« Haredi Rabbi Arrested On Child Rape Charges | Main | Video: Child Sex Abuse In Britain's Haredi Community Exposed »

January 31, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Manny only has this position for a year. Didn't I see that here? I hope he has a plan of how to get the biggest bang for his buck, and how to get from here to there.

I get the feeling he's flailing, but then I don't know what he/Tzedek wish to accomplish. Specifically. Not a political convention.

Defense Counsel

I think this is turning into a circus.

Yes. He said some utterly stupid things But he didn't molest anybody. Why are they suing him...for being stupid?

Does the Beit Din have jurisdiction over stupid rabbis? Is being offensive an offense?

This is turning into a self-feeding frenzy.


For the Aussies



Oh my gosh... Amazing some of the comments here... Friedman ia so far out of line its sickening... And Mendel here (not like Mendel is clearly a lubavitcher name or anything...my guess, a young lubav with no clue what reality is...) And how does Dr. Laura even get into this? She's a jew (supposedly...) And from what I hear a big fan of Chabad... Above that? Who the hell cares about her qualifications? Anyone with a brain knows that she isnt, has never been, and doesnt have the brain power to act as an actual Dr or a professional in the psychiatric world...

Pirkei Yeladim

@Mendel: can you please keep your irrelevancies off this thread? Waste of space.

@Chaim: Friedman and the JCCV and the ECAJ and all their apologists and fanboys are the ones doing the damage to the community. By trivialising abuse and undermining the credibility of the victims, by refusing to acknowledge the harm of the offence, and by distorting halacha to suit. THAT is what damages the Jewish community.

The response (or lack thereof) to a story of offending can often be as bad as, or compounds, the offence itself.

"People" like Friedman have no place in Judaism.

The fact that people like Chaim prefer to attack people like Manny Waks is the truest reflection of their immorality. If Chaim doesn't like the reflection Manny is showing, then Chaim should do something to change the object being reflected - there is nothing wrong with the mirror itself or the person holding it up.


The issue is not Dr. Laura's credentials. Why are we arguing it? The issue is the inability of ignoramuses like Mendel to deal with the fact that finding an essay that argues a subject is not the same as "research". In fact, the issue is science versus populist religious dogma. And I am afraid that sadly populist religious dogma usually brings a knife to that gunfight, a little plastic knife.


Posted by: mendel | January 31, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Save us the time we spend scrolling past your pastes and just post a link. We all know you don't have an original thought in your head.


Shmarya | January 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM

"(And this isn't even touching on your obvious mental illness.)"

That kind of statement accomplishes nothing positive on any level and you know that.

"..."Dr. Laura" is not a psychologist or a medical doctor. She's an exercise physiologist, I believe, and was – and still is – wholly unqualified in psychology and is by no means an expert."

She's not unlike Hynes in that she will also jump on any ship that isn't sinking as long as she can get attention. She became a Chabadnik and donated lots of money to get her name all over the place. But when they remained mute after her catastrophic mistake of telling gays, on air, they were an abomination she quickly found Jesse the C again and jumped the Lubavitch ship. It was sort of a crack-up because chabad was warned and the Uber Rabbi said, with rarely seen dark and menacing peepers, "She does a lot of good." I guess that referred to her donations.

She also touted herself as a great mom and her son as perfection. I don't know how he is now but when I heard her do this he was a monster in school and a behavior problem.

She is and always a train wreck.


This now appears this morning on page 3 of the Age newspaper in Melbourne Australia .
Waks application to Beis Din is frivolous.
Rabbi Friedman can hardly be regarded as a global leader.
The headlines of this article are
"Sex abuse victims sue rabbi over comments ".
The public will see the "sex abuse ....rabbi".
Waks is quoted as saying that Friedman is doing untold damage to the entire Jewish community.
Perhaps Waks should look in the mirror.


Mendel - I enjoyed reading your post......

In 2001

When Mary Eberstadt wrote it.


She did not give "psychological advice"; she gave "wise counsel". There is a vast difference. Ask your therapist.…

No, Mendel. She gave 'wise' counsel to people while calling herself doctor and misleading people into believing she was a Ph D is psychology or a psychiatrist.

And that is a very different thing.

(The Other) Eli

Why don't they take Friedman to a civil court? A bet din won't do anything, but a civil court might be interested in why this guy is counselling without a license.


