SEO

January 31, 2011

Synanon Art with Pepper and Connie Chung

Synanon

Art

 

 

Art Pepper and Connie ChungART PEPPER cancel Synanon KATIE CHUNG CHUCK DEDERICH

The story of Synanon, the renegade cult led by Charles Dederich, and the battle waged by a young lawyer named Paul Morantz on behalf of the people trapped inside this renegade organization. Synanon attempted to murder Paul Morantz, but he persevered, and ultimately won, freeing children and reuniting families, and creating the legal battle that would unravel Dederich's house of cards. For more information on Synanon and attorney Paul Morantz, go to www.paulmorantz.com (produced and edited by Jacob Davis)

Download now or watch on posterous
SYANON_ART_PEPPER.mp4 (11454 KB)

Synanon Art     Art Pepper and Connie ChungART PEPPER cancel Synanon KATIE CHUNG CHUCK DEDERICH The story of Synanon, the renegade cult led by Charles Dederich, and the battle waged by a young lawyer named Paul Morantz on behalf of the people trapped inside this renegade organization. Synanon attemp ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Synanon: QUICKFAX + VIDEOS (BEST THING ABOUT SPANISH FACEBOOK!)

Synanon: QUICKFAX + VIDEOS

by STUPIDEST GIFT IN THE WORLD on Saturday, February 7, 2009 at 7:04pm

synanon

Synanon, initially a drug rehabilitation program, was founded by Charles "Chuck" Federico Sr.Santa Monica, California. By the early 1960s it had also become an alternative community, attracting people with its emphasis on living a self-examined life, as aided by group truth-telling sessions known as the Synanon Game. Synanon ultimately became the coltish Church of SynanonInternal Revenue Service. (1913–1997) in 1958 in in the 1970s and the group disbanded permanently in 1989 due to difficulties.

Quick Facts

Please note: some links and/or actions in the Quick Facts may not work outside the full Wikipedia page. Synanon Type for-profit Genre new religious movement Founded 1958 Founder(s) Charles Dederich Sr. Headquarters Santa Monica, California Area served Germany Key people Charles Dederich Sr. Products drug rehabilitation Subsidiaries Synanon Branch, Germany More on Wikipedia.org flag

Google Blog Search: synanon

More on Google blog search flag

Sponsored Links


  • Synanon at Amazon
    Low prices on Synanon. Qualified orders over $25 ship free.
    Amazon.com
flag

YouTube: synanon videos

  • The House on the Beach (00:04:36)
    • From: Far newsworthy
    • Summary: A brief edited version of an old classic about Synanon in the earliest days. (more...)
    • Added: February 29, 2008
  • Intro to Art (first clip of... (00:04:12)
    • From: straightlife
    • Summary: Introduction to Straight Life: the Stories of Art Pepper -- in his own words and his own... (more...)
    • Added: July 16, 2007
  • INTRO 2ND REVISION LIVE JAZZ... (00:03:40)
    • From: straightlife
    • Summary: The producer shown dido t want to appear, so I had to blur him out. Also added some... (more...)
    • Added: October 02, 2006
  • Cedu Documentary Clip 2 -... (00:07:55)
    • From: liamscheff
    • Summary: Preview Clip 3 - Preview from Cedu documentary by Liam Sheff. Not for distribution or... (more...)
    • Added: October 10, 2008

Synanon: QUICKFAX + VIDEOS by STUPIDEST GIFT IN THE WORLD on Saturday, February 7, 2009 at 7:04pm synanon Synanon, initially a drug rehabilitation program, was founded by Charles "Chuck" Federico Sr. Santa Monica, California . By the early 1960s it had also become an alternative community, attractin ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Jazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - Video PlayList JUKEBOX EMBED

...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Did You Mean? * fuck * fudge

Did You Mean?

Other Options:
Fuck (1987 Album by The Leaving Trains)
friar (order)
trolley
Fuck (1997 Album by The Hafler Trio)
FUCK (abbreviation)
Fuck (film)
L-Fuculokinase
Karl Wilhelm Gottlieb Leopold Fuckel

Mentioned in:

fuck

Top

fuck is mentioned in:

screw you (Idiom)get stuffed (Idiom)
go root (computer jargon)Shaggy 2 Dope (Rock Artist)

fuck fudge Other Options: Top fuck is mentioned in: via answers.com ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

If Charts and Graphs Bore You, You're NOT FINNISHED YET!

via www2.hu-berlin.de ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Perfect 10 is 'Just Getting Started'! Take THIS Paraphilia Test and Drop Me a Line

PARAPHILIA SCALES FROM KURT FREUND’S
EROTIC PREFERENCES EXAMINATION SCHEME

 

Reproduced here by permission of the author.


Contents

Introduction

Masochism Scale

Sadism Scale

Fetishism Scale

Cross-Gender Fetishism Scale (Transvestism)

Core Autogynephilia Scale

Pedo Admitter Scale (Pedophilia)

Hebe Admitter Scale (Hebephilia)

Voyeurism Scale

Exhibitionism Scale

Alpha Reliability Coefficients

References

 

INTRODUCTION

 

            Kurt Freund, M.D., D.Sc. (1914–1996), was one of the most influential researchers in the areas of sexual orientation, gender identity, and paraphilias in the latter half of the twentieth century. Freund was born into a German-speaking Jewish family in Czechoslovakia, and he conducted his pioneering research on penile plethysmography (phallometry) while living and working in Prague. He fled from Czechoslovakia to Canada in 1968, in the wake of the “Prague Spring,” and accepted a position at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry (now the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; CAMH) in Toronto. Shortly after arriving at the Clarke Institute, he began developing the first English-language version of his self-report questionnaire for erotic preferences and gender identity in men.

