Talk:Judith A. Reisman

Where Is the Opposing Point of View

Slanderous accusations are made about Kinsey that are completely unanswered here, which is completely unacceptable.

Reisman states that Kinsey said all of us were bisexual. He certainly did not. The Kinsey scale noted that a full 10 percent of the population was fully heterosexual. That's just one thing that I didn't even need to look up. This really needs to be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic Article

I don't know why this article is even included, given the scant information provided. Have her followers and adherents simply deleted everything negative? If so, that could explain why so little is left. The real story of Reisman is that she began her professional career working for Playboy magazine (I see no mention of that anywhere), and later began making a fool of herself before Congressional sub-committees while trying to ban pornography. She later claimed to have been told by a Deepthroat-like informant that she should check into Kinsey's work; she refuses to divulge the informant's name, causing many to be suspicious of the story. She has NO medical training, yet seems to consider herself a scientist worthy of pontificating on such things as "eroto-toxins" (substances which don't even exist). Again, no mention of any of this in the article. What are you people afraid of? That we'll see through her facade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighting, layout of pro- and anti-spin sections

The section labelled "Pro-Reisman spin" was copyvio from [1] and has been removed. The article is now stylistically coherent. Since the user who marked this article "cleanup" did not leave an explanation, I assume the poor formatting and disjoint perspectives were responsible for the cleanup tag. I have thus removed "cleanup".

The remaining material was marked as "anti-Reisman spin", but seems comparatively NPOV from a casual reading. Feel free to edit for POV. -- Creidieki 17:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

It seems to me that this article isn't NPOV'ed that well. It seems to be fairly anti-Reisman or at least slightly condescending toward her. Perhaps someone could review this also and make suggestions/corrections? I'll try to do this myself as well. -SocratesJedi | Talk 17:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Reisman's fans have been very systematically trying to remove information about her views that are outside the mainstream. For example, except for the reference, little has remained of the essay Crafting Gay Children, where she speaks of a grand media conspiracy to "recruit" homosexuals. Instead, emphasis is put on her more socially acceptable work on discrediting Kinsey. I think this is the real NPOV issue here, and the article should try to give a full account of Reisman's views, including her belief in erototoxins, the gay world conspiracy, etc.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 09:48 (UTC)

Lancet review

Does anyone have a full copy of the Lancet review which is so prominently quoted? I'd particularly like to know which passages the quote omits, and whether a counterpoint was published alongside the review.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 09:45 (UTC)

I've removed the quote, and added some more balancing material. The Lancet piece in question is a casually crafted book review, not an academic work. Thus, the claim that it 'demolishes' Kinsey's work should be treated with a degree of sceptism. In looking up the work, I stumbled across evidence that most of Reisman's 'evidence' is nothing new. Her contribution is really the political spin and smear-job on Kinsey. That's not to say that I buy the findings of his research, I'm just not buying hysteria.Limegreen 1 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not object to having a quote from the book review if it is clearly presented as such, and perhaps balanced out by other reviews. I think the article is fine as it is, though Kinsey Reports makes a good case that, while the methodology used by Kinsey wasn't up to today's standards, later studies have shown that many of his key observations still hold.--Eloquence* July 1, 2005 13:59 (UTC)

Copyvio on Activism against Pornography?

I'm concerned that the Acvitivism against Pornography section is a copyvio. They syntax was broken (check the page history immeditially before my revision on the date of this message) and although I can not directly google-match unique text strings, I'm still concerned. I will leave it for now, because I have no evidence it's copyvio, but could someone please check me on it? Thanks. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

revisions to Miscellaneous section

Dr. Makow's opinions in other areas are irrelevant to the truth of Dr. Reismans' claims regarding Kinsey. Therefore, I'm deleting most of the Misc. section.

