Categories
facepalm misogyny MRA pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles sexual abuse victim blaming warren farrell

What Men’s Rights guru Warren Farrell actually said about the allegedly positive aspects of incest. (Note: it’s even more repugnant than that sounds.)

So there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the recent talk that old school Men’s Rights guru Warren Farrell gave at the University of Toronto. Protesters troubled by Farrell’s repugnant views on incest and date rape, among other things, blocked the entrance to the building holding the talk; police broke up the blockade. You can find various videos of what went down on YouTube. I’m not going to try to sort out all the various claims and counterclaims about what happened.

I personally don’t approve of blocking people from giving talks, even if their ideas are repugnant. But I certainly do approve of holding people responsible for what they say, and Farrell – in addition to being wrong about nearly every aspect of relations between men and women – has said some truly awful things over the years.

Exhibit A: A notorious interview he gave Penthouse magazine in the 1970s in which he discussed a book he was researching about incest, tetatively titled The Last Taboo: The Three Faces of Incest.

Let me put a giant TRIGGER WARNING here for disturbing discussion of incest and child sexual abuse.

In the interview, he argued that incest could be a good thing for everyone involved. Indeed, he waxed poetic about the possible positive effects:

“Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he told interviewer Philip Nobile. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma.”

The book Farrell was working on never appeared, and Farrell would apparently prefer it if what he said in that interview simply vanished into the memory hole, but a radical feminist site called the Liz Library has a copy of the original 1977 magazine in which it appeared, and has put high quality scans of it online. You can find them here.

Here are some of the things Farrell said in that interview. I’ve put the direct quotes from Farrell in bold; the rest is Nobile’s summary of what Farrell told him.

The article summarized the “findings” of Farrell’s (at that time incomplete) incest research, starting with his take on mother-son incest:

Mother-son incest represents 10 percent of the incidence and is 70 percent positive, 20 percent mixed, and 10 percent negative for the son. For the mother it is mostly positive. Farrell points out that boys don’t seem to suffer, not even from the negative experience. “Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”

Apparently, in his view, girls feel bad about the abuse not so much because abuse is inherently bad, but because “society” tells them it’s bad; he returns to this theme repeatedly.

Apparently Farrell’s “findings” about father-daughter incest were not quite as cheery:

The father-daughter scene, ineluctably complicated by feelings of dominance and control, is not nearly so sanguine. Despite some advertisements, calling explicitly for positive female experiences, Farrell discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest. Only 15 percent felt positive about the experience. On the other hand, statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse — 60 percent positive 10 percent mixed, and 20 percent negative. “Either men see these relationships differently,” comments Farrell, “or I am getting selective reporting from women.”

Yea, that’s right. He’s saying that the overwhelming majority of the abusive men he interviewed enjoyed sexually abusing their daughters, but for some baffling reason their daughters generally didn’t enjoy the abuse. And the explanation for this is that perhaps the daughters are lying – er, sorry, “selectively reporting?”

The bit about advertisements seems to suggest that Farrell went out of his way to try to find and interview women who felt positively about being sexually abused, but still was unable to find more than a small percentage who did.

The article continues. (This is Nobile summarzing Farrell, not Farrell’s direct words.)

In a typical traumatic case, an authoritarian father, unhappily married in a sexually repressed household and probably unemployed, drunkenly imposes himself on his young daughter. Genital petting may have started as early as age eight with first intercourse occurring around twelve. Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him.

Let’s just repeat that last sentence for emphasis:

Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him.

The article continues:

If she is unaware of society’s taboo and if the mother does not intervene, she has no reason to suspect the enormity of the aberration. But when she grows up and learns of the taboo, she feels cheapened.

So the incest “taboo” is the main problem, not the abuse itself?

And here is a doozy of a quote from Farrell directly:

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

(Note: I’m relying on the Liz Library’s transcription of this quote; some of the text in their scan of this page is blurry.)