 

            It is possible to partly reconstruct the chronology of his efforts at questionnaire development through various dates printed in the bottom margins of certain questionnaire pages. Freund’s questionnaire was organized into sections. The pages comprising each section were stapled together; thus each section was physically separate from the other sections. Most of the sections contained items on one topic or a few related topics (e.g., voyeurism and exhibitionism). The dates on which each questionnaire section was revised were printed in the bottom margin of the first page of the section.

 

            Freund’s questionnaire sections for pedophilia and hebephilia, voyeurism and exhibitionism, sadism and masochism, fetishism, and transvestism and transsexualism all have date stamps indicating that they were revised for the first time on October 15, 1971. This suggests that his questionnaire development must have been well under way prior to the autumn of 1971.

 

            The last major revision, according to the date stamps, was completed during April 3–9, 1974. This version was referred to in Freund’s laboratory as Questionnaire III (Q-III). This is the only version of the questionnaire for which computerized data still exist; in other words, the laboratory’s electronic database at the CAMH currently includes Freund questionnaire data for subjects going back to 1974.

 

            Major changes to Q-III after 1974 consisted primarily of additions. Freund added a new section on courtship disorders (voyeurism, exhibitionism, toucheurism, frotteurism, telephone scatologia, and preferential rape) on July 17, 1980—the same week that I began work at the Clarke Institute—and with his encouragement I added a questionnaire section on transvestism and autogynephilia in the next month. In later years, Freund occasionally inserted extra items into various sections, when he became dissatisfied with an existing item or perceived the need for an additional one.

 

            Freund eventually needed a better name than Q-III for the purpose of describing the instrument in publications. I suggested Erotic Preferences Examination Scheme (EPES), which he readily adopted. The EPES has never been published in its entirety, and there would be little purpose in doing so at this point. Many of its multi-item scales have been published in scholarly journals or book chapters, often in appendices or tables. These include scales intended to assess parent-child relations, childhood gender identity, gynephilia (the erotic preference for physically mature females), androphilia (the erotic preference for physically mature males), and degree of heterosexual experience.

 

            It is not my purpose to collect and review all of the EPES scales here. My purpose in this document is to bring together, in one place, all of the scales corresponding to the specific paraphilias listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). I am doing this partly for historical purposes and partly because the scales’ contents illustrate many of the points an experienced clinician might cover in interviewing a potentially paraphilic patient. These scales have not been copyrighted for commercial purposes, and any clinician or researcher who wishes to use them as they are, or to quote them, or to modify them for his or her own purposes is free to do so.

 

            The individual scales (with scoring weights in parentheses after each response-option) are presented in the next section, and some psychometric data about the scales is presented after that. In the remainder of this introduction, I want to make a few miscellaneous comments about the scales and the items they comprise.

 

            The first thing to point out is that the EPES is designed for men. Freund never attempted, at least after moving to Canada, to produce a parallel version for women. That is because the majority of Freund’s patients were sex offenders, and the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are men.

 

            The wording of some of the items seems awkward or mildly odd, for example, “Has cutting or imagining to cut someone’s hair ever excited you sexually?” English was Kurt Freund’s third or perhaps fourth language, after German, Czech, and possibly French. He usually attempted to get native English-speaking colleagues to proof-read his written English for him and to suggest more idiomatic expressions, but a certain stilted quality remains in many of the items.

 

            Some of the items seem potentially confusing for a patient-population in which many individuals have Grade 10 educations or less, for example, “Since you were 13 how old were you when you first touched the privates of or kissed or caressed a child under 7 years of age, to whom you felt sexually attracted?” It is important to understand that Freund often went over the questionnaire items with his patients, explaining the meaning of the various questions until they understood what was being asked. He was interested in the actual answer, not in the patient’s immediate reaction to the question.

 

            There is a final item matter about which I can only speculate. Some of the individual items seem to have been designed, from the very beginning, with a multi-item scale in mind. The Masochism Scale, for example, consists primarily of such items: “Has imagining that you were being humiliated or poorly treated by someone ever excited you sexually?” “Has imagining that someone was choking you ever excited you sexually?” “Has imagining that you have become dirty or soiled ever excited you sexually?”

 

            Other items, in contrast, seem very queerly worded for elements in multi-item scales. An example is this item from the Voyeurism Scale: “Since you were 16, if you secretly watched people making love, did you feel you were: (a) the male, (b) the female, (c) either one, (d) neither one, or (e) never watched (except for movies, plays, etc.).” The item seems to be looking for information beyond the patient’s proclivity for watching unsuspecting strangers in intimate situations. Freund’s original purpose in writing such items might have been to gather information about the predominant behavior, emotion, or cognition associated with a paraphilia, or to identify subtypes within paraphilias. When he impressed them into service in multi-item scales, he simply ignored the superfluous information. Thus, response-options (a), (b), (c), and (d) in the foregoing item are all scored as “1” and option (e) is scored as “0.”

 

            Freund made no attempt, in writing these items, to mislead or distract the patient from the meaning of the item or its implications. The items were designed on the sole principal of face-validity. Of course Freund understood as well as anyone that patients, especially those accused of criminal sexual behavior, are not candid about their erotic interests. Patients’ scores on these scales are influenced both by whether they have a paraphilia and by whether they are willing to admit a paraphilia if they have one. Freund chose to stress the latter source of variance when he called his measures of pedophilia and hebephilia the Pedo Admitter Scale and the Hebe Admitter Scale rather than the Pedo Scale and the Hebe Scale.

