You are on page 1of 35




The following analysis was solicited by Detective Anthony Asassano an
Investigator for the Pennsylvania Attorney General seeking factual data
about former Penn State University President Graham Spanier.


Judith Reisman, PhD
Liberty University, School of Law

Revised report, March 2017

Spanier, Graham, Basil 1948, “Sexual Socialization And Premarital Sexual Behavior: An Empirical

Investigation Of The Impact Of Formal And Informal Sex Education,” Northwestern University, Ph.D.,

Sociology, Family A Dissertation Submitted To The Graduate School In Partial Fulfillment Of The
Requirements For The Degree Doctor Of Philosophy, Field Of Sociology, Evanston, Illinois, June, 1973.

This report was solicited by the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s investigator to provide factual
information about former Penn State University President Graham Spanier, to ascertain Spanier's
possible foreknowledge of Coach Jerry Sandusky’s child sexual abuses committed at Penn State
University. Recent revelations that "pornographic emails in the scandal involve judges, U.S.
attorneys, attorneys general, district attorneys and public defenders" discovered in preparation
for this trial suggests its importance. Former Attorney General Kathleen Kane claimed during her
investigation of the events that she was subjected to a backlash from "an old boy's club
determined to stop her from disclosing details about the scandal that involved figures in the
state's legal and law enforcement communities."2 In any case, highly educated authorities, such
as teachers and others are increasingly reported as convicted for child sexually abusive activities.

Further evidence of the educated elite inadequately reporting allegations of child sexual abuse,
including the downloading of child pornography by university officials is seen in the conviction
records being collected and publicized by Dr. Lori Handrahan and, Professors
& Staff Arrested for Trading in Child Rape. These “high education” records highlight the sexual
attitudes of well-educated leaders, typified by the Jerry Sandusky case. While the data illustrate
the pressing need to investigate college administrators’ roles in facilitating or failing to prevent
such sex crimes, even more, this case highlights the need to question what false sex science fraud
has misshaped and misdirected many “higher education” achievers for nearly 70 years.

The question that should be asked of Spanier and other administrators is what/when did Dr.
Spanier know of Sandusky's child sex assaults? And, how many other high level authorities
were educated by a similar sexual worldview as Jerry Sandusky and Dr. Spanier?

As this report clearly documents, Dr. Spanier held himself out as a sexuality expert. Based on his
1973 doctoral dissertation Spanier had a long-standing focus on adult sex with children. His
dissertation, ("Sexual Socialization") establishes his intellectual commitment to sexually radical,
beliefs. His public campus support of sexually abusive activities identifies Dr. Spanier as well-
informed and accepting of radical sexuality, including child sexual abuse—although he did not
view sex with children under age 13 as abuse. This raises the question of who--besides the
President of Penn State--benefited from his support of such sexploitation? A leader choses those
to serve under him who share his worldview and who will protect that worldview.

My own academic experience with the arrest and conviction of Dr. Richard Berendzen, then President of
American University, Washington, DC, for child related sex abuses, alerted me to the problem of
pedophilia at the highest levels.3 In 2011, University of New Mexico president F. Chris Garcia was

arrested in a prostitution sting.4 An Oklahoma Baptist University professor was arrested in Pennsylvania for a
particularly heinous child pornography case in 2011. 5 A tad lower on the education pole is Jeffrey Delk, 2013, a
development officer for the University of Georgia also arrested and charged with the possession of child
pornography.6 Michael Mallery, vice president for finance and administration at Pacific University in
Oregon was charged with the sexual abuse of two relatives under the age of 18 in January 23, 20147; A
well respected, University of Washington researcher was arrested by Seattle police for possessing and
distributing child pornography in January 2013.8 As Dr. Handrahan documents, the list goes on.

So, when President of Penn State University, Dr. Graham Spanier was accused of a “cover-up” of the
child sex crimes of Coach Jerry Sandusky, these are just some of our higher education mavens. Sandusky
had a history of sodomizing boys, including having been observed with one 10-year old boy, naked, in a
Penn State shower. Dr. Spanier has claimed ignorance of pederast abuse 9 in academe.10 In 1998, police
investigated a report by an 11-year-old boy about a Sandusky shower incident. A psychologist warned,
Sandusky fit a “likely pedophile’s pattern.” Although Sandusky apologized for “poor judgment,” Dr.
Spanier ignored the possible crimes.11 However, if the victims were not yet 13 years old, Spanier could
have been convinced that young children were even benefited in later life by early sexual assault.

Indeed, Spanier’s sophisticated awareness of the awareness of “formal” and “informal” sex education, we
turn to his doctoral dissertation for the “scientific” origin of his public declarations about sexuality. His
“expert” testimony below would validate even the few aberrant paraphilias remaining today; incest, child
prostitution, sexual abuse, rape, necrophilia, indeed, serial sexual murder, not just “mate swapping”.
Spanier’s would excuse adult sodomy of boys as “defined as deviant,” but not deviant in itself. The royal
“we” is used below. For greater clarity, I am using “I” as I, Graham Spanier.

[I] choose to view deviant behavior simply as behavior that some value and others
consider wrong. An individual's behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as
deviant. Much of an individual's behavior can be viewed as a response to this `labeling.'
Mate swapping, then, can be viewed as either deviant or normal behavior, depending on
who is viewing it and from what perspective it is being viewed.12

As the title of his paper would suggest (sexuality/sex is in the title three times) Spainer got his doctorate
as an alleged sexuality expert. Thus his sexual theories would impact upon his expertise in marriage,
family therapy and sociology. As founding editor of the Journal of Family Issues Spanier would affect the
anarchistic state of family today. For, he famously contributed to ten books and more than 100 scholarly
journal articles, testifying to the far-reaching effects of his “findings”. His most important foundational

9 Also see, 232 Ave Maria
International Law Journal Vol. 1:2, 64% of Boys Who Are Forced Sodomy Victims, and, “DoJ data identify 64% of forcible sodomy victims as boys
under age twelve.” p. 245.
S.E.S.A.M.E.,, see also,


Graham B. Spanier Ph.D., Charles L. Cole Ph.D., Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1975, Vol. 4, No. 2.
work--his PhD thesis—opens the door to his ideational philosophy; a philosophy currently shared by a
multitude of similarly educated and credentialed men and women. He says;

“The data for this dissertation were collected by the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana
University…by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Spanier’s dissertation utilized interviews conducted already by the National Opinion Research Center of the
University of Chicago and directed by the Institute for Sex Research—the Kinsey Institute.14 (112)

SPANIER’s Cover-up History 1973-2013
Graham Spanier’s possible guilt in the cover up of Sandusky’s child abuse crimes would follow a long
standing, historical pattern of academic cover ups of child sexual abuse. In 1973 he further covered up Dr.
Alfred C. Kinsey’s child sex abuse atrocities, relying on Kinsey-based research in 1948 and 1953 as the
foundation for his doctoral thesis. Spanier was not the only one hiding that material. The National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Opinion Research Center additionally
have been complicit in the cover-up of the Kinsey Institute crimes. First, let us establish Spanier’s
position on child sexual abuse of girls, presuming boys would be thought of in the same way.

Spanier “Females” Under 13 Are Unharmed by Adult Sex Abuse

“Hypothesis 7: Females who report having been exhibited to, approached, or touched
sexually by an older man while a child will report the same level of premarital
heterosexual involvement as females who have not.” (1595)

Hypothesis 8: Females who report having been sexually assaulted or exhibited to since the
age of 12 or 13 will report a higher level of premarital heterosexual involvement than
females who have not.” (95)

“Hypotheses 7 and 8 are stated to reflect the thinking presented in this chapter that before
age 12 or 13, the experiences in question would not be interpreted as sexual and
subsequently would not influence premarital heterosexual involvement. However, after
age 12 or 13, when the adolescent is capable of understanding sexual experiences in adult
contexts, it is hypothesized that sexual assault or exposure would influence premarital
heterosexual involvement.” (96) (Emphasis added)

Spanier’s Specious Focus on Early Sex Abuse Not Impacting Marriage

Perhaps “refinements of the ones used by Kinsey et al. in the original Institute for Sex Research studies of
sexual behavior” were involved in Spanier’s conclusion that before around age 13, roughly 7% of girls
were “touched sexually”. (411) He concludes that:

It was shown, for example, that sexual assault before ages 12 or 13 was not related to
sexual behavior before marriage, whereas sexual assault after ages 12 or 13 was….There

Chicago College Youth Study (NORC Survey #4020) Youth

Cultures and Aspects of the Socialization Process. (W. Simon & J. H. Gagnon, 1967).