She did not give "psychological advice"; she gave "wise counsel". There is a vast difference. Ask your therapist.
If you ban me for cutting and pasting my sources it won't be for violating any of your rules; you do enough of that by your lonesome.
In which case why don't you ban yourself first?


Is it irony that Manis, his family and his worshipers feel violated by Manisgate? I mean, open a Shulchan Aruch, what does the toyreh say, did he do an aveiro by starting Manisgate, and if he did then he should do two mitzves and balance it out. There is so much outrage; indignation; a sense that he is being "damaged." Or is it poetic justice?


That should have read: "We're Stronger Than the Internet" - not "Thank the Internet." Was that a typo, or a Freudian slip? I'll have to ask Manis next time I'm in therapy, you know, for that time I forgot to say al ha-michya.


May 20, 2012
Rabbi Manis Friedman
"We're Stronger Thank the Internet"

... Manis Almighty.


Posted by: mendel | January 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM

She's not a doctor and she's not a psychologist.

And her certificate in marriage and family counseling was obtained AFTER she was already giving psychological advice to radio listeners.

A dishonest person who misrepresented her credentials to listeners and whose educational background in the field is a certificate is not an expert in real life or in halakha.


Who cna trust you after such slipshod journalism?
You don't even know how to do a web search.
she obtained training and certification in marriage and family counseling from the University of Southern California, and a therapist's license from the State of California. In addition, she opened up a part-time practice as a marriage and family counselor


Posted by: mendel | January 31, 2013 at 11:07 AM

And you continue to cut and paste, dumping largely irrelevant chunks of article here to 'prove' that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing.

But they are not.

As for 12-year-olds deciding they are gay, I'd point out to you that there are hundreds of millions of 12-year-olds who decide they are straight and you have no complaint about that.

A 12-year-old is quite often a sexual being. It's the way humans are.

Acknowledging this fact is not moral turpitude.

Now stop cutting and pasting, stop lying, and learn to argue your position as an honest adult.

If you don't, beginning immediately I'll delete your comments and ban you.


Posted by: mendel | January 31, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Again, you have shown time and time and time again that you lack the mental faculties – and the honesty – to understand what you cut and paste. (And this isn't even touching on your obvious mental illness.)

You have been rebutted clearly and factually on this issue and yet you continue to cut and paste the same tired, often out of context, snippets of longer pieces that are either polemical in nature or craziness written by fringe figures like conspiracy theorists. You do so repeatedly and dishonestly.

And "Dr. Laura" is not a psychologist or a medical doctor. She's an exercise physiologist, I believe, and was – and still is – wholly unqualified in psychology and is by no means an expert.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of her readers and listeners didn't know that.


Surfing also makes plain that the better-known gay organizations, all of whom stand dead set against any conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia, are nonetheless sending mixed messages about what is and is not off-limits for the underage. Most of them, for instance, now have "youth sections" on their websites for and about legal minors. The justification for this heightened attention to the young is to ameliorate the angst of gay teenagers. At the risk of stating the obvious, though, it is hard to see how this purpose is served by encouraging boys to act and think sexually at ever younger ages, which is an all but unavoidable side effect of the type of "outreach" these sites engage in.

Consider, for example, the website of PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), one of the more respected gay rights organizations in the country. It is just a click of the mouse from PFLAG's "useful links" to a site where one can read the "coming-out" stories of children aged 10, 11, and 12. Similarly, the "youth" section of GLAAD's publication list (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) simply assumes that minors are sexually autonomous--and active. One piece ("Landmark Survey Shows Gay Youth Coming Out Earlier than Ever") notes approvingly that most children now "realize" their orientation at age 12. Another piece, "Lesbian and Gay Youth Find Safe Place in Cyberspace," counsels: "Don't believe much of the hype about how cyberspace is populated with pedophiles." These citations are taken from just the first two pages of GLAAD's 15-page list of publications for and about "gay youth."

At OutProud--another site recommended and linked by leading gay organizations--visitors are routed to a comic strip called "Queer Boys." It features two boys who are said to be 16 and look younger. They set off for Manhattan ("Let's run away to New York, where it's safe to be Queer!!" "Kewl!"), where they triumph over evildoers (i.e., parents and reparative therapists) and find happiness at last thanks to the habitues of a bar in the West Village. ("A gay rock club! That's so cool! Damn! I wish we were old enough to get in!!" says one of the boys. "Damn those politicians! Damn them all to hell!!" replies the other.)