 

            Freund was also well aware of the repetitiousness of the items in some of the scales; he commented wryly about that on one occasion I remember. That repetitiousness results, in part, from the fact that paraphilias are essentially monosymptomatic conditions. He did vary item content when he could. He included, for example, items about love as well as items about lust in his pedophilia and hebephilia measures.

 

            As I have already explained, Freund often went over patients’ questionnaire responses with them and help them complete the questionnaire if they had difficulty answering the items on their own. He naturally used their responses to key items (along with their sexual offense histories and their phallometric results) in making clinical diagnoses. He did not, to the best of my knowledge, habitually use the computed scale totals for diagnostic purposes. He therefore did not conduct much, if any, research to identify cutting scores for the various scales, so cutting scores for classifying a patient as paraphilic or non-paraphilic are not available. The computed scale totals were primarily for the purposes of research rather than individual diagnosis.

 

            It is necessary to know one aspect of Freund’s standard operating procedure in order to understand what psychometric data are and are not available. I have already explained that the EPES was physically divided into sections. Freund did not give every patient every section. In general, he gave patients only those sections that were relevant to their clinical presentations. Thus, a patient who presented with exhibitionism would not get the section on fetishism (unless he also acknowledged fetishism). A patient who presented with fetishism, on the other hand, might also be given the section on sadism and masochism without his having mentioned those interests spontaneously, because fetishism is commonly found in association with sadism and masochism. Freund did this for a variety of practical reasons, one being that patients who had no interest in a particular paraphilia (e.g., transvestism or pedophilia) were sometimes upset and offended to be asked about cross-dressing or sexual feelings toward children. The upshot of this is that it was never feasible to conduct a grand, omnibus factor analysis of all paraphilia measures on all patients. Thus, the available psychometric data are alpha reliability coefficients.

 

            These scales, whatever their psychometric flaws, did yeoman’s service in a large number of studies, which I have not attempted to list comprehensively in this document. They still offer, at the very least, a starting point for the further development of self-report scales that canvass patients’ sexual desires as well as their sexual actions.

 

 

SCALES

 

SEXUAL MASOCHISM

 

Masochism Scale (Freund, Steiner, & Chan, 1982)

 

1. If you were insulted or humiliated by a person to whom you felt sexually attracted, did this ever increase their attractiveness?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. unsure (0)

 

2. Has imagining that you were being humiliated or poorly treated by someone ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

3. Has imagining that you had been injured by someone to the point of bleeding ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

4. Has imagining that someone was causing you pain ever aroused you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

5. Has imagining that someone was choking you ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

6. Has imagining that you have become dirty or soiled ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

7. Has imagining that your life was being threatened ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

8. Has imagining that someone was imposing on you heavy physical labor or strain ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

9. Has imagining a situation in which you were having trouble breathing ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

10. Has imagining that you were being threatened with a knife or other sharp instrument ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

11. Has imagining that you were being tied up by somebody ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

SEXUAL SADISM (Freund, Stein, & Chan, 1982)

 

Sadism Scale

 

1. Did you ever like to read stories about or descriptions of torture?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

2. Did you usually re-read a description of torture several times?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. don’t remember (0)

 

3. Were you:

 

a. very interested in descriptions of torture (1)

b. a little interested (0)

c. not at all interested (0)

d. never read such descriptions (0)

 

4. Between the ages of 13 and 16, did you find the sight of blood:

 

a. exciting (1)

b. only pleasant (1)

c. unpleasant (0)

d. did not affect you in any way (0)

 

5. Has beating somebody or imagining that you are doing so ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

6. Have you ever tried to tie the hands or legs of a person who attracted you sexually?

 

a. yes (l)

b. no (0)

 

7. Has cutting or imagining to cut someone’s hair ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

8. Has imagining that you saw someone bleeding ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

9. Has imagining someone being choked by yourself or somebody else ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

10. Has imagining yourself or someone else imposing heavy physical labor or strain on somebody ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

11. Has imagining that someone was being ill-treated in some way by yourself or somebody else ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

12. Has imagining that you or someone else were causing pain to somebody ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

13. Has imagining that you or somebody else were threatening someone’s life ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

14. Has imagining that someone other than yourself was crying painfully ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

15. Has imagining that someone other than yourself was dying ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

16. Has imagining that you or someone else were making it difficult for somebody to breathe ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

17. Has imagining that you or someone else were tying up somebody ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

18. Has imagining that you or somebody else were threatening someone with a knife or other sharp instrument ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

19. Has imagining that someone was unconscious or unable to move ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

20. Has imagining that someone had a very pale and still face ever excited you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

FETISHISM

 

Fetishism Scale (Freund, Stein, & Chan, 1982)

 

1. Do you think that certain inanimate objects (velvet, silk, leather, rubber, shoes, female underwear, etc.) have a stronger sexual attraction for you than for most other people?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

2. Has the sexual attractiveness of an inanimate (not alive) thing ever increased if it had been worn by, or had been otherwise in contact with:

 

a. a female (1)

b. a male (1)

c. preferably a female but also when in contact or having been in contact with a male (1)

d. preferably a male but also when in contact or having been in contact with a female (1)

e. a female or male person equally (1)

f. contact between a person and a thing never increased its sexual attractiveness (1)

g. do not feel sexually attracted to any inanimate thing (0)

 

3. Did the sexual attractiveness to you of such a thing ever increase if you wore it or were otherwise in contact with it yourself?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (1)

c. have never been sexually attracted to inanimate things (0)

 

4. Were you ever more strongly sexually attracted by inanimate things than by females or males?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

5. What was the age of persons who most increased the sexual attractiveness for you of a certain inanimate object by their contact with it?