Citations inserted below () after quotes marks, are to Spanier’s thesis.
is perhaps tentative evidence which shows that a child's sex education, sex knowledge,
sexual values, and sexual behavior from adolescence onward will not be influenced by
childhood experiences since as a child he or she [there was no “he”] is not capable of
interpreting sexual information and experiences in the same way an adult would. (373)

So “it was shown” that early sex offenses do not harm children and “he or she” can have a normal adult
marriage. And, why would sex assault, sex education and pornography do no harm to preadolescents? It
is not clear that Spanier himself queried these females and equally unclear if he queried males about early
sex abuse. If so he chose not to report what he found.

As noted, the cover up of the Sandusky anal rapes of boys as young as 10 years old, follows a long
standing pattern shared by the Kinsey Institute. The reason he did not rely on Kinsey’s original data, says
Spanier, was technical; not moral or because of criminality.

This was the first systematically drawn national sample dealing with sexual behavior ever
studied. The Kinsey data (Kinsey et al., 1948 and 1953), of course, were not based on
probability sampling techniques, and problems in interpretation due to this weakness
have been noted and widely discussed in the literature. (113)

Kinsey drastically misled scientists about the true sexual behavior of humans and the consequences of
sexual behavior, especially child sexual abuse. Arguably, Spanier’s own cover-up of pedophilia and
pederasty was visible in his 1973 doctorate thesis. He quotes Kinsey throughout and relyies on the
Institute, still claiming his authority. But not only was Kinsey’s “probability sampling” unscientific,
W. Allen Wallis, past-president of the American Statistical Association, concluded that: “Kinsey’s
data relate to criminals and sex deviates…. “roughly 86 percent” does appear to be in the right ballpark

Yet, an earlier study of college students--ignored by Spanier--found that merely 3 years after Kinsey’s
report, those students who read it in class had become significantly more permissive. Table 4 (above)

demonstrated that change. Changes In Sexual Behavior And Attitudes Following Class Study Of The

16 Judith Reisman, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, Forth Ed, Institute for Media Education, 2012, p. ii.
Kinsey Report, by F. Harold Giedt (1951)17 shows the effect on college students of believing “normal”
sexual behavior, is actually that of “criminals and sex deviates.” And Giedt concludes:

“Though by no means
complete ignorance of sexual
behavior existed before the
publication of Sexual Behavior
in the Human Male by Kinsey,
Pomeroy, and Martin (5), the
increment in knowledge
contributed by this book is
quite impressive….
Whatever influence the
dissemination of all this
information has is apt to be
widespread. Therefore, it
seemed valuable to study the effects this new knowledge might have on individual
behavior and attitudes.”18

Spanier’s neglect of a study comparing the attitudinal change of an experimental group of college
students who read the Institute of Sex Research report with a control group that didn’t read it is
more than shoddy research. Giedt’s 1951 student responses (p. 139) roughly 20 years prior to
Spanier’s dissertation, clearly demonstrates their adoption (and Spanier’s) of Kinsey’s fraudulent
“data” on marital issues.

College Men Really Believed in Love, Marriage

As above, the view of sex outside of marriage was resisted by “Joe College” as late as 1959. The
Kronhausen’s like The Kinsey Institute anticipated freeing the world from sexual repression in law and
society. Yet, also purged from his dissertation on college students, was Spanier’s reference to Sex
Histories of American College Men (1960), which found “Joe College” was commonly a virgin, waiting
for his beloved bride (as was Hugh Hefner, the future Playboy founder):

Many of the students were as blushingly romantic about sex morals as any girl of their
age would be. To these young men, sex without love seemed utterly unethical. Some of
them did not even think it right to kiss a girl unless they were “in love.” … In our sample:
premarital intercourse is considered highly objectionable… [I]t remains a fact that this
group engages in relatively little premarital sexual intercourse.... The average modern
college man is apt to say that he considers intercourse “too precious” to have with
anyone except the girl he expects to marry and may actually abstain from all intercourse
for that reason…he considers himself much “emancipated”…19

While “mate swapping” was still viewed as deviant in 1960 by most college men, deviance was the norm
among subjects selected by the Institute, in data quoted often by Spanier. Yet, despite his inclusion in
“References,” of “Wallis, W. A. 1949 "Statistics of the Kinsey Report," Journal of the American
Statistical Association, (ASA) 44: 463-484, Spanier chose ignore ASA president Wallis stating that the

17 F. Harold Giedt, “Changes In Sexual Behavior And Attitudes Following Class Study Of The Kinsey Report,” Department of

Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles, The Journal of Social Psychology, 1951, pp. 33, 131-141.

18 Ibid, p. 131.
19 Judith Reisman, Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence, Institute for Media Education, 2012, p. 101.
Institute lied. Wallis found the Kinsey Institute had more than sampling problems, they had erasure
problems; apparently removing subjects rejected their hypotheses. Wallis counted 4,120 subjects
(not the 18,000 - 21,000) the Institute claimed to interview.20 Senior Kinsey Institute team member
William Simon admitted in an interview data came from 4,500 total males and females for the
Institute’s study.

Kinsey interviewed 18,000 people and used only a quarter of the cases in his two
reports. Some of the data are still on file, but haven’t ever been coded on the IBM
cards for statistical study yet.21

“Dr. William Simon,” worked on, but never publically revealed the Institute research fraud. It is he
Spanier says, “I would like to thank: The Institute for Sex Research and Dr. William Simon, Project
Director, for allowing me to use the data on which this study is based… (ii).”

Spanier College “Level,” Included Prisoners, Pedophiles, Pederasts

This brief history goes directly to Spanier’s credibility and his bias toward sexual deviance.

To study this relationship, data collected by the Institute for Sex Research will be used.
The data are from a national sample of 1177 college students interviewed at 12 colleges
and universities throughout the United States.(3)22

The Institute for Sex Research (known also as the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, or The Kinsey Institute,
etc.) provided the data for Spanier claims, “These data represent the first systematically drawn national
sample dealing with sexual behavior in the United States” of “college students”.(3) But, among other
scams. Kinsey included known deviants in his category college “level” men--not “college students.”23 I
briefly document 1,400 sex offenders, 200 “sex psychopaths,” and 1,929 criminals, 86% “subjects”
interviewed during WWII (APPENDIX A) -- all coded as “normal” average guys. Spanier states:

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study which attempts to investigate
empirically how the sexual socializing experiences of childhood and adolescence
influence the nature and extent of subsequent sexual behavior during high school and
college. (3)

“To study this relationship, data collected by the Institute for Sex Research will be used.” Indeed.
Spanier, using Kinsey’s data would legitimize then radical school sex education. It would be taught by
people who had no credentials at that time other than those self-created via self-training. These self-styled
sexologists were trained by Kinseyites to think all pornography harmless; to advocate for early sexual
experimentation, birth control, and to view adult access to children under 12 or 13 as largely harmless.

20 W. Allen Wallis, “Statistics of the Kinsey Report,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, December 1949, p. 474-457.
21 Reisman, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, p. 50
22 Spanier thesis, page 3.
23“In an especially slick semantic sleight-of-hand, he modified the standard litmus test for those who have been to “college” (13-plus

years of school), so that folks who merely travel or read a lot and might “ultimately go to college” could qualify for his “college-
level” category.” Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence. (65) … Kinsey’s data in the Male volume do not add up to his population claims.
Even Clyde Martin, his late-blooming “statistician,” has estimated that only 46 percent of “college level” men were included, while

Terman assumes that college men account for “more than half.” Actually, however, none of the data can be validated. If we begin

with 4,201 men as the data base, and deduct the admitted prison and other outlaw populations, the remainder reasonably qualifies as
his pool of “college level” (but not necessarily college-attending, as explained in” Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence.(90)
I will now largely focus only on Spanier’s view of child sex with adults —based on the “data.” His
euphemistic “premarital involvement” would include coitus and other sex activities. Again let us return
to Spanier’s hypotheses:

“Hypotheses 7 and 8 are stated to reflect the thinking presented in this chapter that before
age 12 or 13, the experiences in question would not be interpreted as sexual and
subsequently would not influence premarital heterosexual involvement. However, after
age 12 or 13, when the adolescent is capable of understanding sexual experiences in adult
contexts, it is hypothesized that sexual assault or exposure would influence premarital
heterosexual involvement.” (96) (Emphasis added).

