinsey – lied. Who is insane enough to say Kinsey was a sex scientist when his claims wrought such human destruction?

Talk about myths! If children were embarrassed about solo sex in Kinsey’s era, many youth today think they’ll go insane if they don’t self stimulate; that having sex with friends is emotionally and physically harmless; that oral sodomy cannot cause oral venereal disease; that abortion extracts no physical or emotional penalty; that homosexual sodomy (I can’t “see” you) is the same as the marital act and does not contribute to STDs – including the fatal AIDS – and that pornography is non-addictive and helpful sex education.

Condon flashed viewers close-ups of male and female sex organs wrapped in pompous “scientific” overtones. After their marital humping scene, Neeson et al. do a quick, sweaty threesome grind.

Neeson passionately kisses Martin (in one article, Neeson puzzles over why Condon demanded such a long kiss). This is Condon’s “art” as it was Kinsey’s “science.”

Kinsey brought homosexual pornography and sodomy into the bedroom, classroom and courtroom. And just in case someone missed out, Condon showed us how.

Kinsey’s son lives in Indiana. At the film opening at Indiana University he is on record as confirming the description of his parents’ conduct.

Kinsey’s two daughters insist mom and pop were apple-pie conservatives who never made sex films in the family attic and never did anything, well, unusual. One wonders about the life the Kinsey children really led.

Such lies: Fox, Coppola, Condon, Neeson and Linney unite to give us a romantic fade out into the forest, with Kinsey and wifey walking arm in arm into the sunset.

Anybody ready to make an honest film about this anti-American sexual psychopath should check out my website.

In 2003 Bailey was “investigated” for describing his sex with a transvestite subject in his book, without her/his informed consent.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was oiginally published at WorldNetDaily.com on February 11, 2005. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.