 

a. 3 years or younger (1)

b. between 4 and 6 years (1)

c. between 6 and 11 years (1)

d. between 12 and 13 years (1)

e. between 14 and 16 years (1)

f. between 17 and 40 years (1)

g. over 60 years (1)

h. contact between a person and a thing never increased its sexual attractiveness (1)

i. have never been sexually attracted to inanimate things (0)

 

6. Is there more than one kind of inanimate thing which arouses you sexually?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (l)

c. have never been sexually attracted to inanimate things (0)

 

7. Through which of these senses did the thing act most strongly?

 

a. through the sense of smell (1)

b. through the sense of taste (1)

c. through the sense of sight (1)

d. through the sense of touch (1)

e. through the sense of hearing (1)

f. have never been sexually attracted to inanimate objects (0)

 

8. At about what age do you remember first having a special interest in an inanimate thing which later aroused you sexually?

 

a. younger than 2 (1)

b. between 2 and 4 (1)

c. between 5 and 7 (1)

d. between 8 and 10 (1)

e. between 11 and 13 (1)

f. older than 13 (1)

g. have never been sexually attracted to inanimate objects (0)

 

TRANSVESTISM

 

Cross-Gender Fetishism Scale (Blanchard, 1985)

 

1. Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women’s underwear, stockings, or a nightgown?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never put on any of these (0)

 

2. Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women’s shoes or boots?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never put on either of these (0)

 

3. Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women’s jewelry or outer garments (blouse, skirt, dress, etc.)?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never put on any of these (0)

 

4. Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women’s perfume or make-up, or when shaving your legs?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never done any of these (0)

 

5. Have you ever masturbated while thinking of yourself putting on (or wearing) women’s underwear, stockings, or a nightgown?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

6. Have you ever masturbated while thinking of yourself putting on (or wearing) women’s shoes or boots?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

7. Have you ever masturbated while thinking of yourself putting on (or wearing) women’s jewelry or outer garments?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

8. Have you ever masturbated while thinking of yourself putting on (or wearing) women’s perfume or make-up, or while thinking of yourself shaving your legs (or having shaved legs)?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

9. Has there ever been a period in your life of one year (or longer) during which you always or usually felt sexually aroused when putting on female underwear or clothing?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never put on female underwear or clothing (0)

 

10. Has there ever been a period in your life of one year (or longer) during which you always or usually masturbated if you put on female underwear or clothing?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never put on female underwear or clothing (0)

 

11. Have you ever put on women’s clothes or make-up for the main purpose of becoming sexually excited and masturbating?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

AUTOGYNEPHILIA

 

Core Autogynephilia Scale (Blanchard, 1989)

 

1. Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the nude female form?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never pictured this (0)

 

If you have answered “yes” to question 1, please answer questions 2–6. Otherwise skip to question 7.

 

2.You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female breasts.

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never pictured yourself with nude female breasts (0)

d. skipped (0)

 

3.You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female buttocks.

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never pictured yourself with nude female buttocks (0)

d. skipped (0)

 

4. You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female legs.

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never pictured yourself with nude female legs (0)

d. skipped (0)

 

5. You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female genitals (private parts).

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never pictured yourself with nude female genitals (0)

d. skipped (0)

 

6. You became sexually aroused while picturing your female face.

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. have never pictured yourself with a female face (0)

d. skipped (0)

 

7.Which of the following pictures of yourself has been most strongly associated with sexual arousal?

 

a. as a nude woman (1)

b. as a woman dressed only in underwear, sleepwear, or foundation garments (for example, a corset) (1)

c. asa fully clothed woman (1)

d. have never become sexually aroused while picturing yourself as a woman (0)

e. have never pictured yourself as a woman (0)

 

8. Have you ever been sexually aroused by the thought of being a woman?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

PEDOPHILIA

 

Pedo Admitter Scale (Freund, 1981)

 

Scoring note: Freund (1981) states that each item can attain no higher score than 1. Some items have homosexual andheterosexual alternatives (denoted by A, B, or C). In such cases, the score of only one alternative is counted. Thus, for example, positive responses to all three items 2A, 2B and 2C would add 1 to the total score, not 3.

 

1. Since you were 16, have you ever been as attracted, or more attracted, sexually by anybody or anything other than by females age 13–40?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

2. [A] Have you ever been equally, or more, attracted sexually by a boy age 6–11 than by females or males age 17–40?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

2. [B] Have you ever been equally, or more, attracted sexually by a girl or boy under age 6 than by females or males age 17–40?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

2. [C] Since age 16, have you ever been equally, or more, attracted sexually by a girl age 6–12 than by females age 17–40?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

3. [A] When did you first feel equally or more sexually attracted to a boy 11 or younger than towards females or males 13 or over?

 

a. before age 16 and this sexual attraction continued after age 16 (1)

b. when you were between 16 and 20 (1)

c. when you were between 21 and 30 (1)

d. when you were between 31 and 40 (1)

e. when you were between 41 and 50 (1)

f. when you were older than 50 (1)

g. no such strong feelings towards boys 11 or younger (after you were age 16) (0)

 

3. [B] When did you first feel equally or more sexually attracted to a girl 11 or younger than towards females or males 13 or over?