Reference Desk comment

From the Humanities reference desk, apparently Dr. Reisman has an issue with the article as written; I vaguely know this person's work, but thought I'd link this over here so editors with experience and knowledge can have a heads-up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Erototoxin merge

I have attempted the erototoxin article merge, I believe that it conforms to the neutral POV policy, welcome to any changes. AJMW | Talk

Not really NPOV, she is a Ph.D. in Communications and here making statements based on nueropsychological 'findings'. She is certainly not trained to argue in this field. 76.88.44.194 (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Due to the controversial nature of the article, I'd strongly suggest that inline citations be used here, so that fact-checking can be easily performed. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 15:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of this article by Judith A. Reisman

The content of this article is being criticised by its subject and is reported at

• Matt C. Abbott (December 3, 2006). "Kinsey critic refutes Wikipedia entry". renewamerica.us. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Lumos3 12:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That article is worth reading, if only beacause Abbott quotes Reisman as saying that "glucose" is an "erototoxin". Newsflash, Dr. Reisman: no glucose, no brain. To paraphrase the Simpsons, "Homer no function well glucose without." How did this C with a doctorate in Communications (i.e. Public Relations and Media) become an expert on brain chemistry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Since we bring up the topic, don't some universities revoke the sheepskins of people who perpetrate embarassing frauds like this? Sweetfreek (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed a good question. How does someone who studied the biology of insects, become an expert on human sexuality. --41.19.220.57 (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, you're right: before Kinsey there was no way to get a diploma in empirically studying human sexuality. That's the whole point: he gave start to sexology as an academic field. Similarly, there was a time when there was no such thing as an IT degree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There were indeed urology and ob-gyn, but MDs were rife with prejudice against masturbation and homosexuality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Radical stubbing

I have not yet reviewed in full the complaints about this article, but nonetheless saw enough to be convinced that at a minimum, a radical stub-and-rewrite exercise is in order. Before editing this article, please review WP:BLP and check yourself very very carefully for bias. Be extremely cautious about sourcing, and make sure that you do not read more into the sources than are actually there. If you have been involved in a dispute about this article in the past, it could be better for you to avoid direct editing and merely participate for a bit in a discussion here on the talk page.

--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Critics of Reisman's work regularly criticise the poor quality of its methodology. Reisman may want such evidence-based peer critical analysis of her work censored from Wikipedia, but I fail to see why Wikipedia should collude in this practice. To be blunt, Reisman is perceived as an ideologue outside her social conservative networks, and any Wikipedia entry about her work should reflect that general conclusion.

[User Calibanu] 11.15, 11 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibanu (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

I have two complaints about the text added back:

1. "Dr. Reisman claims that erototoxins are addictive psychoactive neurochemicals, and exposure to them contributes to an increase in serial murder, rape, child molestation, and erectile dysfunction ([2])." The link, though, does not support that very specific claim. The other link to The Guardian only supports the significantly different claim that "According to The Guardian, Reisman says that pornography is an erototoxin."

Do you see why this is so different? In the first case, it sounds as though Reisman is claiming the existence some new class of neurochemicals, which does not seem to be the claim she is making, nor the sort of claim she seems likely to make. Rather, her claim, as I understand it, is that exposure to pornography gives rise to changes in the brain (presumably due to psychoactive neurochemicals).

2. The focus on the source of funding seems highly POV to me (even though it is sourced to the left-leaning Guardian). Dr. Reisman is a prominent scientist whose work has been funded by a wide variety of groups, and while the source of funds can in many cases be relevant, I think the case needs to be made more substantively that it is relevant here. Did she seek funding only from such groups, or from more traditional sources of scientific funding as well? We don't know, and in the meantime I think that caution is warranted.

I am sorry to be such a stickler here, but this is a very sensitive matter and absolute attention to accuracy will be worth our time.--Jimbo Wales 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what your religious leaders are telling you, "Dr" Reisman is not a "scientist" at all, distinguished or otherwise. You give away your socio-political attitude by referring to the Guardian as "left-leaning," by the way. People with a religious agenda often use that euphemism to refer to anything that leans left of their EXTREME Right-wing opinions. If you survey those taken seriously within the fields of psychology and human sexuality, 90% of them consider Reisman a nut case with an axe to grind. She is NOT taken seriously by those of us in the field, and she and her followers are evidence that the embers of intolerance still burn brightly in American society. Luckily Kinsey and others succeeded in extinguishing the flames of your stupidity long ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk • contribs)

Value judgments (as "veiled" as they may want to be) do not belong in an encyclopaedic article

Which is why I have taken the liberty of removing the following sentence:

"Reisman has yet to satisfactorily explain how degrees in Communications qualify her to debunk any scientist's work."