For a final example of how pedophilia is being defined down, consider XY magazine--which would doubtless have run afoul of the obscenity laws until very recently. Started just four years ago, XY is now, according to its founder and publisher Peter Ian Cummings, the "third largest gay magazine in the U.S., selling over 60,000 copies per year and [having] more than 200,000 readers." (These numbers are unaudited, but would put XY on a par with the Advocate in circulation, though lower than Out magazine's 120,000.) Cummings also reports that "you can find XY on sale in Borders, Tower Records, Virgin Megastores, B. Dalton, Barnes & Noble, Waldenbooks, and many others."


I want all you tamedig sinners on this website, and you Shmarya, to reject your adherence to scientific "logic" and adhere only to the true logic of the Rebbe, may the king messiah live forever. You see that science, especially "psych type" science, has been refuted thoroughly and irrefutably. Please join me on this path to the higher level of existence that mendel and explainer and Manis Friedman enjoy.



Thank you for your words and you have changed my life. Now I realize that I am self hating and how illogical my entire outlook has been. A scientific essay was attacked and rejected? How could such a thing happen? That means that all science is suspect and likely bogus and all scientific research is nonsense. What a fool I have been! No more science and its silly "logic" for me. The Torah wants me to reject such silliness and do tshuva and you, mendel have shown me the way, through the only light of the world, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. No more 49 levels of tumah for me.

Yechi adoinaynu, moireinu, v'rabanainu MELECH HAMOSHIACH L'OILAM VA'ED!!!!!!!!!!!!


Of course, this opus that "gay studies" bookshelves now reserve space for did not spring from nowhere. The book itself grew out of two issues of the American Journal of Homosexuality (Vol. 20, Nos. 1/2, 1990) dedicated to the pondering of "male inter-generational love." Here again, an ostensibly mainstream gay vehicle was put to the service of advocating pedophilia. In fact, the case of the Journal of Homosexuality is particularly interesting as a case study of how a pernicious idea can spread. The editor of this reputable gay journal, John P. DeCecco, is a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is favorably quoted in the introduction to "Male Inter-Generational Intimac"y for having praised the "enormously nurturant relationship" that can result from pedophile-boy contact. DeCecco is also on the editorial board of Paidika.

As one would expect, such cross-pollination in gay fiction and criticism is verifiable many times over via the inhuman efficiencies of cyber-correlation. It was not immediately obvious, for example--in fact, it came as a surprise--that typing "Paidika" into an ordinary search engine would turn up a reference to Gay Men's Press bestsellers; but it did not take long to see why. For one of the books on the Gay Men's Press bestseller list turns out to be "Dares to Speak: History and Contemporary Perspectives on Boy-Love," edited by Joseph Geraci--all of whose chapters but one appeared originally in Paidika itself. Another book on the same bestseller list is "Some Boys," described as a "memoir of a lover of boys" that "evokes the author's young friends across four decades and as many continents." Another on the same list is "For a Lost Soldier" by Rudi van Dantzig, advertised as involving sex between an 11-year-old boy and a Canadian soldier in Holland in 1944. There are more.



As for the related matter of gay non-fiction, here too, judging by the public domain, the subject of boy pedophilia has a manifest niche.

One book only recently available in the "gay studies" section of a Borders in downtown D.C., for example, is a peculiar classic of a sort entitled "Male Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives," edited by the aforementioned pedophile icon Edward Brongersma and two colleagues. This book, according to one of its jacket endorsements, "[sheds] critical light on the broad spectrum of man-boy love and its place in ancient and contemporary societies." In other words, it is a series of briefs using scientistic polemics in an effort to rationalize the sexual molestation of boy children. The article abstracts speak for themselves. ("Pedophilia is always considered by mainstream society as one form of sexual abuse of children. However, analysis of the personal accounts provided by pedophiles suggests that these experiences could be understood differently." "The incidence of violence is very low in pedophile contacts with boys. The influence can be strong in lasting relationships; it can either be wholesome or unwholesome." And so on.)


