Mothers & Sons

Judith Reisman
Reproduced with Permission

Although author Jean Lush and her colleague Pamela Vredevelt have surely meant well in this Seventh printing (2003) of their small text, MOTHERS & SONS: Raising Boys to Be Men, the authors have sadly, even dangerously, neglected their "sexuality" homework.

It is disturbing then to read that Lush is, "amazed at the scores of mothers I've met who have limited or no understanding of the normal sexual development of little boys." What "amazes" Lush? Well, so many parents thought: some authorities&during the first seven years, children were oblivious to sexual feelings. During the next seven years, sexual awareness supposedly went "underground" (and adults were to make sure it did). This was called the latency period. After latency, boys were somehow "awakened" and became sexually active as adolescents.

OK, it is good to reject Freud's bizarre latency fantasy. However, instead, the authors accept Alfred Kinsey's sexual from birth fantasy. Lush and Vredevelt rather cavalierly intone that they are unlike those "inhibited" parents of the past. "Today we know this is not the case. Both male and female babies as young as four to six months have orgasms."

Well, well, well. That is really so clever. Now, Lush doesn't exactly know HOW "we know" that four month old infants "have orgasms" but she says they do. Actually, she quotes sexperts, Gesell and Ames who say THEY know "A small percentage of babies have orgasms after four months." Ummm, and how do Gesell and Ames know infants have orgasms? Well, they don't. They all have only Kinsey's child rapists to support the idea of child orgasms. Thanks. Mom really needs these experts.

Again, some basic homework is required when one writes a guidebook for parents about their children's sexual conduct.

Lush and Vrendevelt hold up Indiana University's Alfred Kinsey and his pack of sexology disciples as the sexperts for us all. Apparently the authors are wholly unaware of the long-standing body of data documenting Kinsey as a clinically certifiable bi-homosexual sexual psychopath, a pornography addict who engaged in ritualistic sexual self-torture since childhood and who seduced his male students and his male research subjects. Instead of exposing this closeted sex criminal and his followers to their readers, the authors reprint the Indiana University Public Relations yarn about their deceased sexual revolutionary:

Alfred Kinsey, a professor at the University of Indiana, studied 5300 men and communicated his results in a report entitled "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male." This was the first large empirical study on male sexuality of its kind. Kinsey's findings are not inconsistent with the biological theory for sexual preference. His studies suggest that exclusive homosexuals did not seem to learn the role. Rather it seemed to come from an early predisposition that emerged during childhood.

Etc. I suggest that the authors and their readers study the facts behind Kinsey's alleged "large empirical study" in my book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000, 2003). (I first exposed Kinsey's criminal child sexual abuse protocols in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud in 1990.)

Kinsey provided the infant "orgasm data" for Lush's claim in his first book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948). He forgot to mention exactly how he got those revolutionary infant "orgasms." This is how he did it.

Kinsey had 317 to 2,024 children timed with stop-watches by his hired and volunteer child rapists who sodomized and digitally and genitally assaulted the children for 24 hours around the clock to get what the rapists' called infant "orgasms." Below is Table 34 from Kinsey's book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (p. 180) in which he claims his 5 month old victim had three "orgasms," although the rapists didn't provide the "time involved." This is the source of the phony "orgasm" data being cited by sexuality "experts" nationwide.

Oh, what was the "orgasm" the little 5 month old had? Well the children, he said, screamed, some fainted, many of the "younger" ones wept "hysterically" and struck their "partner" (page 161, recording the adult rapists). But not to worry. Kinsey, who had a habit of sexually torturing himself, called the children's terror and pain "orgasm." For "orgasm" for Kinsey was pain. His Kinsey Institute biographer, James Jones, testified that Kinsey circumcised himself with a knife in a bathtub without anesthetic.

Kinsey practiced the most painful kinds of sodomy, inserting objects into his urethra, hanging himself by his sexual organs from a pole at the Kinsey Institute basement and receiving sexual torture as the only way he could respond sexually. All this as he was writing Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, the book that would lead western sexuality to adopt much of Kinsey's deviant and violent sexual conduct as a norm.

Such are the "experts" Lush relies on to teach mom and dad how to raise their boys. She says, "as soon as a baby boy can coordinate his movements, he plays with his penis, and he learns very early that it is a pleasurable sensation."

Well, no, there are no data to confirm this as common to baby boys "as soon as he can coordinate his movements!" A baby plays with his toes as soon as he can coordinate his movements. He plays with his nose, his fingers, his feces, soap, chocolate, peanut butter, water, sand and anything else easy to hand. And yes, these all give him a "pleasurable sensation." What a surprise!! This doesn't make babies sexual; it makes them explorers.

Lush does say it is "a very normal part of male devellopment. The child is becoming aware of all the parts of his body, including his sex organs. If a mother is particularly anxious about these activities, a game or toy will quickly distract young children from stimulating themselves." That is good. The orgasms are bogus. The data do not find that normal baby boys who are not being genitally irritated or otherwise interfered with have "orgasms." And most moms and dads know that.