Farrell told Nobile that he was feeling hesitant about publishing his book, because it might encourage exploitation of daughters, but that he felt compelled to continue researching it for two main reasons:

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere.

Farrell also hopes to change public attitudes so that participants in incest will no longer be automatically perceived as victims. “The average incest participant can’t evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. “

According to The Liz Library, Farrell now claims that the bit about “genitally caressing” children is a misquote, and that what he really said was “generally caressing.” You can see the scan of the page here; Penthouse clearly has him saying “genitally.”

But let’s assume that Farrell is telling the truth and Nobile misheard the word. Here’s the quote again, with that one word changed.

First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and generally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.

I’m not sure that’s much better; he’s still talking about “touching, holding, and … caressing” children in a sexual context.

Farrell has not, to my knowledge, challenged any of the other quotes in this interview besides that one. Nor, again to the best of my knowledge, has he forthrightly repudiated the substance of what he said. If he wishes to clarify or challenge any of this I will happily give him space here on this blog to do so.

I should note that in the interview Farrell stopped short of actually advocating incest. But his reasoning here is curious, to say the least:

“I’m not recommending incest between parent and child, and especially not between father and daughter. The great majority of fathers can grasp the dynamics of positive incest intellectually. But in a society that encourages looking at women in almost purely sexual terms, I don’t believe they can translate this understanding into practice.”

So apparently father-daughter incest – ie, sexual abuse – isn’t a good idea because in a sexist society fathers are likely to do it wrong?

I encourage everyone with the stomach for it to read the entire Penthouse piece, which also discusses the incredibly creepy views of some other incest “researchers” at the time.

I will highlight more of Farrell’s problematic views in future posts.

464 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ithiliana
11 years ago

Ha, ninja’d by alert posters!

Support for all trix, hellkell, and thenatfantasic said!

ithiliana
11 years ago

My heavens to betsy, isn’t drivertroll a condescending, patronizing, piece of crap?

David provided proof, quotes, evidence, doofus.

Why don’t you do the same?

driversuz
driversuz
11 years ago

Yes, trix. More wine. That’s exactly what you need.

Gametime
Gametime
11 years ago

I love when the trolls think they’re OMG SO SHOCKING that they’ll get banned, because when it doesn’t happen they’re denied the opportunity to brag about how this site JUST COULDN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH and have to settle for bragging about how David was apparently too scared to ban them. Or something.

It doesn’t get any more transparently attention-begging than that.

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
11 years ago

Fuck you driversuz, you hateful piece of shit.

ithiliana
11 years ago

Commentary on Farrell from 1994, including his change in theory/work and attitudes toward feminism:

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/farrell_who.html

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Dumbass, we’ve just referenced his work without having to go to AVfM. Grow a brain.

driversuz
driversuz
11 years ago

“Why don’t you do the same?”
…Because “this isn’t and academic blog” (and water is wet.)
You could always look into his sources, but that would take time and analytic ability. Sucks to be you.

trix
trix
11 years ago

I am referring to your crap about Ms. Armstrong. I found those comments to be off topic.

You are correct about Farrells comments to be on topic; I agree with you.

Show my work about your adulation of Farrell? It’s right here in the thread!!

And do you think that by insulting me can make my life any worse? I am at the very bottom. Your stupid hate-boner comments can’t hurt me.

cloudiah
11 years ago

Ah, Warren “before we called it date rape we called it exciting” Farrell — I don’t believe he’s ever repudiated that one either. This is the hill you want to die on, Suz? Seriously? An incest and date rape apologist brings all the trolls out from under their bridges to defend him?

AVfM isn’t scary; you all can’t seem to organize a one-car parade. All you do is bluster on the internet, and hope that you’re scaring people. You’re not. Hint: We’re MOCKING you, and continuing on with our days. Speaking of that, I am off to pick up some pies and then go make the mashed potatoes.

