Misology in America Part 3:Scientific Fraud - Homosexuality
By Robert E. Reis
Misology is the hatred of objective knowledge gained by the scrupulous use of the scientific method when it contradicts the political goals, ideology or religious faith of the misologists.
Misologists dominate the discussion of public policies in several areas in the modern world.
In the United States misologists predominate in the media, the universities, the schools, and among the elected politicians and the clergy.
In Part 1 I presented evidence that misologists dominate the public discussion of the distribution of the general mental ability factor or IQ in various identifiable human genetic clusterings.
In Part 2 I presented evidence that misologists dominate the public discussion of the health hazards of smoking tobacco.
This essay will document the stranglehold misologists hold on the public discussion of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is erotic activity with another of the same sex. A homosexual is a person who directs sexual desire towards another of the same sex. Queerly enough, homosexuality was not part of the English language before 1892.
Before 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychology Association, and the National Association of Social Workers recognized homosexuality as a formal disorder. A disorder is an abnormal physical or mental condition.
The seminal scientific study used to normalize homosexuality appeared in 1957. Dr. Evelyn Hooker claimed that “homosexuals [are] not inherently abnormal and that there [is] no difference between the pathologies of homosexual and heterosexual men.” [3 Hooker, E., “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual” (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957,
21, 18-31)]
An honest scientist would have rigorously obeyed the rules for scientific experimentation in performing the tests on her hypothesis that male homosexuals will be indistinguishable in their performance on standard projective tests from male heterosexuals.
An honest scientist would have used the existing standardized projective tests for psychopathology. Hooker ignored the existing standardized tests and invented her own.
Hooker should have selected two groups of men, one homosexual, the other heterosexual, that were carefully matched for characteristics and who were kept ignorant of the purpose of the study.
Instead, Hooker deliberately recruited homosexual men with the help of homosexual activist groups who told the homosexual men the purpose of the study was to transform society’s attitudes towards homosexuality. She later boasted publicly that, “I knew the men for whom the ratings were made, and I was certain as a clinician that they were relatively free of psychopathology.” [14 American Psychologist, April 1993 Vol. 48, No. 4, 450-453] She deliberately screened out subjects who admitted to being in therapy for mental or emotionally problems, thus insuring there was little risk of too many people revealing pathological symptoms on her projective tests.
During her experiment Hooker was shocked to discover that her male homosexual subjects were revealing aspects of their personalities that conflicted with her theory. Each of her subjects was initially to be evaluated with three well-known psychological tests. When Hooker found that two of the three tests easily distinguished homosexuals from heterosexuals, Hooker simply omitted the results of the two tests that proved her hypothesis was wrong from her report.
This piece of fraudulent garbage was the primary “scientific” report relied on by the American Psychiatric Association to decide that homosexuality was not a medical disorder.
In 1965 Dr. Judd Marmor, a psychiatrist at UCLA, picked Hooker to be the chairman of the National Institute of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality. Marmor soon became Vice President of the American Psychiatric Association.
The Task Force on Homosexuality also included Alfred Kinsey’s close colleagues Paul Gebhard and John Money.
Paul Gebhard would be a key player at the American Psychiatric Association meeting that normalized homosexuality. Gebhard is the co-founder of the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United State (SIECUS). What kind of man is Paul Gebhard?
An interview with Gebhard was recorded in 1992 where he discussed how the Kinsey Institute got “data” about the sexuality of children as young as six months of age. The Kinsey Institute ordered pedophiles to keep careful records of their activities for scientific purposes. The transcript of this interview reveals the ethical standards of Paul Gebhard.
Interviewer: “So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?”
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....”
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.”
Gebhard: “Oh yes.”
Kinsey colleague John Money was the director of the now defunct “Psychohormonal Research Unit” of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a promoter of “transsexuality” and transsexual surgery. Johns Hopkins was one of the major centers in the world for such surgery until it abandoned it in 1979. The school even stopped performing sex-change surgery on infants with ambiguous genitalia, because they found that psychological sex was clearly determined by chromosomal structure, and that the proper treatment was to help the psychology conform to the underlying biology, not the reverse.