There are no quotation marks in the article itself, so it is perfectly safe to assume that this is not a part of a quotation (this particular sentence would have been irrelevant anyway); rather, it is the personal opinion of whoever wrote that part.

Why "opinion"? Because it clearly implies a personal value judgment:

a) the sentence itself has no special intrinsic informative value, especially not in the present wording. In other words, it's unnecessary for the purpose of delivering unbiased information about the subject discussed.

b) Rhetoric turns of speech, subjective connotations ("has yet to satisfactorily explain", not to mention irony) and slang words like "debunk" do not belong in an objective report, and are not usually used - unless, experience shows, the writer wants to discredit whoever or whatever s/he is writing about. Discrediting is not considered an acceptable practice in encyclopaedic articles.

• • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.54.226 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lancet Review

Dr. Reisman's editing of the review was, shall we say, creative?

A lot more than the lyrics of Cole Porter will need rewriting unless serious charges against the late Alfred C. Kinsey and three of his colleagues are rebutted. The Kinsey reports (one in 1949 on males and the companion four years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier m life, was more varied and more frequent, and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at that time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr Porter again, "Anything goes". In Kinsey Sex and Fraud Dr Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports.' At the one-third mark the book switches target to the "liberal" codes of sexual morality and sex education that have been built, it is alleged, on the Kinsey findings. The important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are imperfections in the sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations on children. Any questionnaire survey in a normally private area is subject to bias from differences in those who respond and those who refuse, and there is no ready means of checking the information. The book goes beyond that, however, for Kinsey et al questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of "normal" sexual behaviour. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from paedophiles--or or so it must be hoped. Kinsey, an otherwise harmless student of the gall wasp, has left his former co-workers some explaining to do. It is a pity that his attackers, with their confusing editorship/authorship, did not lay down their pens with those questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar to Reisman

I cannot figure out if/how this should be included in the article but I found something substantially similar to what Reisman is saying:

Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children, by Victor B. Cline, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Salt Lake City, Utah:

"The first change that happened was an addiction-effect. The porn-consumers got hooked. Once involved in pornographic materials, they kept coming back for more and still more. The material seemed to provide a very powerful sexual stimulant or aphrodisiac effect, followed by sexual release, most often through masturbation. The pornography provided very exciting and powerful imagery which they frequently recalled to mind and elaborated on in their fantasies.

"Once addicted, they could not throw off their dependence on the material by themselves, despite many negative consequences such as divorce, loss of family, and problems with the law (such as sexual assault, harassment or abuse of fellow employees)."

That, and other things, sure sounds a lot like what Judith Reisman is saying.

I am adding this here because I sense the suggestion that JAR is alone in her views on this issue, for example the inclusion of the "denialism" category. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think a promotional piece originally put out by Morality in Media is worth a fraction of a second's consideration. It certainly does not qualify as a reliable source and thus is not eligible for inclusion as a reference here. Further, pointing out that other like-minded crackpots have views similar to Reisman's is a matter outside the scope of this article. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Well, that's why it's in the talk section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding use of "The Kinsey Syndrome" as a source of some kind

This edit attempts to make an assertion based upon reference to the DVD with this title. There is nothing to indicate that this DVD is anything more than yet another self-published trashing of Kinsey and his work - starring Reisman herself. There is nothing in Google News to indicate that any third-party media source has even breathed a word about it. The site hawking the DVD simply links back to Reisman's work - another obvious red flag that the source is completely unreliable and unusable as a source here. Regarding the suggestion that I go watch this DVD, inclusion in Wikipedia is not dependent upon my review of such primary sources, but upon reviews and other references in reliable sources that can be cited and verified by other editors. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, stay cool, let me explain, then I'll let you restore the edit. The edit is not there to assert the truth of the matters Reisman is asserting. If it were, I would agree with you that it is not a reliable source. Rather, the edit is there for another reason.

The article is written in a biased fashion, and one of the methods of its bias is to present the appearance that Reisman is the sole kook in the world to believe the wacky stuff she does. Well that's how the article reads to me. That conclusion is further supported when efforts to show she is, in fact, not alone in her opinions are summarily removed without first discussing in talk as requested in edit history comments, then the reverse demand is made that it may not be added until it's discussed. Clever, but clearly biased.