My condolences, Trix — internet hugs if you want them. Let us know if we can help.

trix
trix
11 years ago

You could also stop trolling this blog. But that would mean having a real life and rational thought. Sucks to be you.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Trix, hugs if you want them.

Driversuz, we HAVE found sources. We can’t make you read the shit, but be aware that your refusal to acknowledge this makes you look even dumber.

So why should we be so into Farrell again?

driversuz
driversuz
11 years ago

Who’s shocking? Me? Hah! I’m just somewhat amused to see how easily you all fly into a collective spastic hissy-fit. Doesn’t take much, does it, for you to forget the adage: Don’t feed the trolls.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

LOL at AVfM being scary. Like Cloudiah mentioned, y’all can’t organize a thought, much less any meaningful activism.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

We feed trolls until the burst around here. It’s fun for us, open wide.

trix
trix
11 years ago

I stand by my previous comment. Fuck child molesters and fuck their lackeys.
peace out

katz
11 years ago

And on thanksgiving, we feed ’em double. (Trolls, that is.)

Polliwog
Polliwog
11 years ago

Wow. Driversuz, are you American? Because if you are, and you’re actually spending your holiday seeing if you can wound strangers on the internet who tell you they’re in mourning, that is seriously among the saddest things I’ve ever seen. Is there really no one and nothing in your life you’d rather be spending time on today? Heck, even if it’s not a holiday where you are, that’s deeply, deeply pathetic.

ithiliana
11 years ago

More about Farrell without going to AVFM:

Cult Education FOrum: Warrenn Farrell, MIsogyny, “Postitive” incest, and Ken Wilbur connection

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?11,95569,95569

1997 Interview with Warren Farrell (by strong sympathizer)

http://www.menweb.org/svofarre.htm

His own words:

Steven: What evidence did they have that supposedly you were promoting incest or rape? Was there any evidence of that?

Warren: None whatsoever except that I mentioned both words. The incest thing was very ridiculous because I just made an analogy about workplace sex being incestuous. I said that when colleagues in the same company have sex together, it was like people in the same family having sex together. And they took that and said I was recommending incest. It really shocked me that the producers didn’t read for themselves what was being said. And with the rape, I was showing why the rape statistics are exaggerated, and saying that date rape was much more complex than the way feminists had portrayed it, as men oppressing women.

driversuz
driversuz
11 years ago

hellkell, not surprisingly, you missed the point. I’m not here to defend Farrell; I’m here to point out Boobzie’s pathetic attempts to scare you away from Farrell. Posing as a brilliant investigative journalist, Boobzie has trawled history to find old, irrelevant articles which prove Farrell is a Bad Man. This distracts you from the fact that Farrell’s opponents are openly breaking laws and blatantly attempting to censor him. If people notice that The Equality Police must shut down free speech in order to maintain their power, we might start to wonder what The Equality Police are trying so hard to hide. Can’t have that now, can we?

So no, I’m not going to play with your little straw men and debate Farrell’s politics. I’m discussing something bigger, something that encompasses ALL of this bullshit – Feminist censorship of any speech which doesn’t support their pet theory that women are inherently victims and men are inherently oppressors. Without that pet theory, Feminists lose billions of tax dollars.

ithiliana
11 years ago

The Liz LIbrary rocks: go, TRISH WILSON!

Trish Wilson response to Warrenn Farrell (1998) (on the Liz Library Site, but not one linked by David): lots of emails from Farrell all over the Liz Library with her commentary on them.

http://www.florida-family-lawyers.com/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.florida-family-lawyers.com/trishwilson/farrell.html

Includes a quote from THE MYTH OF MALE POWER: (his more recent work) about, SURPRISE, incest!

For a man who had so much to say about “positive incest” for Penthouse, Farrell is strangely silent on the subject for “The Myth of Male Power.” There is one very telling section on incest in “The Myth of Male Power,” on pgs. 85-86. It’s very similar to pro-pedophilia sentiments expressed by Ralph Underwager for the Dutch pedophile magazine “Paidika.” Since Farrell has lately begun claiming that those who quote him verbatim from his own material are purposefully taking him out of context (this sentiment extends to material he probably wishes would disappear, like that Penthouse interview), this is the section in its entirety. His claims of being taken out of context are, in a word, bunk. And, no, that Penthouse interview isn’t going away any time soon.

<blockquoteL

From "The Myth of Male Power:"

VI. Immorality … Or … Immortality?

Were sexual freedom and premarital sex condemned because they sacrificed morality or sacrificed immortality? The Bible contains some astonishing answers….

Was Religion Concerned With Immorality … Or … Immortality?

Daughters Rape
Drunk Dad,
Say God Approves

Why would the above "headline" make William Randolph Hearst and Rupert Murdoch blush and yet lead to Lot and his daughters receiving God's blessing? The Bible explains, "One day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is no man around who will lie with us . . . Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him an d preserve our family line through our father." So, on two consecutive nights, both daughters go their father drunk, waiting until he fell asleep, and had sex with him without his being aware of it ("He was not aware of it when she way down or when she got up"). They each became pregnant.

Were Lot and his daughters punished for incest or rape? (If a father had sex with is daughter while she was asleep, we'd call it rape.) No. They were blessed. By God. So blessed that both their sons became leaders of a people. Rather than feeling ashamed about the incest, not only was the first of the sons, Moab, named after the incest (Moab comes from the Hebrew meaning "from father"), but so were the peoples of which he was the father: the Moabites. Why? The drunkenness, rape, and father-daughter incest led to the preservation of a family line.

ithiliana
11 years ago

damn, I checked that blockquote.

Here’s the FARRELL block quoted:

From “The Myth of Male Power:”

VI. Immorality … Or … Immortality?

Were sexual freedom and premarital sex condemned because they sacrificed morality or sacrificed immortality? The Bible contains some astonishing answers….

Was Religion Concerned With Immorality … Or … Immortality?

Daughters Rape
Drunk Dad,
Say God Approves

Why would the above “headline” make William Randolph Hearst and Rupert Murdoch blush and yet lead to Lot and his daughters receiving God’s blessing? The Bible explains, “One day the older daughter said to the younger, ‘Our father is old, and there is no man around who will lie with us . . . Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him an d preserve our family line through our father.” So, on two consecutive nights, both daughters go their father drunk, waiting until he fell asleep, and had sex with him without his being aware of it (“He was not aware of it when she way down or when she got up”). They each became pregnant.

Were Lot and his daughters punished for incest or rape? (If a father had sex with is daughter while she was asleep, we’d call it rape.) No. They were blessed. By God. So blessed that both their sons became leaders of a people. Rather than feeling ashamed about the incest, not only was the first of the sons, Moab, named after the incest (Moab comes from the Hebrew meaning “from father”), but so were the peoples of which he was the father: the Moabites. Why? The drunkenness, rape, and father-daughter incest led to the preservation of a family line.

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
11 years ago

For fuck’s sake driversuz, not openly giving a hateful, lying piece of shit to spread their hateful lying shit isn’t censorship, it’s saying you don’t want to endorse hateful lying shits by giving them a sense of legitimacy.

You can blither on to your fucking black little heart’s content about whatever subject you want, but I don’t have to let you do it in my front room.

driversuz
driversuz
11 years ago

” y’all can’t organize a thought, much less any meaningful activism.”
If you read more of the site than is linked by Boobzie, you’d know that’s untrue. However it’s probably best that you don’t look too deeply; You’d no doubt just get underfoot and slow us down.
Ciao!

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Pfft. Ask driversuz if he thinks raping children is okay and he makes up some twaddle about the person asking being born after Farrell defended incest. Fail on both counts, though it’s a minor note among this troll’s all-round failures.

So try answering the question: do you think raping your children is okay? Because another failure to say a clear no suggests you do. Which in turn explains your adulation of Farrell.

1 3 4 5 6 7 19