“a sleazy hardcore pornographic magazine had a cartoon entitled “Chester the Molester” which featured children being molested by the title character, along with other cartoons featuring kiddie porn themes that probably totaled the entire number of images she used to blast the other two men’s magazines. “
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Speaking of Dwaine Tinsley, creator of “Chester the Molester”.....
‘Chester the Molester’ Cartoonist Convicted of Child Molestation
VENTURA, CALIF. VENTURA, Calif. (AP) _ The cartoonist who created Hustler magazine’s ‘’Chester the Molester’’ has been convicted of molesting a teen-age girl.
Dwaine Tinsley, 44, was found guilty of five child molestation counts by a Superior Court jury on Friday. Jurors agreed Tinsley had substantial sexual contact with the girl but also acquitted him of six charges and deadlocked on another five.
The cartoon created by Tinsley depicts a lecherous character and his attraction to young girls. He refused to talk with reporters after the verdict.
Defense lawyer George C. Eskin promised to appeal the guilty verdicts, arguing as he did during trial that the young woman accused Tinsley in retaliation for his efforts to halt her drug use.
Tinsley faces a maximum prison term of 16 years and a $50,000 fine when he is sentenced March 1, said Deputy District Attorney Matthew J. Hardy.
The molestations started in 1984, when the girl was 13 and continued until age 17, he said.
Evidence presented at the trial said Tinsley told co-workers, ‘’You can’t write this stuff all the time if you don’t experience it.’’
But Tinsley’s ‘’Chester the Molester’’ eliminated its focus on pedophilia several years ago, Hardy said.
The prosecutor said the verdicts vindicated the victim, whose longtime efforts to report the attacks were discredited by adults.
Tinsley, who now lives in Los Angeles, testified during the seven-day trial that the woman made up the story because he disapproved of her cocaine habit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh gee he draws a cartoon about a dirty old man wanted to rape 9 year old girls and he’s arrested for what? I wonder why? NOT! Yet you would defend this? You think this is okay? You think the 13 year old in this story thinks this is okay? Her life in ruined! This man should be tarred and feathered!
Who would defend that? Nobody I would hope.
I am not defending "Chester the Molester" or any of Hustler's content. I found it reprehensible and repulsive! I thought I made that clear.
I am criticizing Reisman for her dishonest, misrepresentation in her "study" for including the fringe publication "Hustler" along with more mainstream men's magazines with the obvious intent to deliberately distort her data so strongly. . . and to aggregate her data in her report summary which more completely distorts the data.
A peer review of her study would strongly criticize her inclusion of non-similar publications in a the study, claiming homogeneity, when they are not. During the study period, two of the publications offered "soft" porn, with quality editorial content, while the inclusion of an intentionally "hard" porn magazine with pure pornographic editorial content is anything but homogenous comparable the other two. THAT is a major statistical flaw, intentional, and egregious, designed I believe, to achieve the results she wanted to get. Her conclusion was predetermined.
Morgana, I read through Reisman's so-called study and, although preliminary, I stand by my analysis of her "findings." I did not include a cartoon count in my estimates, but she did and put a lot of emphasis on them. Her examples were primarily cartoons from the the other magazines with a preponderance from "Hustler," which I told you was an intentionally hardcore pornographic magazine. That's what was primarily depicted in her paper. In addition, from what I read, she apparently counted any nudity that showed an uncovered frontal body as an illegal, criminal image.
One photo in Playboy that she labeled as a ”seventeen year old nude" is truly that of a topless seventeen year old Natassja Kinski from her appearance in a mainstream movie. Another Reisman found was a 15 year old Tracy Lords in Penthouse, but it was a photo of a porn star who had used a fake ID showing she was 22 years old when she was in her movies and when she modeled for Penthouse. The photograph was published before it was revealed years later that she had been underage—when she sued the movie producers because they believed her fraudulent falsified documents and wanted more money—far too late to unpublish photos taken and printed in millions of copies of Penthouse. Reisman pounced on this as though it was a deliberate act by Bob Guccione and Penthouse, rather than an illegal fraud upon them by the actress, who submitted false documents to them as well.
As I pointed out above, her totals for numbers of "criminal and violent" imagery just do not comport with reality when compared to the total number of images published unless Reisman conflated ANY image depicting nudity that showed a body part she thought should not be shown with "crime." Such nude images are "crimes" only in a few cities and counties by local ordinance which have been rightly or wrongly declared unconstitutional. That would be the only way one could get an 82% rate of such published photographs during that period. Any person familiar with the photography in Playboy would know her conclusions claiming violence and crime at that rate, or including children, are bunk. In her executive summary, Reisman makes it clear that she considers any photograph that makes a model appear juvenile to be one that is intended to depict a child, then every female model with a shaved pubis was counted as such, and also counted as "criminal" and "implicitly coercively violent." She states as much in her definition of a "child surrogate," even though the model was over 21.