 

a. before age 16 and this sexual attraction continued after age 16 (1)

b. when you were between 16 and 20 (1)

c. when you were between 21 and 30 (1)

d. when you were between 31 and 40 (1)

e. when you were between 41 and 50 (1)

f. when you were older than 50 (1)

g. no such strong feelings towards girls 11 or younger after you were age 16 (0)

 

4. Since you were 16, have you ever felt sexually attracted towards:

 

a. girls younger than 12 but not boys of this age (1)

b. boys younger than 12 but not girls of this age (1)

c. mainly girls younger than 12 but also boys of this age (1)

d. mainly boys younger than 12 but also girls of this age (1)

e. both girls and boys younger than 12 about equally (1)

f. neither girls nor boys younger than 12 (0)

 

5. [A] How old was the youngest boy who attracted you sexually since you were 16?

 

a. younger than 6 years (1)

b. between the ages of 6 and 8 (1)

c. between the ages of 9 and 11 (1)

d. boys younger than 12 have never attracted you sexually since age 16 (0)

 

5. [B] How old was the youngest girl who attracted you sexually since you were 16?

 

a. younger than 6 years (1)

b. between the ages of 6 and 11 (1)

c. girls younger than 12 have not attracted you sexually since you were 16 (0)

 

6. [A] How old were the boys (or men) toward whom you felt the strongest sexual attraction since you were 16? Indicate the age bracket of highest attractiveness to you by one number only; this number should represent the approximate midpoint of the age bracket of highest attractiveness. (Example: if you felt for instance most attracted to boys age 7 to 10, indicate either age 8 or 9 whichever you feel to be more appropriate). If you were not sexually attracted to males put “0.”  ____  (ages 1–11 = 1, age 12 or higher = 0)

 

6. [B] How old were the girls (or women) toward whom you felt the strongest sexual attraction since you were 16? Indicate the age bracket of highest attractiveness to you by one number only. This number should represent the approximate midpoint of the age bracket of highest attractiveness. (Example: if you felt for instance most attracted to girls age 7 to 10, indicate either age 8 or 9, whichever you feel to be more appropriate.)  ____  (ages 1–11 = 1, age 12 or higher = 0)

 

7. Since you were 13 how old were you when you first touched the privates of or kissed or caressed a child under 7 years of age, to whom you felt sexually attracted?

 

a. between 13 and 16 (1)

b. between 17 and 20 (1)

c. between 21 and 30 (1)

d. between 31 and 40 (1)

e. between 41 and 50 (1)

f. older than 50 (1)

g. before reaching the age of 13, and this happened at least once again after age 13 (1)

h. since age 13, have never touched the privates of or kissed or caressed a child younger than 7, to whom you felt sexually attracted (0)

i. have never felt sexually attracted to a child of this age (0)

 

8. Since you were 16, how old were you when you first touched the privates of or kissed or caressed a child between 7 and 11 years of age to whom you felt sexually attracted?

 

a. between 16 and 20 (1)

b. between 21 and 30 (1)

c. between 31 and 40 (1)

d. between 41 and 50 (1)

e. older than 50 (1)

f. before reaching the age of 16, and this happened at least once again after age 16 (1)

g. since age 16, have never touched the privates of or kissed or caressed a child, between 7 and 11 years of age, to whom you felt sexually attracted (0)

h. have never felt sexually attracted to a child of this age (0)

 

9. [A] Since you were 16, have you ever been in love with a girl 11 or younger?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. unsure (1)

 

9. [B] Since you were 16, have you ever been in love with a boy 11 or younger?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. unsure (1)

 

10. Since you were 16, how did you like girl or boy 11 or under to respond to your sexual advances?

 

a. to resist your advances or be afraid or pretend to be afraid (1)

b. to give in easily to your advances (1)

c. their reaction was unimportant to you (1)

d. have never felt sexually attracted to a boy or girl 11 or under since you were 16 (0)

 

11. If you felt sexually attracted to a girl or boy age 11 or under, which of the following would you have liked to do most?

 

a. touch their chest with your hands (1)

b. touch their privates with your hands (1)

c. touch their rear end with your hands (1)

d. touch their chest with your mouth (1)

e. touch their privates with your mouth (1)

f. touch their rear end with your mouth (1)

g. touch their chest with your privates (1)

h. touch their thighs (upper legs) with your privates (1)

i. touch their privates with your privates (1)

j. show your privates only (1)

k. have never felt sexually attracted to a girl or boy age 11 or under (0)

 

12. Since you were 16, have you ever masturbated while touching girls or boys 11 or younger?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

HEBEPHILIA

 

Hebe Admitter Scale (Freund, 1981)

 

Scoring note: Freund (1981) states that each item can attain no higher score than 1. Some items have homosexual andheterosexual alternatives (denoted by A or B). In such cases, the score of only one alternative is counted. Thus, for example, positive responses to both items 2A and 2B would add 1 to the total score, not 2.

 

1. Since you were 16, have you ever been as attracted, or more attracted, sexually by anybody or anything other than by females age 13–40?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

2. [A] Have you ever been equally, or more, attracted sexually by a boy age 12–16 than by females or males age 17–40?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

2. [B] Since age 20, have you ever been equally, or more attracted sexually by a girl age 13–14 than by females age 17–40?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. you are under age 20 (0)

 

3. [A] When did you first feel equally or more sexually attracted to a girl 12 to 13 than to females or males 14 or over?

 

a. before age 20 (and this sexual attraction continued after age 20) (1)

b. when you were between 21 to 30 (1)

c. when you were between 31 to 40 (1)

d. when you were between 41 to 50 (1)

e. when you were older than 50 (1)

f. no such strong feelings towards girls 12 to 13 after you were age 20 (0)

g. you are not yet older than 20 (0)

 

3. [B] Since age 18, about how old was the youngest male to whom you could have felt some sexual attraction?