Like Gebhard, John Money, had unconventional attitudes towards homosexual pedophilia. “If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who’s intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual...then I would not call it pathological in any way.”
Money was awarded the Magnus Hirschfeld Medal in 2002 from the “German Society for Social-Scientific Sexuality Research”. Magnus Hirschfeld (May 14, 1868 - May 14, 1935) was a German Jewish physician, sexologist, and gay rights advocate.
The Task Force issued its report in 1969. It claimed that sexuality was a continuum from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality, and that some degree of bisexuality was the human norm. It stated that any homosexual suffering was caused by societal prejudice.
In 1971 the American Psychiatric Association agreed to sponsor a special panel —not on homosexuality, but by homosexuals. The program chairman had been warned that if the panel was not approved, homosexual activists would ruin the entire convention.
The activists secured an appearance before the APA’s crucial Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics, responsible for publishing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Until 1973 the DSM had defined homosexuality medically, on a par with other sexual “deviations” because homosexuals did not have an adult person of the opposite sex as their primary object of sexual interest.
The APA created a special task force composed almost entirely of the same people from the Kinsey Institute who had packed the NIMH Task Force.
Another of Kinsey’s co-authors, Wardell B. Pomeroy, served on the 1973 APA Nomenclature Task Force. In his book Boys and Sex: Wardell B. Pomeroy Co –author of the Kinsey Reports, he writes that having sex with the male animal, ... whether it is a dog, horse, bull or some other species, may provide considerable erotic excitement for the boy…Psychically, animal relations may become of considerable significance to the boy who is having regular experience…[ and] in no point basically different from those that are involved in erotic responses to human situations…
In Variations magazine, Pomeroy offers this advice:
“We find many beautiful and mutually satisfying [sexual] relationships between fathers and daughters. These may be transient or ongoing, but they have no harmful effects ...
Incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience ... When there is a mutual and unselfish concern for the other person, rather than a feeling of possessiveness and a selfish concern with one’s own sexual gratification, then incestuous relationships can and do work out well. Incest can be a satisfying, non-threatening, and even an enriching emotional experience, as I said earlier.
Wardell Pomeroy (like all his male colleagues) one of Kinsey’s lovers, argued the Kinsey data found that homosexuality was not associated with psychopathology. Pomeroy did not reveal the Kinsey data itself was fraudulently skewed by flagrant population sampling biases, and the badgering and even bribing of its many imprisoned or otherwise institutionalized subjects.
The new committee invited testimony from homosexual activists, homosexual psychiatrists and homosexual psychologists.
Charles Silverstein, Ph.D. (who would later author
The Joy of Gay Sex and The New Joy of Gay Sex) presented the homosexual case.
The National Institute of Mental Health presented its official position on homosexuality: 1. Exclusive homosexuality was a normal part of the human condition. 2. Homosexuality did not meet the requirements of a psychiatric disorder since it “does not either regularly cause subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.
Following the advice of the new homosexual advisers, two -thirds of the APA’s Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, with only two abstentions.
Two years later the American Psychological Association voted to follow suit, and soon the National Association of Social Workers did likewise.
By 2002 the misologist community was suggesting that sadomasochism, pedophilia and fetishism and all the other deviations should be removed from diagnostic terminology of the American Psychiatric Association.
The misologists expect us to believe that decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream mental health organizations in this country to the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality. The facts are otherwise.
Scientists have discovered there are differences in the behavioral patterns and psychology of homosexual and heterosexual males and females. For example, there is markedly greater prevalence of alcoholism among female homosexuals compared with female heterosexuals and there is a markedly greater incidence of suicide attempts by male homosexuals compared with male heterosexuals. The number of homosexuals reporting psychiatric hospitalization is at least five times as high as it should have been if the theory there is “no difference” between homosexuals and heterosexuals were true.
The Laumann Study is admitted to be a landmark scientific study of homosexuality in the United States. [Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and
Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, 1994.]