Still another example of how standards are being lowered by a major publisher and respected writer--this one from academia and available at Borders--is "A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition," published in 1998 by Yale University Press. This book, "the first full-scale account of gay male literature, across cultures, languages and from ancient times to the present," is authored by Gregory Woods, described on the jacket as "the foremost gay poet working in Britain today." It includes a longish chapter on "Boys and Boyhood" which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary works, ranging over texts from the platonic "Death in Venice" to the noir likes of the aforementioned Tony Duvert. Nothing is questioned, much less condemned, in the course of Woods's account of these works. The only moral ambiguity that occurs to him concerns not the boy but the man in the equation. Woods concludes: "By playing [i.e., having sex] with boys, the man remains boyish. Whether you regard this as a way of retreating from life or, on the contrary, as a way of engaging with it at its most honest and least corrupted level, depends on which writer you consult at any given time


The object of this praise by one of America's leading gay novelists, appearing in one of publishing's most prestigious book series, is the tale of a man and boy who are living together in Italy. The scene selected is sexually graphic. And the age of this child, whom Leavitt considers "seducer as much as seduced"? He is--page 427 in the hard cover edition--"hardly seven."

Another seemingly representative collection of gay literature, this one on the shelf at Barnes & Noble and also apparently selling without comment, is "The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read," an Anchor Book published by Doubleday in 1998. Its editor/author, Robert Drake, is a novelist and editor of other anthologies who has won the Lambda Literary Award. Like the Penguin anthology edited by Leavitt, Drake's book too strives for canonical status, aspiring to offer a roadmap to the most important texts of gay history.

As it turns out, several of the texts that editor Drake thought worth including feature scenes of man-boy sex--again, what most of the rest of the public calls abuse or molestation. One work is something called "The Carnivorous Lamb" by Agustin Gomez-Arcos, described as a book about an incestuous relationship between a boy and his older brother (to Drake, "the best, most complex yet satisfying novel of filial love ever written"). Another text, this one by writer Matthew Stadler--described as the recipient of a Guggenheim fellowship for his first novel--is called "The Dissolution of Nicholas Dee." This book, says editor Drake, "is an operatic adventure into the realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read." Its protagonist is "a pedophile's dream: the mind of a man in the body of a boy." Drake also excerpts and discusses William S. Burroughs's nightmarish "The Wild Boys: A Book of the Dead," the pederastic violence of which defies description. Yet this work, according to Drake, "tears straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990s gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?"4


Consider David Leavitt, one of the best known of contemporary gay authors, whose numerous novels and short stories, among them "The Lost Language of Cranes" and, most recently, "Martin Bauman; or, A Sure Thing," are routinely reviewed in the better journals and magazines. In fact, it would be hard to think of a gay fiction writer more consistently represented in mainstream publishing.

For that reason, it is all the more surprising to read what this ostensibly mainstream author chose to write in his introduction to the equally mainstream "Penguin Book of International Gay Writing" (1995, edited by Mark Mitchell). There, in the course of describing what the anthology includes, Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that "Another 'forbidden' topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys." He then draws attention to one particular book excerpted in the volume, "When Jonathan Died," by Tony Duvert. "The coolly assured narrative" of this work, Leavitt informs, "compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn." Duvert, writes Leavitt, "offers us a homosexual Lolita--one in which the child is seducer as much as seduced."



This cheerleading for the sexual molestation of teenagers in the Sunday pages of one of the country's major newspapers did not pass without comment. One reader berated Drabelle in the letters column for "strongly implying that child abuse, when it takes place between two males, should no longer be viewed by the public as either a social offense or a crime."3 Yet as even a partial survey of related literature shows, what is truly anomalous about this case--of a mainstream reviewer in a mainstream family newspaper ratifying sex between grown men and boys--was that anyone bothered to be bothered about it at all. Other writers, including prominent writers among them, have gone further still, and with even less consequence.

Consider David Leavitt, one of the best known of contemporary gay authors, whose numerous novels and short stories, among them "The Lost Language of Cranes" and, most recently, "Martin Bauman; or, A Sure Thing," are routinely reviewed in the better journals and magazines. In fact, it would be hard to think of a gay fiction writer more consistently represented in mainstream publishing.


Last year, for example, St. Martins Press published a novel called "The Coming Storm" by Paul Russell, a professor of English at Vassar and the author of three previously well-received works of fiction. The drama of this tale revolves around something that remains an imprisonable offense in almost every state--a sexual "affair" between a troubled 15-year-old boy (Noah) and his 25-year-old gay boarding school teacher (Tracy). (The age of 15, incidentally, is no definitive limit in Russell's narrative. In the course of the book, Tracy also fantasizes about 14-year-old boys.)