 

a. younger than 6 (0)

b. between 6 and 11 (1)

c. between 12 and 16 (1)

d. between 17 and 19 (0)

e. older than 19 (0)

f. did not feel sexually attracted to males (0)

 

4. [A] How old were the boys (or men) toward whom you felt the strongest sexual attraction since you were 16? Indicate the age bracket of highest attractiveness to you by one number only; this number should represent the approximate midpoint of the age bracket of highest attractiveness (Example: if you felt for instance most attracted to boys age 7 to 10, indicate either age 8 or 9 whichever you feel to be more appropriate). If you were not sexually attracted to males put “0.” ____  (ages 12–16 = 1, older or younger = 0)

 

4. [B] How old were the girls (or women) toward whom you felt the strongest sexual attraction since you were 16? Indicate the age bracket of the highest attractiveness to you by one number only. This number should represent the approximate midpoint of the age bracket of highest attractiveness (Example: if you felt for instance most attracted to girls age 7 to 10, indicate either age 8 or 9 whichever you feel to be more appropriate.)  ____  (ages 12–15 = 1, older or younger = 0)

 

5. [A] Since the age of 20 have you ever been in love with a girl of 12 or 13?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. unsure (1)

 

5. [B] Since you were 18, have you ever been in love with a boy of 12 to 14?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

c. unsure (1)

 

VOYEURISM

 

Voyeurism Scale (Freund, Watson, & Rienzo, 1988)

 

1. Since you were 16, have you ever had a greater desire to secretly watch people of your preferred sex who were undressed or partly undressed (not including pictures, movies, etc.), than to have sexual contact? If so, would you rather watch:

 

a. one person alone (1)

b. people fondling and playing with each other (without intercourse) (1)

c. people having intercourse (1)

d. always preferred to have sexual contact since age 16 (0)

 

2. Since you were 16, if you secretly watched people making love, did you feel you were:

 

a. the male (1)

b. the female (1)

c. either one (1)

d. neither one (1)

e. never watched (except for movies, plays, etc.) (0)

 

3. Since you were 16, did you ever masturbate (play with yourself) to a climax (ejaculation) while you were secretly watching people having sexual contact, or who were undressed or partly so (not including pictures, movies, etc.)?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

4. Since you were 16, have you ever masturbated while remembering other people’s sexual activities you have seen?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

5. Since age 16, and apart from viewing pictures or movies, have you ever spent a substantial amount of time trying to observe females nude or partly nude, or to observe them urinating, having intercourse with a man or in some other normally private act?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

6. Since age 16, have you ever masturbated while watching or trying to observe a girl or woman who was unaware of your presence?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

EXHIBITIONISM

 

Exhibitionism Scale (computed, but not published, by Freund as a scale; responses to some individual items analyzed in Freund, Watson, & Rienzo, 1988)

 

1. About how old were you when you first reached a climax while imagining, or dreaming, that someone you liked was looking from a distance at your privates?

 

a. younger than 13, and this happened at least once again when older (1)

b. between 13 and 16 (1)

c. between 17 and 20 (1)

d. between 21 and 30 (1)

e. between 31 and 40 (1)

f. between 41 and 50 (1)

g. older than 50 (1)

h. never (0)

 

2. About how old were you when you first had the urge to expose your privates to a person from a distance?

 

a. before you were 13, and at least once again when older (1)

b. between 13 and 16 (1)

c. between 17 and 20 (1)

d. between 21 and 30 (1)

e. between 31 and 40 (1)

f. between 41 and 50 (1)

g. older than 50 (1)

h. never (0)

 

3. If there would not have been any risk of detection would you have most liked to expose your privates from a distance to:

 

a. always the same person (1)

b. a few times to the same person (1)

c. always to a different person (1)

d. never had the urge to expose (0)

 

4. Who would you have most liked to expose your privates to?

 

a. people nude or only partly dressed (1)

b. people wearing clothes (1)

c. it would have made no difference (1)

d. no desire to do this (0)

 

5. The first time you exposed your privates from a distance, to someone of the sex you prefer, was it because:

 

a. you were married but did not have sexual intercourse often enough (because your wife was sick, pregnant, or separated, etc.) (1)

b. you were unmarried and had little opportunity for sexual intercourse (1)

c. you were worried about other things (1)

d. you exposed your privates as described above, but as far as you know it was not because of the reasons mentioned (1)

e. you have not exposed your privates in the way mentioned above (0)

 

6. If nothing unpleasant would have happened as a result, would you have preferred that the person you exposed your privates to from a distance be:

 

a. someone you knew well (1)

b. someone you knew only slightly (1)

c. someone you did not know (1)

d. it didn’t matter to you whether or not you knew the person (1)

e. never had the urge to expose (0)

 

7. Would you have preferred to expose your privates to:

 

a. one person alone (1)

b. more than one person at a time (1)

c. makes no difference (1)

d. have never had the urge to expose (0)

 

8. Which sex did you prefer to expose your privates to?

 

a. males (1)

b. females (1)

c. both at the same time (1)

d. their sex didn’t make any difference (1)

e. never had the desire to expose (0)

 

9. How would you have preferred a person to react if you were to expose your privates to him or her?

 

a. with fear (1)

b. with admiration (1)

c. with anger and disgust (1)

d. that he or she would have shown their privates also (1)

e. that he or she would want to have sexual intercourse with you (1)

f. kind of response didn’t matter as long as there was one (1)

g. it wouldn’t have mattered if the person reacted or not (1)

h. never had the desire to expose your privates (0)

 

10. If you have exposed to someone from a distance, did you ever want to touch his or her private parts also?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (1)

c. have never exposed my privates from a distance (0)