Returning to Spanier’s views of morals in general and child sexual abuse in particular, the theses reflects
a general acceptance of sexual manipulation of children as non-harmful. Remember:

[S]exual assault before ages 12 or 13 was not related to sexual behavior before marriage,
whereas sexual assault after ages 12 or 13 was…. he or she [there was no “he”] is not
capable of interpreting sexual information and experiences in the same way an adult
would. (373)

So, “he or she” can thus have a normal adult marriage because of interpreting abuse as a child and not as
an adult. This is not validated by child development data. And, remember, Spanier specifically did NOT
query any of his male subjects or else he dumped the data because it didn’t comport with his mission.


“Many parts of the schedule [in his dissertation] are refinements of the ones used by
Kinsey et al. in the original Institute for Sex Research studies of sexual behavior.” (119)

Really? What “parts” and how “refined”? Nowhere is this stated clearly—is there is a reason to hide the
“parts” used? Science means all the facts are clear so that we can verify each of the claims and the raw
data. Spainer does not provide what these “refinements” were and what the “original data” were. He also
states the research he used is “yet unpublished”:

I chose to base this dissertation on the Institute for Sex Research data. Much of the
following discussion of population characteristics, sampling procedures, and data
collection is based on a summary by Carns (1969) (114)…. other data from the Institute
for Sex Research study, as yet unpublished, indicate….” (286) ….[D]ata collected by
the Institute for Sex Research are used. (352)….The data for this dissertation were
collected by the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University. (112)

Dr. Donald E. Carns is thanked for his assistance but we are given no citation, credentials for him.
This raises serious questions about what Institute data were used and where the National Opinion
Research Center data were used. What “data” does “Carns” summarize? On record, The Russell Sage
Foundation hired William Simon and John Gagnon to somehow get:

…the original Kinsey data "cleaned" of its bias. This, of course, would have exposed the
extent of the distortion in Kinsey's numbers. The project was botched….Gagnon and
Simon resigned from the Institute and were not invited back to complete the work 24

24 Judith Reisman, et al, Kinsey, Sex & Fraud, Huntington House Publishers, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1990, 178, 191.
Spanier regularly quotes the Kinsey Institute research and states Kinsey was “interviewing young
children”. Then certainly quote the children, all boys, who are the source of Tables 30-34, “timed”
orgasms, with stop watch, 24 hours around the clock for a 4 year old boy. This uncritical acceptance of
the Kinsey Institute data, absent any comment from Spainer, implies acceptance of the behavior.

How do the following statements by Spanier apply to the babies the Kinsey Institute team interviewed?
The team was “putting the subject at ease, assuring privacy, establishing rapport” as they masturbated,
filmed, and sodomized an (we found out in the British film Kinsey’s Paedophiles)25 the children? Was
“placing the burden of denial on the subject” part of the “effective research.” Clearly, with regard to the
children, “forcing the subject” was a necessary technique, not elaborated by the study’s authors.

Kinsey specifically elaborated on 23 technical devices which proved effective in his
research. These consisted of: putting the subject at ease, assuring privacy, establishing
rapport, sequence of topics, recognizing the subject's mental status, recording at time of
interview, systematic coverage, supplementary exploration, standardizing the point of the
question, adapting the form of the question, avoiding bias, direct questions, placing the
burden of denial on the subject, avoiding multiple questions, rapid-fire questioning,
cross-checks on accuracy, proving the answer, forcing the subject, limits of the Interview,
avoiding personal identifications, avoiding controversial issues, overt activities verses
attitudes, interviewing young children. These are elaborated in the 1948 volume.
Pomeroy (1963) and others have elaborated these methods in later publications. (162)

So, entrapment of children for sexual experiments is accepted.
“For example, a child who is sexually assaulted would not interpret the event as having
any sexual implications, because he or she [again, Spanier reports only on girls] is not
yet able to understand sexual behavior and interaction as an adult can. The event is
therefore not likely to influence subsequent sexual behavior any more than a clearly
non-sexual experience. If however, the same experience occurs after the individual is
capable of internalizing the event in strictly sexual terms, as would be the case with an
18 year old, the event might then have a more direct bearing on the individual's sexual
behavior. (373)”

25 Kinsey’s Paedophiles,
This common pedophile conclusion that sexual contact with a child is non-harmful is wholly invalid. His
theses is however, the world thinks it is deviant and thus harmful. Hence, he apparently hopes to bring the
world around to his understanding.

The “Fretful Babe” Gets “Helped” by an Abusing Pederast

Above the Kinsey Institute “interviewing young children” (162) alleging the response of a “fretful
babe” to assault by an adult(s).26 Photos from Darwin’s Expressions of Emotions in Humans and Animals,
describe a baby’s actual responses to abuse. What “convulsive” action? Who is “observing” this violent
abuse of infants and reporting it? Who is following up with these babies for “months or years?” Judges,
police and parents were told by “science” for years not to believe the children or to “overreact”. Kinsey’s
view was adult-child sex is harmless. Wardell Pomeroy’s commend:

Kinsey pointed out that what the nation and the FBI were calling heinous crimes against
children were things that appeared in a fair number of our total histories, and in only a small
number of cases was public attention ever aroused or the police involved. Kinsey numbered
himself among those who contended that, as far as so-called molestation of children was
concerned, a great deal more damage was done to the child by adult hysteria. 27
When children are constantly warned by parents and teachers against contacts with adults,
They are….hysterical as soon as any older person approaches, or stops and speaks to them in
the street, or fondles them…Some of the more experienced students of juvenile problems
have come to believe that the emotional reactions of the parents, police officers, and other
adults who discover that the child has had such a contact, may disturb the child more
seriously than the sexual contacts themselves. The current hysteria over sex offenders may
very well have serious effects on the ability of many of these children to work out sexual
adjustments some years later in their marriages. 28


If it is correct to state that premarital sexual behavior will be most directly influenced by
experiences and knowledge obtained after childhood, then it is necessary to suggest what
aspects of sexualization will influence sexual behavior, when the process begins, and how
the process works.(374)”

But, Spainer bases his “findings” on the Kinsey Institute data? Spanier’s knowledge of “when the process
begins, and how the process works” therefore come from the Institute’s sexual abuse of boy infants and
children. Spanier refers to Kinsey’s data and his “findings” throughout his dissertation.

The Kinsey Institute’s data on boys were all “under 13-years of age.”29 This was the age group of children
Spanier said had no response to sex assault, because they didn’t understand the sexual implications. What
follows is taken directly from pages 160-61, the Institute “data” on 196 boys experimented on for

Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence, 145.
Ibid, 215

Ibid, 226.
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1946, pages 160-161, Tables on pages 170-180.
Until the Sandusky scandal, Spanier considered himself an expert in child sexual abuse for the nation, for
the world. He says, “I chose to base this dissertation on the Institute for Sex Research data” but provides
no direct reference to exactly which research, and when, dates, citations, and authors? The lack of
transparency goes not only to the accuracy of Spanier’s research but to the long history of Kinsey’s cover-
up as well. This is
type “3” response by

“When an individual begins to date, he or she is usually now able to understand sexual
behavior in adult contexts. Touching someone's genitals can now be comprehended as
having explicit sexual meaning, whereas in childhood it might have been interpreted by
the child as tickling or playing, whether pleasurable or not.”(375)30

“Sources of sex information are important, it was found. Significant others who give sex
Information are likely to influence the sexual behavior of those receiving the information.
(377) Early sexual experiences, family attitudes toward sexuality, and sex education in
the schools do not seem to be very influential.” (377)

Indeed, Kinsey influenced the world with his fraudulent and abusive science. As his follower, Spanier
similarly influenced many more people, including social scientists, for five or more decades. The quotes
here are from Kinsey’s “six types” of responses from “interviewing young children”’ (162)

“Six Types” of “Orgasm” From “Interviewing Young Children” (162) Numbers 4 and 5

“Other areas which would require more detailed treatment are sex knowledge, childhood
and adolescent sexual experiences, peer group interaction, and biological development.
Finally, I would make a plea that research be undertaken away from the university
environment. We know much about college students, but far less about those outside of
the university community.” (380)

Spanier’s research would have public policy reach, concluding there is no relationship
between exposure to subsequent explicit "sex education" and premarital petting or
coitus.” (34) “Furthermore, it may be either heterosexual or homosexual (In adult terms)
in orientation. Although at the time the child may not have attached meaning to the
sexual interaction, at the time…” (97, 98)

But Spanier eliminated information on male homosexuality, although it was available, since he was

“interviewing young children” (162)

Quotes are from Kinsey’s Male volume, found in Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence, here pages 146-148.
Number 6 “Type” of Reaction to Orgasm

The child is fighting the “partner” (an adult). No comment from Spanier about these “interviews.”
Spanier said Kinsey had a knack of “putting the subject at ease.” He also assured “privacy”—certainly for
the stop watch and filming. He was sensitive, “recognizing the subject's mental status” and of course he
did “cross-checks on accuracy.” Did Spanier verify “forcing the subject” when Kinsey was interviewing
young children? Spanier says: “Pomeroy (1963) and others have elaborated these methods in later
publications.” (162) Were they “elaborated” by labeling these as serious crimes?