A few other comments. Lush cites Gessell's off-hand remark that "at seven…Sex play continues and tends to increase at this age" and so on. Well, again, there will be some children engaged in what Gessell calls "sex play" but one needs to ask "why" since most boys, left to their own devices, are wholly disinterested in sex and very interested in cars, dinosaurs, bugs, balls, beans and even, books! Now, with the television era, one has to admit to major changes in what interests boys, but sitting in front of a TV screen for hours on end can hardly be called "normal" in the sense of "natural" for healthy boys.

Think back to Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and past eras of hard work and low sexual exposure and the idea of what children do "naturally" changes radically.

So now Lush tells her readers "About 50 percent or more of all boys will masturbate at this age." Well, maybe yes and maybe no. The important point is that there are abundant unnatural, harmful or organic causes for self-stimulation among children and, indeed, the authors do try to address that fact. On that note, their warning to "Shield Boys From Inappropriate Sexual Stimuli" was useful.

The authors follow a well-trod Kinsey path. For half a century Planned Parenthood and SIECUS, the Sex Information and Education Council of the US, have cited Kinsey and his ilk to promote their version of child sexuality. So too has NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association as has the US Supreme Court in its recent sodomy decision. So, Lush et al are too often in step with bogus mainstream sexuality education.

Naturally, with Kinsey as their expert, they adopt the flawed "prehomosexual child" language, now chic among the sex education establishment. Lush notes one very inappropriate mother, "In a seductive sort of way, she caressed him and gave him body massages." Lush was alright to here, indicating that such conduct would distort and could destroy the son. However, she adds that the "therapist diagnosed Bob as possibly being prehomosexual." Since there are no naturally "pre-homosexual" children anymore than we know of naturally pre-criminal or pre-smoker children, Lush is misleading readers here.

The only viable data we have finds homosexuality resulting from seduced or neglected children who act out homosexually when they are pushed or manipulated in that direction. Lush does identify many events that sexperts say may "cause" homosexuality, including "Antisexuality and Puritanism" whatever that may be these days, while ignoring the role of pornography and sexual advocates in the media, school and elsewhere in facilitating sexual perversions, including homosexuality.

Lush says, "I must make something dear from the beginning….Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy, academic dean for the advanced study of human sexuality, says that a high percentage of boys have some kind of homosexual contact when they are growing up, and no homosexual contact in adult life." Well, as one of Kinsey's "co-author" sex partners and a child pornography procurer at his "institute" in San Francisco, Pomeroy's views are somewhat tainted. For, while a brief homosexual act may not produce a homosexual, even one such contact is generally very disturbing to a child while it precipitates higher numbers of adult homosexuals.

That "[m]ental health experts suggest that homosexual signs are visible early in the vast majority of boys" is a dangerous and unfounded claim. I'll leave it at that for now. That "[p]rehomosexual children also tend to isolate themselves" is similarly freighted with fallout although these days when children tease a child and label him or her as "different," yes, mom and dad have to remind the child that most everyone fells different, although most kids hide it by trying to fit in anyway they can.

Lush is alarming when she repeats one homosexual claim that, "When I was six or seven 1 realized that my feelings about other boys weren't normal. I was bookish, not athletic…." Suggesting that this demonstrates "a homosexual orientation." Bunk. However, she's on safe although obvious ground when she notes. "If a little boy does not receive the love and affection he needs at home, there is a chance he will look for it elsewhere."

Slipping off the straight and narrow again, Lush proclaims that "[p]rehomosexual boys tend to be sexually precocious and to develop sexual fantasies." No, that is not a "prehomosexual boy" that is a boy who has had some premature sexual exposure, and it is seldom the boy's fault. Here Lush quotes Kinsey's perverse colleague, "Dr. C. A. Tripp," and his allegedly "exhaustive book, The Homosexual Matrix." Tripp has been a major defender of Kinsey's use of men to rape children, claiming on the Donahue show in 1990 that Kinsey used only "responsible pedophiles, they used stop watches to record their thing."

Fine, so Lush uses Tripp, a pedophile panderer, to tell mom that "males who have a high homosexual proclivity often come from a sexually precocious segment of the population" and mature "sooner." More bunk. The only proof we have is that boys are born heterosexual unless their normal development is interfered with in some manner.

Anyone concerned about abstinence and sexuality in general needs to read Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000, 2003) ( Certainly Lush and Vredevelt should do so before they revise their book for the eighth time. Good intentions are not adequate when one claims to have the credibility to tell mothers how to raise their boys to be men.

Actually, I recommend The Complete Gentleman: The Modern Man's Guide to Chivalry by Brad Miner as an excellent blueprint for mom and dad to raise a boy to become a wonderful, inspirational man. A terrific, spell binding read as well!!!