"The Coming Storm" became the object of effusive praise by award-winning reviewer Dennis Drabelle in the Washington Post Book World (August 15, 1999). "The Coming Storm," Drabelle enthused, "takes off from a sensational subject--forbidden sexuality--to arrive at unexpected heights and subtleties." It "persuades the reader" that "the sexual relationship between Noah and Tracy is not only not harmful to either but a boon to the precocious junior partner, who becomes a better, more engaged student after the affair gets under way." What is "troublesome" about the book, according to Drabelle, is not that anyone is "corrupted" by what happens ("no one is"), but that "it is apt to be stereotyped, not least by the legal system that makes it a crime [emphasis added]."



In some of the clinical and therapeutic literature on pedophilia, it has become customary to distinguish between "ephebophilia," or sexual attraction to prepubescent children and teenagers, and "pedophilia" proper, meaning attraction to prepubescent children. Both forms are exhibited more than occasionally in another part of the written world, namely gay fiction. "Fiction" here emphatically does not mean pornography as such, but the kind of literature authored by self-consciously gay writers, published by reputable houses, and reviewed respectfully in the mainstream press. Again, it must be emphasized that numerous gay authors of note do not positively portray sex between adults and minors, and ipso facto are not part of this discussion.

Plenty of authors do cross the line, though. "Gay fiction," Philip Guichard complained in an article for the Village Voice last summer, "is rich with idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational relationships,' as such affairs are respectfully called these days." Over four years ago, "Pedophilia Chic" quoted passages from the works of several acclaimed authors--including Edmund White, the late Paul Monette, and Larry Kramer--which frankly and often sympathetically portrayed men seeking and having sex with underage boys. Today there are many more such examples to be found in gay fiction, all verifiable by a trip to the local chain bookstore.


Both Sullivan and Rauch are not only prominent gay journalists but also leading proponents of the worldview to which the gay rights movement owes much of its recent and stunning political success--the argument that, as Sullivan's "Virtually Normal" puts it, "homosexuals . . . have the equivalent emotional needs and temptations of heterosexuals." Both writers are also members of the Independent Gay Forum, an institution aimed at "forging a mainstream identity"; and both have frequently broken ranks with the leftists and radicals who dominate gay activism. That two such mainstream authors should mock the public outcry against that APA article illustrates something noteworthy: that in place of a social consensus against pedophilia per se, a separate option--call it anti-anti-pedophilia--appears to have taken root. According to that view, the problem is less sex with minors than the people who declare themselves against it--Dr. Laura fans, congressmen, dissident therapists, religious types, and anyone else who does not grasp the necessity of putting words like "child sexual abuse" in quotes


To his credit, Rauch did report that "in 1989, when he was 23 and just out of college, Bauserman [one of the Meta-Analytic authors] published a cross-cultural comparison of attitudes toward man-boy sexual relations in a Dutch journal called Paidika." This journal, in Rauch's description, "had taken pro-pedophilia stands"--something which he admitted "raises red flags."

But at the same time Rauch, like Sullivan, avoided the real issue at hand--that "Meta-Analytic" quite obviously aimed at de-stigmatizing boy pedophilia itself. Even more startling, though, was his bland depiction of Paidika. This is not exactly a journal in which pro-pedophile ideas have somehow surfaced accidentally. It is a publication dedicated to the phenomenon of "boy-loving," the most prominent such "scholarly journal" in the world, whose longtime editor, the late Edward Brongersma, was a convicted pedophile as well as the author of a two-volume pedophile classic, "Loving Boys." (To describe this as a journal which "had taken pro-pedophilia stands" is akin to describing The Weekly Standard as a magazine where conservative arguments have reportedly appeared.) And, of course, the qualifier "23 and just out of college" served to soften Bauserman's earlier appearance in Paidika, suggesting it was an excess of youth.


Another writer outraged over the outrage about "Meta-Analytic" was respected reporter and political analyst Jonathan Rauch. In his commentary on the controversy published in the National Journal, Rauch roundly defended the study. It was the critics of the "Meta-Analytic" piece, Rauch wrote, who were "turning out stomach-churning stuff." The vote in Congress--as opposed, say, to what Rind et al. had written--was "faintly sinister." Like the authors of the piece itself, Rauch advocated that, in the name of "science," researchers should "abandon the current custom of referring to all adult sexual encounters with minors, regardless of the circumstances, as 'child sexual abuse,'" because they could "perform finer-grained analyses if they used 'abuse' to denigrate injurious or unwilling encounters. Other encounters," Rauch echoed, "could be called 'adult-child sex' or 'adult-adolescent sex.'"