The Initial Cover-Up and On Going Cover Up Of The Child Abuse Data.

Tables 30, 31, 32, 33, and Table 34 (p 180 Kinsey Male Volume) are all records of child sexual abuse by
the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research. Table 34 has only one boy of 14 years timed for “orgasm” over 4
hours and attaining said orgasm, 11 times during his testing period, according to the Institute for Sex
Research data.

All other children are infants or 13 years and under, the youngest in Kinsey record is 2 months old (see
Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence). “Some instances of higher frequencies.” Table 34 appears below:

“A Final Word”
In Table 34 the “scientist” can see a boy 4 year old boy and a 13 year old are masturbated 24 hours
around the clock in an experiment by the Institute team. Totally ignoring this torture, Spanier says:

“….This study has attempted to narrow the large gap in our understanding of human
sexual behavior and socialization. Future research needs to build on the leads provided
here to explain the dynamics of sexualization and sexual behavior.” (381)

Indeed there has been extensive “additional research” by sex experts in various ways. Additional cover-
ups. Spanier predicts children are unharmed by sex with adults, sex education encouraging masturbation,
oral, anal sodomy and vaginal intercourse and pornography (sexually explicit media) have lowered the
walls of innocence protecting our children. SPANIER believes by his conclusions and by the kinds of
“openness” at his university, that this should be so.

At the Feb. 28, 2001, committee hearing [on the sexual pedagogy taught at Penn State]
Spanier was asked directly if he thought the Sex Faire [see Appendix for description] was
wrong or immoral. The PSU president apologized for certain parts of the event, but
maintained that the university was committed to what he termed “free speech.” He added
in pure Clintonesque style, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.”

No Kinsey Critics Wrote About The Purged Public Sex Data

Kinsey's ....inclusion and exclusion....had a significant impact on America....for the
deregulation of the moral economy system. Kinsey showed that moral regulation was

both hypocritical and unnecessary. American men were having premarital, extramarital
and homosexual sex but it was apparently being done in the privacy of one's home.
Concern about public sexual expression - be it pornography, prostitution, cinematic
suggestion, non-consensual sex or homosexual activity in public found no support
from....Kinsey. If, as the text suggested, sexual behavior was simply a private matter
without public consequences, then the state had no business attempting to control it.

It is striking that none of Kinsey's critics ever noticed the missing theme of public
sexuality from Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.....not one noticed the systematic
exclusion of public sexuality from the purview of the text....[Data on] public
sexuality....would have....weakened the deregulatory animus. Americans were
bombarded with information about the dangers of public sexuality prior to World War II
(Emphasis added).31

A linguistic Analysis tells us what is important to SPANIER, what he seeks to
normalize; the most important words have the most references.
346 sex education
267 PSSI Premarital Socio-Sexual Involvement
110 masturbation
102 pornography
73 intercourse
44 Freud
38 credited cites to Kinsey
37 Simon--Kinsey 2nd generation
30 Birth Control
24 Gagnon—Kinsey 2nd generation
14 Reiss—Kinsey 2nd generation
11 Ford and Beach—Kinsey 2nd generation
8 venereal disease
8 sexually assaulted
7 penis
4 Ford and Beach—Kinsey 2nd generation
4 abortion
4 orgasm
4 rape
3 Bell—Kinsey 2nd generation
2 Calderone--Kinsey 2nd generation
2 Calderwood Kinsey 2nd generation
2 Libby Kinsey 2nd generation
2 virginity
1 abstinence
1 impotence
0 child abuse/assault
0 fidelity
0 pedophilia
0 child pornography
0 sodomy

0 oral sex

Allyn, p. 417.
0 anal sex
0 condoms
0 dental dams
0 rimming
0 Herpes
0 Chlamydia
0 sex addiction

Most Sex Educators; Children “Excited” by Pornography, Few Thought it Harmful

“An example of support for sex education in the schools is a statement in the 1965 report to
the World Health Organization Expert Committee on Health Problems of Adolescents:
"The fear that giving them (adolescents) information (about sexuality) will lead them into
premature sexual experimentation appears to be unjustified; ignorance is much more likely
to cause sexual misadventure."(Spanier, 16)

In a survey of sex educators and counselors on the subject of pornography and youth,
Wilson and Jacobs (1971) found that on the basis of their 342 respondents' (members of
the American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors) beliefs, there would be
several likely consequences of adolescent exposure to explicit sexual materials….61 per
cent thought the materials would excite the adolescent sexually.” (26)

However, according to SPANIER less than 15% thought pornography harmful although 61% think
children are aroused by it. Where do children go for relief from their excitation—to teachers? Peers?
Younger children? Stranger groomers? (68). Prediction? Teacher, stranger, and peer child sexual abuse
are all pandemic. Proof that “ignorance is…likely to cause sexual misadventure”?

Pornography websites were accessed by at least 44,000 primary school children in
one month, online research showed Friday, amid calls for greater restrictions on
providers. The Authority for Television on Demand (Atvod) tracked the actions of
children in Britain in December 2013 and found that one in 35 of six- to 11-year-
olds online clicked onto an adult website.32

Spanier’s Summary and Conclusions. He says:
The three main “findings” presented here are:

1. “From these data, evidence indicates that there is no relationship between participation in
a sex education course and reported premarital sexual behavior…
2. Similarly, there are no differences in behavior among those who report having had
instruction in birth control or instruction about coitus.
3. There are no differences between those who have had different kinds of teachers,
or…courses during different years in school.”

Spanier also says if “sex education courses are to be effective, they probably should be taught by
individuals whom the students respect and with whom the students can identify.” He would have
knowledgeable people, like himself, Kinsey and other 2nd generation Kinsey experts. The dissemination of
this advantages of the unrepressed sexual life, had already reached friends in psychology and law. The
1950 article in the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) advocated children “under” age “7”
were sexually responsible for their abuse in the 1955 ALI Model Penal Code.33

1950 GAP: “persons under the age of 7…” are responsible for “sexual behavior”

With One Adult.…persons under 7…. many are by endowment and training
fully capable of part or exceptionally even full responsibility for sexual behavior….in the
later age levels the legal concepts of rape and of contributing to delinquency become
increasingly untenable.34
Spanier reiterates what Kinsey said in 1948 about training sexperts. Parents were not doing a good job;
well, low VD and pregnancy, rape, abortion rates, etc. “Teachers should be specially trained to teach sex
education, since other teachers who are not trained in this area who are currently doing the teaching do
not seem to be effective. Students who take sex education courses do not report having learned anything
new.” (345)

A Conflict of Interest: William Simon and Playboy’s Boy Scout Manual35
Graham Spanier thesis 1973 opined:

A girl who is exhibited to by an older man, a child who is taught by his parents not to
walk in the yard unclothed, two children who are "playing doctor," an adolescent who
discovers that touching his or her genitals is pleasurable, and a high school student who
reads a Playboy magazine he got from a friend are all examples of informal sex
education. (2)

6. How often do you read Playboy— every month, a few times a year or never. (172)

The respondent would have had to have been self-motivated
to buy and read the books listed, purchase magazines, etc.,
from a newsstand, or get a Playboy magazine to read.
Although some individuals would have read the books
listed, had they known the content, and others would have
read Playboy if they weren't afraid to buy one…” (173)
Below (415)

33Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, (last visited Feb. 21, 2014).
Manfried Guttmacher, Psychiatrically Deviated Sex Offenders, Report No. 9 (Comm. on Forensic Psychiatry, Grp. for the Advancement of

Psychiatry 1950).
35 Playboy, September1973, p. 74. Cartoon “gag”; mom prostituting daughter approved by Hefner, p. 266.
Spanier’s 1973 thesis cites Playboy correctly, as “informal sex education.” 1971 is the highest year for
child pornography images in Playboy (my executive summary attached). Arguably, pedophile sensibility
was evident in the 1970 SIECUS Study Guide publication Sexual Encounters Between Adults and
Children. William Simon (funded by Playboy). As Project Director of Kinsey’s Institute for Sex
Research and mentor to

Simon and co-author Gagnon write of sexual abuse of children in language that could have come from
Kinsey: “All individuals involved in the drama of [adult-child sex] can be scarred by it, but except in rare
instances where violence is involved, the scarring is more likely to come from various adult reactions to
the event itself; these usually are the result of unresolved sexual conflicts and account for the reaction of
parent and police…”36.