As for Reisman's claims that SHE won a Libel suit in the Netherlands against Playboy: that is untrue. Reisman was not a party in the suit or even a witness. Playboy did not sue Reisman but sued a TV production company called EO for a program called Tijdsein for presenting Reisman's claims that Playboy published Child pornography in its magazine, demanding a retraction. There was a hearing in which EO was ordered to never re-air the program because of the claims. The judge found FOR Playboy on three of the claims for copyright infringement and dismissed the others, saying:
"Playboy and associates, being publishers themselves, possess ample access to the media to combat any opinion they deem incorrect."
And simply did not take it to trial.
In addition, in the Netherlands, even the mere drawing or hint of any child involved in sex—virtual pornography—is actionable which is not the case in the United States. According to Dutch law, possibly some of the cartoons may have fallen into their gray area.
Let's look at the claim in Paragraph nine of the dismissal of "the uncontested factual findings of Dr. Reisman" in the Reisman "study"—which I read when it came out back in 1986 when it was commissioned. They were hardly "uncontested." It just never got that far in the Netherlands.
Consider the following facts: Dr. Judith Reisman's PhD is in Communications. . . hardly the qualifications or expertise required for the no-bid $798,000 Federal grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention approved by Alfred S. Regnery, of our tax dollars she was awarded to produce her humongous 1600 page work. For what she produced, other researchers in the field estimated it could have been done for $60,000. Reisman's work was roundly criticized on several fronts by real experts. It was just sent to the government for publication, because it would not pass such peer review, and in fact came under scathing attack for poor methodology and other issues.
By 1986, Reisman concluded her investigation of "372 issues of Playboy, 184 issues of Penthouse and 125 issues of Hustler" that found "2,016 cartoons that included children apparently under the age of 17 and 3,988 other pictures, photographs and drawings that depict infants or youths," the details of which were collected into "a three-volume report running to 1,600 pages" titled "Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler."[11] The report drew contemporary criticism in regards to its cost and quality.[10][12] Sex crime researcher Avedon Carol commented that the (Reisner) report was a "scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions."[13] The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, refused to publish the completed work, citing concerns by an independent academic auditor. Criminologist Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania[14] stated [11]—Source
I see I over estimated the number of issues of Penthouse because she did not include the UK publication years while I did. . . but that just increases the percentage above 82%. As Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense, it's a lie." Reisman's report doesn't make sense.
It was finally included in the Meese Commission report on Pornography as factual data. It was there that the experts got a look at it and started realizing the major flaws in it. Reisman's flawed report became a big problem for the Meese Commission, which resulted in ridicule being piled on the whole Meese Commission effort.
As I said, Morgana, you damage YOUR position by making such extreme claims. That's what happened to the Meese commission. It may have gotten more gravitas had they left the Reisman Report and her absurdly, patently false-on-its-face, to all the millions of people who had read Playboy, on the cutting room floor.
These distorted statistics are of the same ilk as those the feminists who claimed that there was a 40% domestic violence spike during Super Bowl games which turned out to be lowest weekend for domestic violence weekend. Then later the claim was that cities that hosted the Super Bowl fans had tens of thousands of child and women prostitutes come to the cities to service the fans, and that fans watching at home used the games as pretexts to molest children. Again, those claims were so absurd they did not pass the smell test. . . but they each made front page headlines because nobody bothered to take a whiff of the stench of absurdity reeking from them. It is junk "science" like these reports from the squishy sciences that make me look more deeply into reports such as Reisman's. Reisman's report reeks of the "big lie" technique used by Liberals. . . just not from the Liberal side this time.
I am not defending any of the magazines, but decrying the accusations of photographs of child pornography where there is none. Confabulating one thing into another for an agenda is the methodology of the Left. Shoddy work is shoddy work, no matter which side does it. This was extremely shoddy work. Give me accurate, checkable, replicable work, that uses proper compatible source data, and I can respect it. This I cannot because I am familiar with the data, like millions of other men, she claims is something it is not,
Attack the magazine for what really IS in it, not for what an extremist claims to have found in her imagination, no matter how scholarly it appears. Did Playboy add to the drop in morality and unreasonable expectations about sex? Yes. So do the exaggeratedly sexualized bodies of Barbie dolls. How about the sexualized attire of grade school and pre-school girls their mothers bought for them? How about the obscenely sexualized "Toddlers & Tiaras" TV show my girlfriend calls "Prostitots?" I think you can lay a lot more of the destruction at the door of the disintegration of the family caused by our own Liberal government policies.