 

11. Right after you had exposed your privates to someone from a distance, did you ever wish to have intercourse:

 

a. with the same person you had exposed to (1)

b. with another person who was about the same age and sex as the person you had exposed to (1)

c. with someone who was much younger, of the same sex as the person you had

exposed to (1)

d. with someone who was much older, of the same sex as the person you had exposed

to (1)

e. with someone who was not the same sex as the person you had exposed to (1)

f. never wanted to have intercourse right after exposing (1)

g. have never exposed your privates from a distance (0)

 

12. Imagine you were forced to have sexual intercourse after exposing your privates to someone from a distance, would you choose:

 

a. the person you had exposed to (1)

b. someone else (1)

c. can’t imagine myself exposing to someone from adistance (0)

 

13. Did you ever masturbate to a climax (ejaculation) while imagining that you were exposing your privates from a distance?

 

a. yes (1)

b. no (0)

 

PARAPHILIA SCALES FROM KURT FREUND’S EROTIC PREFERENCES EXAMINATION SCHEME   Reproduced here by permission of the author. Contents Introduction Masochism Scale Sadism Scale Fetishism Scale Cross-Gender Fetishism Scale (Transvestism) Core Autogynephilia Scale Pedo Admitter Scale (Pedophilia) Hebe Adm ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Sexology Dysfunction (not exactly cosmo, no tits, but enjoyable)

...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Sexology: Its Jewish Pioneers

...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

(mp3) Side Effects from Penis Enlargement Pills | Kinsey Confidential

I don’t know what kinds of pills you were taking or what was in them, so I have no way of knowing what type of effect – if any – they may or may not have had on your body or your health.

Not Scientifically Tested

As far as I have read, there are still no pills that have been scientifically shown to increase the size of a man’s penis. Some men might think that it can’t hurt to take penis enlargement pills, but because we don’t necessarily know what is in many of these pills, and because most of them have not been scientifically tested for risks or benefits, it is a good idea to always check in with one’s healthcare provider before ordering or taking any sort of pill, whether they are for penis enlargement or other issues.

That said, your penis probably stopped growing for natural reasons. In fact, research suggests that many young men find that their penis stops growing at around age 17 – or a little before or a little after depending on one’s own particular body. Age 17, however, is fairly common for the penis to stop growing.

Measuring Up

Many cultures are perhaps overly obsessed with the size of a man’s penis which puts a lot of pressure on men to feel like they measure up to other men, or even to their own potential. Some men have heard that having a large penis is necessary in order to please or satisfy a sexual partner, but in fact sexual satisfaction is more often related to sexual communication, sexual skills and technique, one’s expectations for sex, and the romantic or sexual relationship between two people.

Other men have heard that having a large penis makes a man more masculine, but penis size doesn’t make a man more or less of a man. Neither, by the way, does the size of one’s elbows, arms, hands or nose. These are all just body parts and they are what they are.

Recommended Reading

The book A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis by David Friedman details how various societies at different points in history of viewed the penis, and how some have prized smaller sizes and others have prized larger sizes and for different reasons.

Next Question: Have I been Desensitized To Sex?

When I was a kid, I masturbated with objects and I watched my brother’s porn. I lost my virginity at 14 and I’ve had a number of partners since. Now, masturbation is difficult for me and sex is mainly only a stress reliever. Have I become too desensitized to sex because of my early experiences?

Read Dr. Debby Herbenick’s response.

We Need Your Questions! Submit them on our website and listen to archived episodes of the podcast. Get a weekly dose of Kinsey Confidential sent straight to your portable player by subscribing on iTunes.

via kinseyconfidential.org via kinseyconfidential.org I don’t know what kinds of pills you were taking or what was in them, so I have no way of knowing what type of effect – if any – they may or may not have had on your body or your health. Not Scientifically Tested As far as I have read, there are ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Gay Deceivers

Bruce Kessler, director

The Gay Deceivers (USA; 1969)

Original lobby cards

 

The Hollywood B-Movie The Gay Deceivers (1969) attempted to capitalize on the cultural and sexual changes of the late 1960s.  In particular, the film played upon male anxiety about the loss of patriarchal power brought about by the rise of feminism and the increasing sexual fluidity of the culture.  It also tapped into men’s fears about being sent to die in Vietnam.  In the film, two straight men pose as homosexuals in order to avoid the draft, but eventually decide that it is better to go to Vietnam than to have society believe you are gay.  The picture mines much of its humor by exploiting well-established Hollywood stereotypes, including the identification of male homosexuals as hyper-feminine sissies who wish to become women.  

 

The Gay Deceivers’ conflation of homosexuality with femaleness is on display throughout the film’s promotional materials.  These lobby cards feature one of the straight characters from the film, Elliot, holding a pillow and pursing his lips effeminately.  The film’s promotional materials also prominently feature the symbols for man and woman and utilize the tag line, “Is he or isn’t he?” as if his implied homosexuality might actually make him female.  The tagline, however, does not seem comfortable existing in a state of ambiguity, as the copy continues, “Only his draftboard and his girlfriend know for sure.” Possibly fearing that it may seem too subversive, the tagline must clarify Elliot’s heterosexuality by referencing his girlfriend.  Similarly, one lobby card reinforces this heterosexuality by providing a posed image of Elliot flanked by bikini-clad women, another features Elliot nearly naked next to a woman in a towel, and yet another has Elliott embracing a woman.  Such advertisements suggest a confusion and discomfort regarding homosexuality.

 

The cultural anxiety about homosexuals in the military, which the film exploits, was a topic in many gay publications at the time.  The below cartoons appeared in the June 1967 issue of the Kansas City gay publication The Phoenix.  The cartoons satirize many Americans' discomfort with gay soldiers by taking common homosexual stereotypes to ridiculous extremes.

 

Bruce Kessler, director The Gay Deceivers (USA; 1969) Original lobby cards   The Hollywood B-Movie The Gay Deceivers (1969) attempted to capitalize on the cultural and sexual changes of the late 1960s.  In particular, the film played upon male anxiety about the loss of patriarchal power brought abou ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Passing Strangers

Arthur J. Bressan’s Passing Strangers (1975) straddles the line between gay pornography and art film. This award-winning film features both hardcore sex scenes and elements of tenderness, such as kissing, holding hands, and romantic courting, that often were omitted from more graphic gay pornographic films. Through its two main characters, Tom and Robert, the film also explores various cultural, social, and personal challenges associated with being gay. In keeping with its more romantic and artistic tone, the poster for the film downplays its sexual content by simply displaying two men embracing in a close-up. In order to encourage audience reception as an erotic prestige piece, the poster also celebrates Passing Strangers’ being chosen as the first prize winner at the San Francisco Museum Erotic Art Film Festival, and it adds on six blurbs from critics attesting to the film’s quality. kinseyinstitute.org

Arthur J. Bressan’s Passing Strangers (1975) straddles the line between gay pornography and art film. This award-winning film features both hardcore sex scenes and elements of tenderness, such as kissing, holding hands, and romantic courting, that often were omitted from more graphic gay pornographi ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Talking Steel Guitar Puppet (Stringy)

Alvino Rey Talking Steel Guitar Puppet (Stringy) from gaejang guk


Welcome home, gaejang guk
Sorry, http://vimeo.com/19107649 "j.r. est morte Dallas" was deleted at 2:27:10 Mon Jan 24, 2011. We have no more information about it on our mainframe or elsewhere.

------------- Your account status Vimeo Member (Basic) Joined January 2011 Vimeo User ID: 5743975 - Dogmeat █ Roiling vortex of LUST █ »feedburner.com/posterous/dogmeat Posts per week:126.2

Alvino Rey Talking Steel Guitar Puppet (Stringy) from gaejang guk Welcome home, gaejang guk Sorry, http://vimeo.com/19107649 "j.r. est morte Dallas" was deleted at 2:27:10 Mon Jan 24, 2011. We have no more information about it on our mainframe or elsewhere. ------------- Your account status Vimeo Me ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Peter, Ablinger, A Letter From Schoenberg

A Letter From Schoenberg
reading piece with player piano

by: Peter Ablinger
computer-controlled piano-player: Winfried Ritsch

A Letter From Schoenberg reading piece with player piano by: Peter Ablinger computer-controlled piano-player: Winfried Ritsch Read and hear: Video-text and piano for "A Letter From Schoenberg" alternatively you can listen to the piece (1:49) while reading the following text: Mister: You.... In spite ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Peter Ablinger Kassettenrekorder

via ablinger.mur.at ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

Congratulations! No Error Found

W3C CSS Validator results for http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjigsaw.w3.org%2Fcss-validator%2Fcheck%2Freferer&h=cd9b3 (CSS level 2.1)

Congratulations! No Error Found.

This document validates as CSS level 2.1 !

To show your readers that you've taken the care to create an interoperable Web page, you may display this icon on any page that validates. Here is the XHTML you could use to add this icon to your Web page:

Valid CSS!
<p>    </p>
Valid CSS!
<p>    </p>

W3C CSS Validator results for http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjigsaw.w3.org%2Fcss-validator%2Fcheck%2Freferer&h=cd9b3 (CSS level 2.1) Congratulations! No Error Found. This document validates as CSS level 2.1 ! To show your readers that you've taken the care to create an interoperable We ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat

☠☠☠☠☠ Gaejang ☠☠☠☠☠ Guk ☠☠☠☠☠ Dogsmeat ☠☠☠☠☠ 25 ☠☠☠☠☠ Friends

☠☠☠☠☠ Gaejang ☠☠☠☠☠ Guk ☠☠☠☠☠ Dogsmeat ☠☠☠☠☠ 25 ☠☠☠☠☠ Friends

Friends

Alan Pritchard # Barbrasive Hmpb # Bela Hex # Bettys Darling # Bob Roehrman # Cam Paterson # Dampira Quin # Elena CemetaryCorvid Bridges # Geoff Chisholm # Jay Alan Davis # Lenny Smith # Lumina Sector # Matt Hamlin # Mauryo Rourk # Mike Fifty-nine # Nettles . Oak-Land # Paris Oozylips Kardashian # Punk Rock Cartoons # Rusty Spur # Steven Truesdale # Suzy Fisher # Taquila Mockingbird # Todd Gerard # Windysan Zog # Winston Wolfe

☠☠☠☠☠ Gaejang ☠☠☠☠☠ Guk ☠☠☠☠☠ Dogsmeat ☠☠☠☠☠ 25 ☠☠☠☠☠ Friends

☠☠☠☠☠ Gaejang ☠☠☠☠☠ Guk ☠☠☠☠☠ Dogsmeat ☠☠☠☠☠ 25 ☠☠☠☠☠ Friends Friends ☠book Alan Pritchard # Barbrasive Hmpb # Bela Hex # Bettys Darling # Bob Roehrman # Cam Paterson # Dampira Quin # Elena CemetaryCorvid Bridges # Geoff Chisholm # Jay Alan Davis # Lenny Smith # Lumina Sector # Matt Hamlin # Mauryo ...... Read MORE » on Dogmeat