186 adultery by wife, common theme
185 hinting boy wants sex play
233. Gag: abandoned mom, babe. 121 sex tricking medical patient

Translating pedophile euphemisms: “individuals” (child) in the “drama” (abuse) “can be
scarred.” BUT only in “rare instances” of “violence” (sex assault, etc is not violence). Blame
“adult reactions” to the victimization. Blame the repressed, “sexual conflicts” of “parent and
police” --who believe the child. Thus starts the post ‘60s cliché trivializing the child victim
now typically codified by Spanier’s trivialization of Sandusky’s crimes.

Dr. Simon appears September 1973 on Playboy’s panel about sexuality with Dr. John Money, (advocate
for ending age of consent), Dr. Wardell Pomeroy (Kinsey sometime lover and co-author of the reports),
and Kinsey files the Kronhausans (authors of a book on college male sexuality), among others.

Spanier defines Playboy as “informal sex education.” This is really visual “informal sex education” (a
picture is worth a thousand words) and the cartoon is a vital part of that education. Hugh Hefner selected
each cartoon himself. There is extensive academic scholarship confirming the immediacy and power of
the cartoon reaching the viscera and circumventing cognition.
18 Page

SIECUS Study Guide, Sexual Encounters Between Adults and Children. William Simon, Playboy. 1970,
quoted in Reisman et al, Kinsey Sex and Fraud, Lochinvar Inc., 1990, p 130.
116 rape of virgin, bestiality
248 Another woman committing 200 Idea, Fear, shame is the pedagogical 242 Joke, stupid woman tricked
adultery joke; nonplused husband. “humor” the “gag”of the “informal sex into bestiality film; thought It was
Education” joke. a dog food commercial.

“The cartoons were as important to PLAYBOY as the Playmate of the Month. They
provided more than humor. They defined the sophisticated nature of the magazine. In a
decade of conservatism and repression, PLAYBOY offered cartoonists a unique
opportunity to poke fun at sexual hypocrisy and satirize the sanitized status quo….
Hefner, believing that humor was the soul of the magazine, often supplied the gag lines to
his stable of cartoonists…” Hugh Hefner’s Playboy, 1926-1979, Book 1, pp. 250-251

A March 1975 - survey was conducted for Playboy by Louis Harris, with analysis and interpretation of
key data made by William Simon, mentor to Spanier. Simon would have been well aware of Playboy child
pornography and pedagogical themes, thus part of the child pornography cover up etc. I did a television
interview with him—I still have it. Simon analyzed American men for Playboy, never revealing the
purging of 75% of the “interviews,” or that Playboy gave funds to the Kinsey Institute. The cover-up
of this methodological fault line rendered useless the Kinsey database for Spanier’s thesis two years

Writing in Sexual Scene, William Simon and
John Gagnon describe Playboy as a “Boy Scout
Manual” of sexual etiquette, “creating (highly
conventional to be sure) scripts for the playing
out of sexual dramas.”

“The major users of pictorial erotica are
adolescent males....Playboy is an explicitly
sexual document ... nearly a national
institution....[It] has taken for itself the role of
legitimizing not sexual behavior, but ... sexual
conduct. It is the equivalent of the Boy Scout
Manual ... creating ...scripts for the playing out
of sexual dramas ... providing masturbatory fantasy ... [and] a social
context inside of which sexual desires may be thought of and in some measure acted
out.”37 13

August 1984, Boy Scout Manual Playboy, p. 123 -127. Cynically creating scripts for acting out sexual dramas.

William Simon and John Gagnon, Sexual Scene
Simon and Gagnon argue the sexual conduct
Playboy teaches is harmless. However, Playboy
and all soft porn teach; sexual trickery, deceit,
seduction, oral, anal, and vaginal, rape, gang
rape, bestiality, homosexuality, sex mutilation,
and even sexual murder. Most Americans feel
these behaviors are not harmless and ought not
to be in a sexual Boy Scout Manual. This
conduct was not conventional among youth until
it was "in some measure acted out" by future
offenders, p 146-147.

Major Kinsey citations in Spanier’s thesis

1. ...associated with the works of Havelock Ellis, Kinsey, and Masters and Johnson. To which
I...Page 24
2. ...invention of heterosexuality, Socialist Review 90/917 34. Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.P., and
Martin, C. (1948) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Philadelphia Saunders. Kinsey, A.C.,
Pomeroy, W.P., Martin, C., and Gebhard...Page 167
3. ...a physiology, chemistry, and neurology all its own. From Kinsey et al.s (1948, 1953) outlet to
the Masters and Johnsons...Page 21
4. ...of scandal attending publication of the second
of the famous Kinsey publications, has become
virtually normative in both terms...Page 28
5. ...Gagnon and Simon 1972). Outside of a concern
for adolescence, however, it remains largely
unexamined despite the research of Kinsey et al.
(1948, 1953) and more recently the findings
reported by Lauman and his associates (1994),
which pointed to its.. Pag e 126
6. ...happily (or, in some cases, unhappily) to
coincide. Suggestive of the expectation of this
integration is the fact that for Kinsey, and
virtually all others, categories of heterosexual
behavior have been organized in terms of marital
status. Sexual careers...Page 54
7. ...J. 80 Kallen, D.J. 81 Kant, I. 119 Kaplan, L.J.
67 , 74 , 76 , 83 4, 113 , 126 Katz, J.H. 121
Kernberg 133 Kinsey, A. 19 , 21 , 24 , 28 , 54 ,
126 Klumpner, G.H. 67 , 68 Kohlberg, L. 92
Kohut, H. 52 , 56 , 62 , 105 , 138 Krafft...Page
8. ...the founders of what has now become
commonly known as the social constructionist
approach to sexuality. Both worked at the Kinsey

Institute for Sexual Behaviour in the 1960s,
collecting and unearthing mounds of empirical

data. And yet in the midst of his...Page ix
9. ...World War. A period of some forty years, half of which was almost entirely dominated by the
works of a single group Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues. 1 However, this explosive growth of
scientific attention did not occur in isolation. A distinct era in...Page 19

Playboy, OCT 1999, p. 68. Graham Spanier
states that while parents want their college
youth to have “structure” Spanier doesn’t want
to make students “childlike”. Thus the sex
faires with all of their deviance offerings.
Thanks to “William Simon, Project Director,
for allowing me to use the data on which this
study is based.” It cannot be said too often; no
survey of people’s opinions can ever be scientific
it can only strive to be as informative as possible.

Before concluding let me take just a moment to draw your attention to what, even Playboy said May
1996, that; “most of us would define as sexual harassment.” (p. 42) It is a meeting of members of the
“touchy touchy, feely, felly” crowd; what some call the sexually anarchistic, “Society for the Scientific
Study Of Sexuality.” T

he informative study of “formal and informal sex education” led President Naomi to warn the sexpert
attendees they should not really do right now. (I remember the rowdy sexologists where not welcomed
back to one hotel I was visiting).

Naomi said they should “please refrain from: nasty, hostile remarks about women (and men), belittling
(strights?), sex prudes, nipple comments, crotch comments, fondling, touching that wasn’t requested, and
so on. Playboy notes that the real list is longer.

These are our human sexuality experts, given their credentials having passed the SAR (Sexual Attitude
Restructuring) “Fu*karama” days, weeks, months of pornography viewing, and practica that Spanier must
have taken. These are the authors of the sex books we read, sex “studies” they conduct, school sex ed
curricula and our sex guides. These are Spanier’S colleagues in the sexuality field, many like Kinsey, sex
addicts, and many on the editorial board of Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia.

We choose to view deviant behavior simply as behavior that some value and others
consider wrong. An individual's behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as
deviant. Much of an individual's behavior can be viewed as a response to this `labeling.'38

By using in an, uncredentialed manner the discredited Kinsey data to develop, “formal sex education”, by
citing to Playboy magazine, as “informal sex education,” by claiming sex abuse of children under age 13
harmless, by excluding the data on sex abuse of boys, by ignoring the true (observable) public policy
consequences of illicit permissive sex, by claiming parents and police ignore the child’s claims of injury

Graham B. Spanier Ph.D., Charles L. Cole Ph.D.. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1975, Vol. 4, No. 2.
from child abuse, instead claiming abuse leads to no difficulties in adult sexuality, including marriage, in
these and other ways, Spanier and the like have done grave harm for decades.