The second peculiarity of the outrage over "Meta-Analytic," which also went unnoticed at the time, was that it was not, in fact, universally shared. The notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), predictably enough, cheered the study as "good news." Less explicable was the reaction within the gay press, which not only failed to distance its movement from the study, but went on to excoriate the APA's critics (particularly Laura Schlessinger). This was the same approach taken, independently, by at least two mainstream--and relatively conservative--gay journalists.

Writing in the New York Times Magazine, prominent author and activist Andrew Sullivan complained about the "sour reception" that had greeted the study. After all, he wrote, Rind et al. had found that "lasting psychological trauma among adult survivors of abuse, particularly for men, was much less than feared." This, according to Sullivan, should be "a reason for relief." Instead, and what he evidently found disagreeable, "outraged members of the religious right accused the APA of tolerating pedophilia" and "launched a crusade to punish the organization." He concluded sarcastically: "That'll teach them to look on the bright side."


In retrospect, there were two significant and little-noticed facts in all this. One was not so much the schism that this controversy revealed between elite-therapeutic and popular thinking about pedophilia, but rather that the schism itself had gone unnoticed for so long. For shocking though it may have been to the general public, "Meta-Analytic" was in fact only the latest in a very long series of professional attempts to revise therapeutic conceptions of boy pedophilia, attempts of which most lay readers remain quite ignorant.

Professionals in the field know better. Fifteen years ago, for example, in his careful research volume "Child Sexual Abuse," noted authority David Finkelhor was already drawing attention to the "body of opinion and research [that] has emerged in recent years which is trying hard to vindicate homosexual pedophilia." To read Finkelhor's sources on the subject--or, for that matter, to read the notes in the heavily sourced "Meta-Analytic" itself--is to see exactly what he means. In their call to redefine "abuse" as "contact," for example, Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch were merely resurrecting research and conceptual work stretching back over two decades; similarly, their distinctions between boys' and girls' supposed experiences of abuse have a pedigree that begins with Kinsey and branches out dramatically in professional publications of the last 25 years. The authors of "Meta-Analytic" may have made their points boldly enough to get noticed; but that is the only academic novelty to which they could truly lay claim. The real news about the normalization of pedophilia displayed in "Meta-Analytic" was that nothing about it was conceptually new.


You detractors of Manis don't have a clue as to who the real enemy is, the scientist/psychetypes. Take off your blinders, and rid youselves of your self-hating outlook on Jewish life.
Get up out of your self-imposed 49th level of spiritual defilement, and come into the light of Torah--and that means you, Shmar, and all of your ilk.
Let us begin with one recent public challenge to the taboo against pedophilia that did garner the public attention it deserved, albeit belatedly, and which demonstrates both the boy-specific character of today's revisionism and the gulf between popular and other views of the subject. This was the episode that began with the publication in July 1998 of an essay in the American Psychological Association's (APA) prestigious Psychological Bulletin called "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" and co-authored by Bruce Rind (Temple University), Robert Bauserman (University of Michigan), and Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania).
As MIT psychologist G. E. Zuriff observed later in an essay for the Public Interest, "It is not difficult to see how these ideas would antagonize not only Dr. Laura [Schlessinger] but the public at large." For although the incendiary potential of asking people to give pedophilia a second look may or may not have been grasped by the APA authorities who accepted the article for publication, no such ambiguity marked the reaction of the lay public. Most people were made aware of "Meta-Analytic" in March 1999, when Schlessinger devoted the first of two radio talks to attacking the article, and their own livid view of the matter was made known in the course of a multi-dimensional public uproar that took months to die down. The denouement was a series of unusual events, including a public castigation of the American Psychological Association by majority whip Tom DeLay; a House vote to condemn the "Meta-Analytic" essay itself (355-0, with 13 abstentions); and a highly unusual public rejection by the APA of the piece's conclusions, along with a promise to acquire an independent evaluation of the article.
[cut and pasted by Mendel]



do you still have my number?
we never did meet for a hot dog at 7-11!
calm down frum people, kosher hot dogs at our 7-11!
i know it's been a long time devorah, but i've been incredibly busy.
please call me,


People on Collive.com love defending people even though they he could be wrong.


rabbi friedman!
what happened to you?
who are you?
Among other things, Friedman compared being sexually abused as child to having an episode of diarrhea, told abuse victims to just get over it, and said that not reciting a blessing after eating cake is worse than being sexually abuse.