So the edit is there to provide balance against the claim that Reisman stands alone in the world. Apparently, she does not. So the source evidences that she does not stand alone, not that she is correct in her views. To that extent, the source is acceptable --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to balance the claim that Reisman stands alone with a counterclaim, then you need a verifiable reliable source for the counterclaim to do that (a demand for "balance" does not override these policies). A self-published DVD with Reisman in it that has received zero coverage in a reliable source is insufficient to do what you're attempting to do. Please see the section on the use of primary sources. The conclusion that Reisman is not alone cannot be supported by this source because (1) you would be making an evaluative claim based on your interpretation of a primary source (Reisman herself in the film) which I suppose is what you're suggesting I should also do by telling me I should go look at the video, or (2) the claim is directly made in the video, but the video is not a reliable source. Both are not permitted per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'd make an educated guess that many if not most of the attacks on Kinsey I've run into from time to time in recent years are not from Reisman, but that is not necessarily relevant to this article, since I don't see even the suggestion in this article of a claim made that Reisman is the single lonely wacko attacking Kinsey. The article simply states that no notable biographer of Kinsey agrees with her claim - that statement's not evidence of bias, simply a statement of fact about the set of people verifiably most familiar with Kinsey's life. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV again

I think in the quest to balance what could have been seen as an anti-Reismann article, this article has been edited too far in the other direction. There is now no indication that there is any disagreement in the psychological or sexological community toward Reismann's views on Kinsey, homosexuality, "erototoxins", etc. In fact, generally speaking, her views are considered quite fringe. Criticisms of her work and views, presented in a balanced way without undue weight, need to be included for this article to comply with WP:NPOV. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Norman Doidge

Why is there a paragraph about another person's opinion, without any connection to Judith Reisman? It looks like the only reason for it to be there is to make Reisman look less like a lone nut (a daunting task if there ever was one), but that's WP:OR and needs to be deleted. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reverted my deletion, but I will remove it again unless a connection can be demonstrated. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says "Reisman says that there are chemicals in the brain...." Then the very next paragraph says, "Others have similar views." They way it is worded, "Reisman says," implies no one else is saying it. So the next paragraph says, "Others have similar views." There are other people saying what Reisman is saying. Writing the article in a way that implies she is a "lone nut" is simply misleading.

What Ratatosk Jones has said, "It looks like the only reason for it to be there is to make Reisman look less like a lone nut (a daunting task if there ever was one)," illustrates bias. It seems Ratatosk Jones's interest in the article is to ensure Reisman appears to be "a lone nut." And that violates [WP:BLP].--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, saying she's a lone nut implies as much. Saying other people have similar ideas implies otherwise. Removing the paragraph entirely is neutral. What you're doing is WP:OR. Are there sources who have pointed to Doidge or Charen as support for Reisman? Do they even claim that their ideas are similar? As far as I can see the only one doing that is you. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"[T]he only one doing that is you." No, Norman Doidge did. Stop personalizing things. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, then you should have no problem producing a quote where he does so. Is it in his book or in a separate interview? Either way we can get rid of Charen, so that's a plus. So, what's the source? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously feel you have some kind of personal stake in besmirching the subject of this page. Remember, there are rules related to living persons. Your efforts to make her the "lone nut" may violate those policies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, what's the source? We'll need a quote that connects the two, otherwise it will have to go. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Ratatosk Jones-o-pedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't made it clear. This is an article about Judith Reisman. It's about her life and her research. It's **not** an article about Norman Doidge or his book. Bringing them up in this article without a source making the connection between the two means the connection was made by the editor. That violates WP:OR. So, unless you can find a source connecting the two, this article is in violation of WP:OR. That means the paragraph must be deleted. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As you said, Reisman is a "lone nut." Your POV, not mine. The Doidge information shows that Reisman is not a "lone nut." Without the Doidge info, the "lone nut" impression is evident. That is the POV and possible BLP violation. The Doidge info ameliorates the "lone nut" language. Reisman is, in fact, not a "lone nut." Without the Doidge info, the "lone nut" article is POV. There need be no source directly connected Reisman to Doidge. If sources supporting certain views needed to be somehow interconnected in and of themselves, there would be a lot less reliable sources available for use on Wikipedia.