To say that this was blind ignorance would be unjustified since Spanier quotes and credits Kinsey for his
“interviewing young children.” The pain suffered by most child abuse survivors under and over age 13
is well documented. The pain suffered by anal rape of at least one 10-year old lad by Sandusky was
obvious. The desperate phone call and his contemptuous response to one male survivor of yet another
“professorial abuser” at Spanier’s university suggests the cover-up may be of a cadre, a group of pederast
and perhaps pedophile members. It was clear in 1973 that abuse was carried out and subsequently. And
the recent growth in baby, infants and toddler rapes confirms the Kinsey/Spanier belief that the littlest
ones, as unharmed by adult sex, has gained a great deal of traction.

Before Spanier's bio ( was discreetly removed from the Penn State website, it
said among other things that “he earned his Ph.D. in sociology from Northwestern University, where he
was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow,

He serves as chair of the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, is a
member of the National Counterintelligence Working Group, and serves on the Board of
Advisors of the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College. Dr. Spanier has
been honored as one of the "Most Influential People in Security.

Spanier quotes the discredited, fraudulent Kinsey data and methods, using all the scientific verbiage that
is appropriate although uniformly fraudulent and misleading. Thus Spanier claims, rightly, to have read
the Kinsey reports, including the data on children, since he was “interviewing young children,” and he
cites Kinsey roughly 38 times and bases his wider, uncited, data in his thesis on Kinsey.

He would know then of the child abuse, rapes, that were an important part of Kinsey’s “interviewing
young children.” He would know of Tables 30-34. He thus took the pedophile sensibility route, taken by
so many of his colleagues deliberately “hiding” the facts of child abuse in the past Kinsey Institute data--
as he does the facts of Sandusky’s abuse in the present. Interesting, although Spanier seems to see no real
problem with the adult abuse if it is early. Simon notes nearly all children “report their original reaction to
the offense is an negative one.” Simon then adds “the evidence suggests that the long-term consequences
of victimization are quite mild” and assigns the “mild” adjective to describe “father-daughter incest.”39

Disbelieving the children, blaming sexually repressed parents and police, etc., for not being “enlightened”
beginning in 1948, led to the massive sexual assaults the has spun off into massive governmental and
private agencies dealing with child sexual abuse. Spanier and his pseudo field of sexology sadly,
contributed to this tragedy. Which begs the question of who is involved in The Second Mile case?

In 1948, most women and men were conservative, romantic and thoughtful about marriage and fidelity.
Even college students held that morality together for roughly another ten years. It was Kinsey’s
“scientific” lies about The Greatest Generation that finally punctured that commitment, spawning
swinging, swapping, “open” marriage, premarital sex, to today’s “hooking” up status drugs, alcoholism,
crimes and general malaise.

Spanier knows about children being sexually abused. His research and writings declare the fact he
believes sexual contact with children has no ill effects on them. He calls it research, when the community
of Penn State would call it abuse and the larger community and the criminal statutes of the United States

William Simon, John Gagnon, Sexual Encounters Between Adult And Children, SIECUS Study Guide No, 11,
1970, 1974, pp. 12 and 13.
still call it abuse. He knows this too. He ignored the painful effects of sexual study on children in his
research in search of a more enlightened view of sexuality. It would be a small step to keep the Sandusky
abuse quiet until people, in his view, were more enlightened to understand it.

Below a few public consequences of “private” sexuality, which it turns out, always has public meaning.


The Kinsey Institute Labeled 1,400 Sex Offenders Average American College Men

Of the roughly 4,500 (25 percent) of
18,000 persons Simon said they
interviewed, 1,400 Kinsey said were
“sex offenders” (not “college
students”).40 Coauthor of the Kinsey
data, Wardell Pomeroy, reported they used
sex offenders for average men. But that
was reasonable because deviance is just a

“By 1946, [Kinsey] Gebhard and I had
interviewed about 1,400 convicted sex
offenders in penal institutions scattered
over a dozen states.”41 According to his
data (at left) Kinsey interviewed

Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence, WorldNetDaily Books, Washington, DC, 2010, f. 10. Ibid
41 Wardell Pomeroy, The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University Press, 1972, p. 208.
roughly 86% of people during war years,4214% before and after WWII. Prisoners, homosexuals, sex
predators, and “feeble-minded” subjects who were excluded from the armed services and the war
industry, were readily available.


42 Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage, p.57.
A Few Comments Dealing With the Current Case
Parents calling for structure and some protection for their young people from learned sexual anarchy,
instead received the PSU November 2000 “C festival” and the Womyn’s Sex Faire, February 2001. The
following are a few relevant quotes from Former Pennsylvania legislator John Lawless who “attended the
Sex Faire and found it so shocking, he videotaped part of his visit.”43

$12,000 went to two women from Washington State to come demonstrate how to perform
oral sex.” Lawless said he found the fair punctuated with games like Orgasm Bingo, Pin
the Clitoris on the Vulva, and the Tent of Consent….They set up this tent right outside the
dormitory ... with a bucket of condoms at the door. Five people went in at a time…

Patrick Califia-Rice, was a speaker. Califia is a woman surgically altered to resemble a male, who writes
of sexually whipping little girls. She “appeared on the website of the pedophile-advocacy group
NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) – along with Kinsey.

At the Feb. 28, 2001, committee hearing [on the sexual pedagogy taught at Penn State]
Spanier was asked directly if he thought the Sex Faire was wrong or immoral. The PSU
president apologized for certain parts of the event, but maintained that the university was
committed to what he termed “free speech.” He added in pure Clintonesque style, “It
depends on what your definition of immoral is.”

Before leaving pedophile and pederast perversions I want to mention what I call the state mandated pedo-
grooming programs euphemistically and deliberately mistitled “sex education,” There is indeed a federal,
FBI supported Anti-Grooming law that, objectively, criminalizes much of the “comprehensive sex ed”
which is run by sexually trained trainers. Child molesters:

Lower the sexual inhibitions of children.
Demonstrate, teach or instruct on how to masturbate, oral sex and/or engage in sexual
Desensitize children to sex. Offenders often show child pornography to their intended victims.
Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims.

Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout
classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. Yet,
it is these very inhibitions that have helped protect children from potential predators.

The normalization of pederasty and pedophile, the “need” to lower the age of consent and eliminate
“stigma” against child molesters is on the fast track to success and “science” is commonly misused to
support that effort. The following is an article “Penn State’s Deny, Deny “Child Sex Abuse
Conference” was retitled as follows:

The Daily Beast, Aug 24, 2012.

Penn State's ironic 'child sex abuse' conference
Judith Reisman

Rodney Erickson, PhD, the new President of Penn State delivered welcoming remarks
to attendees at the very first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference on October 29-
30. Erickson assumed the presidency November 9, 2011, after the disgraced Graham
Spanier was forced to resign as president following exposure of his foreknowledge of
Coach Jerry Sandusky’s infamous rapes of young boys.

The 2009 well-funded Penn State Justice Center for Research partnered the conference
with the College of the Liberal Arts and University Outreach. The Justice Center’s
“Press Releases,” that appear on the web, began in 2010. These press releases, like
the October conference speakers, ignored the infamous child sex abuse Penn State

I never heard the names of former “Coach Sandusky,” or “President Spanier” mentioned
by a single carefully vetted Penn State child sex abuse speaker. Nor was there a
mention of The Second Mile, the non-profit charity, founded by Sandusky & Co., of
course to help local underprivileged and at-risk youth. The conference speeches are
posted on the internet so if I someone notes these names or events when I sneezed,
kindly email those citations to me.

While Mr. Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse in June 2012, Mr. Spanier has
recently been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. In plainer English, Spanier
is accused of a long time cover-up of Sandusky’s homosexual child rapist preferences.
The conference, attended largely by sexuality “experts,” therapists and survivors, was
visible in its denial of a multitude of related facts about the violation of children.
Indeed, many therapists and survivors in the audience were stunned to hear the famous
keynoter boldly claim a steep decline in substantiated child sex abuse (Finkelhor) and
public safety resulting from sex offender treatment (Kaufman).

Although it would be dandy to believe Finkelhor and Kaufman’s fantasy “statistics,”
telling us all is improving, we must be doing things right, one critic said the massive
child sex abuse decline parroted by the sexperts suffers from “the smell test;. we on the
ground see the problem of child sex abuse getting worse, not better.” 2

In fact, the expert child abuse denier, Dr. David Finkelhor is the Director of the Crimes
against Children Research Center, Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory and
Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Finkelhor has so
successfully pleased all big government political administrations that he—like the
Kinsey Institute and similar agencies--has gotten government grants from 1978 to today.