Apple Juice

Yossi Braun does NOT have Smicha, Manny go to a real Rabbi:

Yet, a week later the little known candidate, from across the world, won the election by a Small margin. As the days passed election night one question lingered does Braun have Smicha, and Shimush? During the campaign aides to Braun released a document from Rabbi G. Tzinner attempting to depict a Smicha certification and endorsement for the position. Yet, it did not contain any date as to when he received this document, nor was it the language of a Smicha sheet, it was plainly an endorsement for his then new job in Sydney, Australia. These led to speculation that our newly elected and unknown Rov has never received Smicha and in turn never received Shmush (A vary important aspect in being a Rov). Did Braun intentionally try to deceive the community by presenting false indication that he received Smicha?



Jeez, Manny, can you get any more passive / aggressive? They have no idea what is wrong about their fundamental values and they certainly don't care about Tzedek at this point. You keep assuming they do. And then you state your intent which is so vague as to be unrecognizable.

This is not the way to knock the bullies out of their orbit. Maybe it's a cultural semantic thing I can't understand.

Eli, what me messiah?

what's up Kutyagummi? moronic haredi trolls haven't posted any harassing comments for a week?



What's up Manny?
Haven't had your name in the media for a week???

Beyond Ridiculous

This is well beyond ridiculous.

Waks seems to be nothing more than an opportunist, seeking to gain prominence and publicity on other peoples expense.

I hope the Bet Din explains that to him.

A Yid

With all due respect and sympathy to survivors of abuse,
what is the halachik "cause of action" contained in their letter to Rabbis Braun and Gutnick and why does Manny Waks have any standing to sue either personally or as a president of Tzedek?
I mean to say Rabbi Friedman made a statement that upset many people when posted online. He doesn't name any particular person in it so there is no possible lashon harah , rechilus or motzi shem rah involved.
Under what halachik theory can the Beis Din get involved in this issue to force him to make an apologize, or pay damages or the like?


rabbi beck is capable of doing this din torah


seriously? sue him on what grounds? Frivolous is to weak a word for this.


In the 'good old days' someone would have to sit in on his lectures and figure out how to tape record this shxt. Nobody would believe it otherwise.

OH NO the idiot puts it on YouTube and elsewhere and Chabad koolaide drinkers think it is real wisdom! har har chuckle chuckle

Shmaya get this in the Minneapolis paper! or even in the American Jewish World [Minneapolis Jewish paper]

If the show still existed-put ol Manis on the Gong Show and see how many seconds go by till the Gong goes GONG!

Youtube Poster

If the media are taking it out of context, he should apologize and explain himself, not just put out another video to whitewash the first one and manipulate his followers, he is also moderating the comments on his new video and only posting the comments which strongly support his view.


Bet Din? Prominent rabbi?

Yeah - that's going to work.


Howard--Youre seeing it the wrong if one is abused or molested he should run right away to his parents and tell them, to say what youre understanding of friedmans comparison is is laughable youre trying to justify he stupid take on it,besides the way he was talking its obvious in the tape that he is making a mockery out of molestations its a no brainer.


Friedman compared being sexually abused as child to having an episode of diarrhea

I certainly did not get that impression. He said that just like no one tells a prospective mate that they had an episode of diarrhea one does not declare that they were sexually abused. This does not mean that the two in toto are equivalent events. Here we see the danger of the media and how they take things out of context and twist it to the point that its context and meaning is completely lost.


Now maybee he will realize the callousness that he exhibited in his video and also wake up to reality ,and also the depth of hurt that those who were molested feel.


It's very nice what they are doing and I wish them much success. I hope this
gets the spotlight shone on these Lubavich thugs who act with such inhumanity and barbaric sick and evilness.

Friedman is likely at the least, not going to attract any new dopes.


Maybe bit by bit the veneer of Teflon that protects these scum will be peeled away and they will eventually be unmasked and disempowered. The Haredim using their fists on perverts is one step; this is another. Eventually the whole house of card will come crashing down.


LOL....Like Moshe Gutnick with his history in such matters is gonna give a damn or even reply to this....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Failed messiah was established and run in 2004 by Mr. Shmarya (Scott)Rosenberg. The site was acquired by Diversified Holdings, Feb 2016.
We thank Mr. Rosenberg for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community


Comment Rules

  1. No anonymous comments.
  2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.
  3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.
  4. Do not sockpuppet.
  5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.
***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Search this site with Google:


FailedMessiah.com in the Media