Laumann shocked the misologists when he observed that homosexuality is not a stable trait. Furthermore, the authors found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one - directional: declining, and significantly so. Homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women.
This finding was so unexpected that researchers all over the world have sought to corroborate or disconfirm it. This body of research has confirmed that homosexuals often become heterosexuals as they age, heterosexuals almost never travel in the contrary direction as they age.
Comments (17) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
A fundamental error of medicine is to discount evolutionary fitness as a foundation for the definition of health, with the obvious inverse being the equivalent definition of pathology.
Psychiatry, the most politicized branch of medicine, is a pseudoscience anyway. There are no objective tests that confirm any of their diagnoses. I’m more concerned with what psychiatrists are pathologizing than with what they’re de-pathologizing. Normalizing homosexuality doesn’t involve medicating or incarcerating anyone.
Posted by John on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 12:20 PM | #
"A fundamental error of medicine...”
How’s it going,sailor?
Posted by melba peachtoast on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 04:54 PM | #
I don’t get it, Melba, was there something humorous about my turn of phrase?
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 05:16 PM | #
Mr. Reis writes:
“The Laumann Study is admitted to be a landmark scientific study of homosexuality in the United States. [Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and
Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, 1994.]
Laumann shocked the misologists when he observed that homosexuality is not a stable trait.... This finding… This body of research has confirmed...”
As another commentator observed, all psychology is bunk anyway. But it can be interesting to check out the examples of ‘real science’ offered by the self-styled anti-misologists. Like the Darwin v. God debate, no one screams ‘bunk’ more than the bunko artists themselves.
From amazon.com, a review of this ‘scientific study’:
“I am not a sexual scientist nor a professional survey taker, but I am very comfortable with statistics, data gathering and analysis as used in statistical process and machinery control. I purchased S. O. S. for use as an unbiased source of statistics on male/female couples sexual practices, preferences and fantasies. Unfortunately this survey and report are not that unbiased source.
Throughout this book the authors make reference to the political opposition to this survey. Those politicians and others opposed fear that if the survey shows that a certain sexual act is common (and it’s something they personally feel is wrong) then that will encourage others to do it. I have come to realize the extent and far reaching effects of this pressure.
My first hint of something wrong was the use of entirely bogus figures to calculate the preference match of receiving and giving oral sex (page 166). Their calculations showed only 9% of couples where both partners liked giving and receiving oral sex. The calculation using the real statistics (taken from their own tables on page 162) shows a 60% agreement mutually enjoying oral sex.
When I found more things like this, missing data, unreported group statistics, unlabeled graphs not described in text, and some unbelievable statistics, I finally went to the questionnaire in the appendix. WOW, I could not believe my eyes. They were not guaranteeing confidentiality. In fact, they were taking personal information to positively identify not only the test taker, but the NAMES of all sexual partners, ALL. I don’t know about you, but that would inhibit my responses. Privacy, confidentiality and security are easily accomplished and absolutely necessary for a survey of this kind of sensitive subject.”
BINGO! I thought that ‘Chicago Opinion Center’ reference rang a bell. The idiot ‘sex survey’ that proved that everyone really does prefer the missionary position, after marriage, of course, in which people answered questions about their sex lives AND SIGNED THEIR NAMES! Could that have skewed the results of the chicken-fucking question?
“While cruising the questionnaire I realized that much of the missing data had actually been asked, just not reported in the tables and text of the book. Since I was having to check and double check any statistic that I wanted to use, I came across another very dishonest method to deceive. If you want to prove something that really isn’t true, you can make your false statement then use something different as proof passing it off as the same thing. Example: page 135 - Table stating only 2% of women use a vibrator. The question asked to prove this was - “Have you purchased a vibrator in the last 12 months?” Aunt Girdie who purchased her Hitachi Super-O vibrator 20 some years ago and used it every day would not be counted. Hmmmm!
The discrepancies I found involved oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, and sex under 18 years of age. There could be problems in the other stuff, but I got tired of looking.
Conclusion: There were some good people involved in this survey (the data to prove most of these faults were buried but still in the data). The censorship of the Adolf Hitlers of our country showed throughout. The weak willed university management and project directors sold their souls (probably to obtain further monies in future contracts). I expected so much more. This survey infuriates me since it could (and should) be so much more.
If you believe that more than half of the men and three fourths of the women in the U. S. do not like RECEIVING oral sex, then this book is for you (page 166).”
What a model of True Science. What a magnificent source of guidance on human sexuality. Mr. Reis [and his paramour] must owe them a debt of gratitude.
For Science hath proven it!
Posted by James O'Meara on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 09:06 PM | #
"I don’t get it, Melba, was there something humorous about my turn of phrase?”
Hey, don’t sweat it Mr. Bowery; you’re not going to get an answer. Melba will leave your mind twisting in the wind...that’s what women do! You’ve got to love them! They keep you on your toes. Any married man (of which you’re one) should already know that. LOL
Posted by onlooker on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 10:52 PM | #
From the University of Chicago:
http://experts.uchicago.edu/experts.php?id=84
Edward Laumann
George Herbert Mead Distinguished Service Professor in Sociology, Director of the Ogburn Stouffer Center
Areas of Expertise:
Sex: Partnering in Chicago
Sex: Sexual dysfunction
Sex: Social organization
Sociology: Social stratification
Sociology: Organizational analysis
Edward Laumann is one of the nation’s leading authorities on the sociology of sexuality. He recently advised a panel of scholars who conducted the “Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors.” The survey is based on in-person and telephone interviews with 27,500 men and women aged 40 to 80 years old in 30 countries worldwide, which were conducted during 2001. He also was a co-director of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, the first comprehensive and scientifically accurate survey of sex in America. The study disputed many myths about sexual behavior and brought factual information to bear on public policy debates about sexual practices.
Posted by Robert Reis on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 04:31 AM | #
"Interviewer: ‘And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to....’
Gebhard: ‘So, second hand or stopwatch ..... ‘ “
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! I am pretty liberal in that I think scientists get some latitude in the search for truth, but this is OUTRAGEOUS. In their defense, I will say that I think they just faked their results. I can’t imagine a child having an orgasm, far less having one while being sexually attacked by an adult, and the very idea of the pervert TIMING this is just over the moon. I would be willing to bet that nobody can come up with the pervert’s notebooks and “field data”, in whatever form.
So Kinsey’s crew was not, contrary to their claims, a bunch of babyfuckers. They were just scientific frauds. That’s all.
Riley
Posted by Riley DeWiley on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 08:16 AM | #
Riley, the scary thing is that people of that ilk are still heavily influencing things today. They haven’t gone anywhere. They’re still all around us, both in the open and behind the scenes, poisoning whatever decent folk love and hold most dear in life. They’re twisting it, defiling it, degrading it, choking it to death, strangling it, exterminating it, and attempting to replace it with the unclean, and the immoral. They’ll never go away, any more than germs will. We’re stuck with them. Decent folk have to be vigilant and resolute. The price for letting down your guard is ... much of what we see all around us.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 12:57 PM | #
Excellent post.
One question. How many of the ‘scientists’ quoted in the article, those that advocated FOR the favorable position on sodomy, were of the Jewish ethnic background?
Just curious.
In reading ‘The Pink Swastika’ [http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/
pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm]
I found it amazing that Jews were so much in evidence on the matter that caused WWII.
Posted by Fr. John on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 02:20 PM | #
John writes:
QUOTE
“Psychiatry, the most politicized branch of medicine, is a pseudoscience anyway. There are no objective tests that confirm any of their diagnoses.”
=============================================================
Not true, for example depression as a diagnosis correlates very highly with low brain serotonin levels, in fact I believe the correlation is close to 1.0. I agree that there’s politicisation in psychiatry but there always was; in fact in the 19th century the politicisation went the other way, as psychiatrists sought to pathologise slaves’ desire to run away from their masters by giving it the title “Drapetomania”;
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-drapetomania.html
I very much hope we can do better in the future but the enterprise is beset with enormous problems because the mind is so complex. As a Anglo-Indian psychiatrist once said about his subject, in a letter to the Guardian; “If the mind were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.”
At risk of diluting my point, here’s the account of a gay Englishman in his 60s who was recently treated for a recurrent psychiatric crisis. It’s very long and might be a bit “out there” for some readers but makes some good points;
http://www.clarity-of-being.org/brush-with-psychiatry.htm
Posted by Retew on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 02:39 PM | #
Do you feel like you advocate a lost cause? Particularly among educated young people your beliefs do not seem to have much traction. I’ve known of old and educated “majority rights” people, old and ignorant “majority rights” people, and young and ignorant “majority rights” people, but the young “majority rights” crowd does not seem represented at all in the science and engineering college educated type crowd I encounter.
I’m a dutch descended PhD student in physics at a Pac Ten university of middling to high academic quality. I would be shocked to encounter anyone who shared just about any of the views on this site. I’ve never met anyone with your opinions abroad in the world anywhere except the internet.
Posted by Dennis on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 08:52 PM | #
You’re at the wrong site, Dennis. GnXp.com is the site for you — it’s a few doors down. You’ll love the crew over there — first-raters like race-denier David B their star attraction, not to mention luminaries like GC, Birch Barlow ... oh and whatever you do, don’t miss the Canadian boy-wonder Randy MacDonald, he’s the flat-out genius who insists the economies in Southern Africa have taken off like a rocket since black rule and the social conditions are better than ever, just like a garden of eden, it’s paradise-on-earth, no rape whatsoever, no murders, no car-jackings. All that stuff’s made up by the racists. Right. Randy MacDonald, you’ll love him. He’s gonna be big, a household name, watch him.
Ya see Dennis, MajorityRights.com isn’t for you because ...well, it’s for people who can actually think ... which kinda lets you out, sorry .... Oh, and I almost forgot — people who aren’t nauseating hypocrites. Like you. How do I know you’re a nauseating hypocrite? Well ... the nauseating part is obvious, so I’ll skip that ... And the hypocrite part? Well ... come back and let us know what neighborhood you’ve moved yourself and your wife into when you’ve finished your Ph.D. work. That’ll give the game away, friend ... Once you divulge that you might as well have it stamped on your forehead. “HYPOCRITE,” I mean.
Rank hypocrisy’s the oldest game in town among liberals, Dennis ... You’re talking to guys here who’ve been around the block a few times, who see through that stuff — no, sorry but no Hillary volunteers or Obama swooners here, my friend ...
Now run along and volunteer for the Obama campaign, that’s more your speed. There’s a good lad.
Oh, and you say your ancestry’s “Dutch”? Hell, looking at the shape that country’s in, that doesn’t exactly come as a surprise ...
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM | #
Hell, we’re really hitting the jackpot tody in terms of commenters ... plenty of Landons, and now Dennis ... What’s next, Johan Hari?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM | #
My God how could i miss this? Reis is a homophobe so it doesn’t surprise me he would post something like this. Let me tell you Mr. Homosexuality is not a “disorder” of any kind. I have never encountered one homosexual that turned into a heterosexual. Although i know too many married men with children for my own good that engage in homosexuality on the side. I would know! Don’t you think such men would say their straight? for a lot of reasons They don’t want to loose their wives or children, They want to keep whats familiar, They can keep thinking they are like everyone else and “normal” because people like you tell them otherwise. Darling although i am gay i have been attracted to women and if the right girl came along who knows? I believe given the right circumstances/situations most people lean towards bisexuality. I know your main purpose to post this might have been to make homosexuals feel “bad” and convince others that all thats true but you failed miserably! (at least for making me feel bad).
Posted by Peter on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 05:42 PM | #
Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/aidsquotes.htm
Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record that the “Hiv-Aids” theories, routinely reported to the public as if they were facts, are dubious to say the least.
Information shown in red indicates recent additions.
Posted by Robert Reis on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 06:55 PM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: On traction, and a farewell to a political friend
Previous entry: Startup Says It Can Make Ethanol for $1 a Gallon, and Without Corn
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 08:58 AM | #