Despite the exposure of 5,200 Pentagon staffers found downloading “child
pornography” neither this well-known phrase nor “pornography” make it into their

prevention lexicon. Who were they at Penn State to protect? Not children.

Earlier in writing about pornography’s link to adult and child rape, I exposed some of
the phony stats cooked by law professor, Glenn Reynolds. Glenn and Northwestern law
professor Anthony D’Amato claim that “Porn up, Rape down” with psychologists and
therapists grabbing onto that shibboleth like a hungry dog on a bone.

The child abuse speakers didn’t dare claim, like D’Amato, that since, “teenagers and
adults” are using pornography fewer children are raped; their silence strongly implied
that is the case. But they all know the truth. U.S. News and World Report (April 24,
2000) said ”facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York
PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.”
One officer snarled; ”The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district, ”failed to report between 13,000 and
37,000 major crimes.” ”A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997-1999, of
300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ”investigation of persons”
or ”investigation, protection, and medical examination” – non-crime codes.” ”This puts
one in four rapes in a non-crime category.”

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.) a West Point psychology professor said,
“Violent crime … is still about 5 times greater today, per capita, than it was in 1957.” He
adds, “We’d have to let 1.5 million convicted offenders go to get down to a 1970′s-level
incarceration rate. We are lying about the data.”

The National Institute of Justice Managing Adult Sex Offenders (1997) reported: ”The
number of adults convicted annually of rape, child molestation, or other forms of sexual
assault and sentenced to state prisons more than doubled between 1980 (8,000) and3 1992 (19,100). In
1994, state prisons held 88,100 sex offenders compared to 20,500 in 1980.” Adds Grossman, “Crimestat”
had cops bring down crime. “When the NYPD police union went over the data the crime rates doubled in
New York City.” Other than murder (reduced via medical technology), “police artificially ‘bring crime
down,’ we cook the books.”

”The American Police Beat,” May 2005 quotes Denver Police Lt. James D. Ponzi, a
Regis University professor wrote “Compstat turned into ”Compscam” as departments
cooked the books to lower crime rates,” never making it into the “National Incident
Based Reporting System [NIBRS] or is not in the public eye at that moment.” Adds
Ponzi, “These ‘lower’ rape statistics don’t reflect what is truly happening in sex related
crimes.” For example,” LAPD reported a 28 percent drop in violent crime in 2005, the
same year the department reclassified domestic assaults in which the victim suffered
minor injuries or had no injuries.”

”In Atlanta, 22,000 crimes were left out of the crime reports. In New York, the crime
rates doubled in a precinct when the proper classification was applied by the police
union. The list goes on.” Bureaucrats are happy but “the citizens…get nothing but a
false sense of security about the safety of their cities.” Although pornography is absolutely causal in child
sexual abuse,

all&sp-f=UTF-8. other critical falsehoods were given to the attendees.

Again ignoring the massive increase in child sex abuse that coincides with “school sex
ed,” Finklehor wants more of the same to lower child sex abuse rates. He claims boys
who are “gay” should be supported in their decisions, without any reference to any sex
abuse that these boys probably experienced. Hence we lower rates of child sex abuse
by labeling children “gay” and saying they liked it.

All speakers ignored the fact that younger victims are more likely to have developed
traumatic amnesia, they ignore the increasingly violent nature of child sex abuse,
pedophile rings, pedophile proponents, child sex trafficking, institutions harming large
numbers of children, child protective services workers refusing to protect and instead
reunifying children inappropriately, courts ordering children to live with reported
offenders and coordinated disbelief of children when they report sex abuse. Attorneys
and advocates in divorce situations advise their clients not to report child sex abuse,
since the children are almost always placed with the abusers (Neustein & Goetting 1999
and Steubner, 2011)4

Finkelhor also claims “low” recidivism for sex offenders. Ludicrous. Numerous studies
show a steady increase in recidivism over time.
Children’s freedom of movement is a past ear. They commonly stay inside fearing
predators, while their parents chauffeur them everywhere. One attendee stated “Dr.
Kaufman's talk was disturbingly offender-friendly.”

Statistics are commonly used to falsify reality. I’ve written extensively on that in my
books on the statistical and criminal frauds of Alfred Kinsey, Interesting, that one of the
speakers defined statutory rapists as children’s "partners," the word coined by Kinsey
for child rapists. The speaker’s claim that a rapist is a child’s "partner," that children are "engaged in
prostitution" and that “children with a crush” can lie to have sex speaks to adopting a
predator worldview.

The objection to sex offender registration as "draconian measures" is more predator
protector language, as is, "Children may like the attention,” and "not all victims
experience problems" is ingenuous since problems develop throughout the life cycle
and there is no way to assess that truth.. "Kids having problems prior to the abuse put
them at risk of being abused" again lays the blame on the children. All this while
hiding the role of mainlining pornography as the primary culprit in child on child and
adult on child sex abuse.

A very serious complaint came from one survivor who said, “The family courts are really
criminal enterprises. Even the Center for Missing and Exploited Children is part of the
problem. I collected fliers over 5 years and found that NCMEC sent 4 times more fliers
looking for women abductors than for men, although men abduct more often. I was
appalled. I confronted the president and shortly NCMEC stopped sending fliers and
moved to the internet.” As violent sex crimes increase, including all sodomy and use of objects, and
photos, etc., many professionals, themselves users and/or abusers must minimize the horror of
the growing child sex abuse pandemic. To many hearing these speakers, this appears to have been the
subtext of the first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference. 44

WorldNetDaily, November 16, 2012,
“Private Acts, Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and
the Privatization of American Sexual Morality”45
Kinsey co-author, Wardell Pomeroy had also confessed that they questioned 1,400 sex offenders;
including men with adult and child rape victims, incest offenders and their victims. Again, Kinsey
interviewed hundreds, perhaps thousands of homosexual males living the decadent “Cabaret” lifestyle
practiced in the nationwide metropolis.

Yet, Kinsey concealed all data reflecting the public manifestations of homosexual and heterosexual sexual
immorality. Research on how American law was changed ought to be made fully accessible to the public,
especially to American decision makers on law and public policy. Allyn writes:

Kinsey and his colleagues offered no data on adult male exhibitionism, nor voyeurism.
There was slight mention of exhibitionism among prepubescent boys, but the Male
volume was silent regarding the number of adult exhibitionists and voyeurs. As for rape,
there was a brief mention of the problem on one page of the book, but no statistical
data.46 Kinsey did intend to compile a volume on sex offenders, but it is nonetheless
interesting that he excluded these non-consensual types of activity from his major study,
especially given his argument that rates of criminal conviction could not adequately
measure illicit sexual activity....The most striking omission from Sexual Behavior in the
Human Male was the lack of data on public gay male sex.....[and] the s/m subculture47
(emphasis added).48

Allyn noted that Kinsey “intended” to use his sex offender data in a book on sex offenders.
However, although a volume was eventually published by Kinsey’s co-authors Gebhard and Pomeroy,
Kinsey researcher Gagnon and by Kinsey librarian, Christenson, Sex Offenders. (1965)49

This book did not isolate or report on Kinsey’s 1,400 sex offenders and his (at least) 200 sexual
psychopaths, the group inserted into his two volumes as “normal” men and women. Allyn:

Kinsey explicitly states that it would be futile to attack the common phenomenon of
homosexuality. Kinsey's logical contradiction indicates his commitment to the
deregulation of all sexual activity.50

45 David Allyn in the Journal of American Studies (Cambridge University Press, 1996) presented as “part of a special symposium
on Alfred Kinsey” in 1995.
46 David Allyn in the Journal of American Studies (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 415.

47 Ibid.
48 David Allyn in the Journal of American Studies (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

49 Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeory and Christenson, Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types. Harper & Row, New York, 1965.
50 Allyn, p. 416.