Be that as it may, I do appreciate our talking about this here instead of constantly editing and reediting the main page.

Be honest, do you, like myself, have constant trouble spelling DOIDGE? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But you admit yourself that this information is added to support a POV. Not having the information does not imply that Reisman is a lone nut (my opinion: she's a nut, but sadly not alone). If I were to add a sentence saying "Reisman is the only one to hold these views" that would be wrong. I'd have no problem adding Doidge if he at any point had been used as an example of Reisman's views, but so far it seems the only one to do that is the wikipedia editor who added the paragraph. That's my problem. Go to WP:SYN. Specifically these paragraphs:

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

[...]

In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

That has been exactly my point. Source A (Reisman) and B (Doidge) have been put together to support a POV. It's that synthesis that needs to be sourced.

I'm not going to start edit warring over this (that rarely leads somewhere anyway), but if there's no change here I'll probably look for a third opinion or something.

As for spelling Doidge, it actually seems to flow naturally when I spell it. But yeah, it is a bit unusual... Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources."

Correct, but that's not being done here. That's not the intended or actual effect of what's being done here. And they are not put together to support a POV, as you say, rather to avoid a POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking like it's not POV the way it currently stands. It is. The information was included as you yourself admit to remove a certain POV. Again, you can't make that connection per WP:SYN. If someone else has, great, include it, it should be there. But with the current paragraph there is no connection being made, not by Doidge, not by Charen. It's made by you.

Anyway, I feel we're not making progress, so I've asked for a third opinion. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<--Third Opinion - a request was made at WP:Third opinion for another editor to join the discussion here. I'm sorry it's taken so long for you to get a response, I can only assume the other editors who offer opinions had a busy weekend too. I can suggest that I am suitably independent to offer a third opinion here as I have never come across the two editors and have not edited this article.

Firstly, my congratulations to you both on not edit warring over this issue: Ratatosk Jones quite rightly states above that it doesn't acheive anything and I've never seen any good come of an edit war.

In looking at the article and the wikipedia guidelines and policies, it is clear to me that the paragraph on Doidge is not suitable for an article about Reisman. WP:NPOV does not mean that an article should take a neutral stance on its subject, it says that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Therefore, if the reliable sources suggest Reismann's writings are extreme, unusual or not given much credence by others, that is what the article must reflect.

If there were suitable WP:Reliable sources discussing a link between Reismann and Doidge then it could be included in the article. If an editor notices the connection between two separate things they must use a reliable source that has made the same connection in order to support its addition into the article, otherwise they are performing WP:Original research which is unacceptable.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, from reviewing the talk page it seems you have made similar connections before and been told why they are not acceptable. This situation is identical, and again the requirement is for a suitable source to make the connection. As editors we cannot suggest the connection ourselves.

I think an editor should remove the paragraph, I prefer not to edit articles I have recently offered a third opinion for. I am quite happy to continue the debate and have this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, Bigger digger (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. As might be expected, I completely agree. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy giving third opinions so it's no problem, but Ratatosk Jones I must note that your discussion above with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is not a good example of civility and you could consider how to improve your interaction with fellow editors. Everyone has their own POVs and biases, and makes mistakes, and it is our responsibility to approach these in a sensible and civil way, which sometimes your contributions to the talk page don't quite reach. I think if you review again what you wrote you might agree. Good luck to you both, and the article. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Ratatosk Jones, go ahead and make the change. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms from experts

Alright, I understand the issues with one of the sources I used for my last edit, but the reversion seemed a bit heavy handed. The deleted material included criticisms by Dr. Loretta Haroian (of the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, Dept. of Child & Adolescent Sexuality) and Dr. Robert Figlio (of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Studies in Criminology & Criminal Law) as quoted in the book "Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship*." Both quotes were cited as such.

The first, from Figlio, referred to her study of Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse:

It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, 'The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.' Figlio told the press, 'I wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn'.

It seems reasonable to include criticisms of the validity of her work- that is, whether the research measured what she claimed it did- in an article which includes information on said work.

The second, from Haroian, also criticizes Reisman's research:

This is not science, it's vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing doesn't help children at all. ... [Reisman's] study demonstrates gross negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time collecting her data, her conclusions, based on the data, are completely unwarranted. The experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not experts at all but simply people who have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and children

Haroian notes several issues, including the validity issue. Again, it seems reasonable to include this criticism in the article.

Finally, her statement that the Kinsey Institute threatened AU if they published her works comes from her own words, and is also available on her website:

The commercial sex industry now joined forces with the Kinsey Institute and academic sexology to prevent any light from being shed on their world. In time I would obtain copies of secret letters and packages, clandestinely sent worldwide by the Kinsey Institute and pornographers, to discredit my investigation into Kinsey and that of children appearing in their magazines. The Kinsey Institute had secretly threatened American University with a lawsuit if I was allowed to carry out my study. Therefore, concealing why they were being such obstructionists, the University demanded that I study nothing relating to Kinsey. Of course, this was a complete violation of academic freedom as well as the public's right to know, indeed what the taxpayer was paying to know. All along, the Kinsey Institute maintained a constant, stealth effort, largely censoring me and my findings from the print and broadcast media, all relevant professional conferences and journals, book publishers and such.

• Full cite: Carol, Avedon 1994, Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship, New Clarion Press, Gloucester.

Dysperdis (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems perfectly ok to me. We should definitely have at least some of this in the article. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Be sure it follows Wiki policy. Adhere to WP:BLP and WP:RS, for example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I included those two quotes from Haroian and Figlio, as well as noting that she claimed that the Kinsey Institute threatened AU, with a link to the section of her website where she made the claim. If anyone notices a policy issue within the changes, please let me know what so I can learn from my mistakes. Dysperdis (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section is the largest and needs work

The "criticisms" section is the largest section. This page is veering away from Wikipedia policy. Clean up the section or, better, incorporate the encyclopedic portions of it into the article, or I'll do it myself. Be mindful of WP:BLP while you are at it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reisman toxin view supported

Reisman's view on "erototoxins" seems to be supported, and here is a resource containing relevant information: www DOT examiner DOT com/x-14708-Toddlers-to-Teens-Examiner~y2009m9d16-Reality-Check-children-and-the-dangers-of-online-pornography-Part-1 "Reality Check: Children And the Dangers of Online Pornography (Part 1)". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no, there's nothing in there supporting Reisman on toxins, unless one is being overly literal. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

True, the word "erototoxin" does not appear, but the views of at least two people are substantially similar. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here again, more support:

Pornography is "visually magnetic" to the male brain. Struthers presents a fascinating review of the neurobiology involved, with pleasure hormones becoming linked to and released by the experience of a male viewing pornographic images. These experiences with pornography and pleasure hormones create new patterns in the brain\'s wiring, and repeated experiences formalize the rewiring.

And then, enough is never enough. "If I take the same dose of a drug over and over and my body begins to tolerate it, I will need to take a higher dose of the drug in order for it to have the same effect that it did with a lower dose the first time," Struthers reminds us. So, the experience of viewing pornography and acting out on it creates a demand in the brain for more and more, just to achieve the same level of pleasure in the brain.

Source: http://pornharms.com/full_article.php?article_no=25

Also see http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/01/hijacking-the-brain-how-pornography-works/ "Pornography 'acts as a polydrug, Struthers explains.'" --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point to doing all this original research? No connection to Reisman that I can see. There's no need to even go into the rather sad state of his research. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh – you know what that means, don't you? Pornography and Christianity have something very fundamental in common. They both have a somatic effect on their consumers, rewire their brains, and change people's minds. Sounds kind of like the thing you'd expect ideas to do in a country with laws that protect freedom of expression, doesn't it?

— Annalee Newitz, "Your Brain on Porn. Pornography and Christianity have something very fundamental in common." Alternet, 29 November 2004

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Coming back to the initial claim, no, there is absolutely no mention of "erototoxin" on PubMed. Not even from quackademics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Another talk page at Talk:Judith Reisman

The name of the article is Judith Reisman, so shouldn't this talk page go to Talk:Judith Reisman? Star767 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)