Excerpts from:


The Undeveloped, Immature Bain: Scans Age 5 to 20
1. The above brain scans are taken from a study by Dr. Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging,
the child psychiatry branch at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIH). Dr. Giedd
tested 1,800 youths via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), creating an MRI photo every
two years of the growing brain. 51 The photograph above demonstrates typical brain
maturation from age 5 to age 20. Says Dr. Giedd:
2. “So if a teen is doing music or sports or academics, those are the cells and connections
that will be hard-wired. If they're lying on the couch or playing video games or MTV,
those are the cells and connections that are going [to] survive….It’s sort of unfair to
expect [teems] to have adult levels of…decision-making before their brains are finished
being built….The frontal lobe is often called the CEO, or the executive of the brain. It's
involved in things like planning and strategizing and organizing, initiating attention and
stopping and starting and shifting attention. It's a part of the brain that most separates
man from beast, if you will….” [Emphasis added]

The Immature Cerebellum is “Very Susceptible to the Environment”
3. “It's also a particularly cruel irony of nature, I think, that right at this time when the brain is most

vulnerable is also the time when teens are most likely to experiment with drugs or alcohol….if

51 Image from Dr. Jay Giedd, Chief Of Brain Imaging, Child Psychiatric Branch, NIH, May 10, 2003 TIME, May 2, 2003, at, June 27, 2008.003.
they're doing drugs or alcohol that evening, it may not just be affecting their brains for that night
or even for that weekend, but for the next 80 years of their life. ... [W]e think [the cerebellum] is
very susceptible to the environment….This part of the brain has not finished growing well into
the early 20s, even….[We] now know it's also involved in coordination of our cognitive
processes, our thinking processes. Just like one can be physically clumsy, one can be kind of
mentally clumsy….And so we think it's intriguing that we see all these dynamic changes in the
cerebellum taking place during the teen years, along with the changes in the behaviors that the
cerebellum sub-serves.52

4. Until recently, many preferred to see adolescence as a romantic invention of nostalgic
Americans for an asexual, vulnerable view of childhood. Says Dr. Giedd, “If we had to
pick a number now, we'd probably go to age 25," confirming that the human brain is
structurally immature until well past puberty; These MRI studies (reprinted below) reveal
the physiological changes that often explain teenage “emotional outbursts, reckless risk
taking and rule breaking…the impassioned pursuit of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll” and
even “mental illnesses as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These diseases typically
begin in adolescence and contribute to the high rate of teen suicide.”53

5. Says Dr. Winters, the nucleus accumbens directs motivated behavior with the youthful,
developing nucleus accumbens apparently preferring “high excitement.” Winters cites to “real-
world observations” in that youngsters are drawn to risky behaviors, such as video games and
substance use as high excitement with low investment. However, this applies as well to
youthful use of pornography.54

52 PBSTV Frontline, Interview: Jay Giedd, MD,, 2002, June 30, 2008.
53 “Teen Brain at the Wheel: When Is the Teen Brain Developmentally Ready” 2006, Brain Trust Alliance, for the two excellent

brain graphics,

%20Teen%20Brain%20at%20the%20Wheel%20-%20Brain%20Development%20and%20Driving%20.pdf, June 3, 2008.
54 Ken C. Winters, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota in a special report to the Treatment Research

Institute, Science Addiction, on Adolescent Brain Development and Drug Abuse November 2004,, June 30, 2008.

It's Academic
Kinsey's Love Affair with Pedophilia Three Generations Later
Twentieth-century philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead defined western
philosophy as "footnotes to Plato."1 Similarly, sexology can be defined as "footnotes to Alfred
Kinsey," whose psychopathologies are writ large in the hetero- and homosexual child-abuse
epidemic that is touching every corner of the world, particularly in academic settings.

My own academic case study illustrates the woeful state we are in. On June 18, 1986, American
University's (AU) celebrated psychology chairman, Dr. Elliot McGinnies, was discreetly
"charged with sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl on four occasions in his trailer at a nudist
colony."2 Meanwhile, my staff and I were being rather indiscreetly banished from our AU annex.
AU administrators deliberately subverted our research on both Professor Kinsey's child sex
crimes and our findings of systematic child sex abuse by "Kinsey's pamphleteer," Hugh Hefner,
which were published in a U.S. Department of Justice study titled Images of Children, Crime and
Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1984–1986), a study for which I was principal

Why were we targeted, I wondered? Was there more to it than McGinnies' nudist escapades? Did
other AU academics protect their colleague in order to protect themselves from exposure?

Indeed, birds of a feather must have flocked together: In 1990, AU's distinguished president, Dr.
Richard Berendzen, pled guilty to charges arising from years of making obscene phone calls to
daycare centers. Berendzen would call the centers and talk to the caretakers about having sex
with children, child pornography, and sex-slave auctions, and he even claimed to be keeping a 4-
year-old girl caged in his basement.3

Shocking but Not Surprising

Fast forward 21 years, to the arrest of Penn State's popular assistant football coach, Jerry

Sandusky, for allegedly engaging in the sexual molestation of boys over a period of at least 15
years. In the wake of Sandusky's arrest, head coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham
Spanier were fired, and other Penn State officials were formally charged with failing to report
Sandusky's alleged abuse to proper authorities.4

Spanier himself had subscribed to Kinsey's views for years. In 1972, he endorsed Kinsey to the
Midwest Sociological Society, claiming that Kinsey had accurately documented the "widespread
existence of extramarital sexual relations" in the United States. In 1976, under a grant from the
National Institute of Child Health and Development, Spanier validated Kinsey's data on
"childhood sex play"5 for similar "scholars."

More recently, Spanier approved the choice of Pat Califia, a transgendered advocate of
sadomasochism and pedophilia, as the keynote speaker for a women's health conference held at
Penn State in 2002. The previous year, the group Womyn's Concerns hosted a "Sex Faire" on
campus, featuring such activities as "orgasm bingo" and "the tent of consent." Asked if the fair
was morally wrong, Spanier was quoted as saying, "It depends on what your definition of
immoral is."6 So while news of the Sandusky affair is shocking, it should come as no surprise.

About the same time as the charges against Sandusky surfaced, Syracuse University associate
basketball coach Bernie Fine was also charged with having engaged in homosexual child abuse
and fired. Like Sandusky, Fine had allegedly been molesting boys for years. One of his accusers,
a former ball boy, said Fine had abused him for six years, beginning as long ago as 1984.7

Training in Deviancy

In fact, as long ago as 1948, the world's future leaders were being taught that sex with children
was intelligent adult behavior. Their teacher was that Rockefeller Foundation-funded biology
professor at Indiana University, Alfred Kinsey. For 64 years—almost three generations—his
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has trained millions of young college students—like
Berendzen, McGinnies, Sandusky, Spanier, and Fine—to believe that all sexual perversion is
normal. Both hetero- and homosexual interactions with children are said to help children by
replacing "sexually repressed" Judeo-Christian morality with a more "enlightened" sexual
worldview. According to one Kinsey disciple, the late Dr. Loretta Haroian, "free sexual
expression of children" requires "a sexually supportive society . . . in which every man, woman
and child can say 'yes' or 'no' to sex."8 Dr. Haroian was a member of the Institute for the
Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, which has trained millions of "sexologists" in the Kinsey

The inroads made by the academic pedophile coterie are reflected not just in the reports coming
out of Penn State and Syracuse, but also in earlier incidents at American University, Johns
Hopkins, and scores of other institutions of higher learning. Academic journals embraced the
Kinseyan worldview early on, as illustrated by Ralph Slovenko's comment in the 1962
Vanderbilt Law Review that "even at the age of four or five, [a girl's] seductiveness may be so
powerful as to overwhelm the adult into committing the offense"; in other words, a little child
could be an "initiator and seducer."9

In 2007, the first Chinese-language book on Kinsey (English title: Kinsey, the Man Who Has

Changed the World) was published and sold 500,000 copies in China. Co-author Liana Zhou,
head of the Kinsey Institute library, says that, thanks to Kinsey's "pioneering" work, we can now
"study human sexuality within the confines of science rather than only through the lens of
religion or social morality."10

In Italy, researchers claim to have found a possible "pedophile" gene,11 and the bankrupt Greek
government has just amended state-recognized disability categories to include "pedophiles,
exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs."12 So now the sexual immorality and psychopathologies of
Kinsey are being spread in other countries, too.

All this modern sexual insanity may be a "footnote to Alfred Kinsey," but a few people are trying
to set the story straight. When former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann was told by a
critic that "10 percent of the population is gay," she replied, "Well, that's according to the Kinsey
Report." Her husband, Marcus, then added, "It's been a myth for many years."13

Alas, that myth invented by Kinsey, "the Man Who Has Changed the World," has been
normalizing abusive sex education, pornography, child sexual abuse, and sexual trauma all over
the world, training millions to be as sexually insane as he was. •

Special thanks to Mary McAlister, Esq., who contributed to this article.

Judith Reisman is Visiting Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law and
Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and
Social Thought. She is the author of Sexual Sabotage.

1. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, (Free Press, 1979), p. 39.
5. Graham B. Spanier, "Mate Swapping," Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 4, no. 2, 1975, and "Formal and
Informal Sex Education," ibid., vol. 5, no. 1, 1976.
9. R. Slovenko & J. Phillips, "Psychosexuality and the Criminal Law," 15 Vanderbilt Law Review (1961–1962).

From Salvo 20 (Spring 2012) See more at: