Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Off Our Backs Vs. Warren Farrell

article reporting on the
1983 Congress of a U.S.

National Sexologists' Association

July 1983 issue

Charles Moser and Warren Farrell both emphasized that most ****** problems are caused by "treaters," i.e. therapists cause problems where none exist.  Moser claimed that "most ****** cases have a loving nature" and that a daughter (in father-daughter ******) gets "special treatment" from the father.  If the ****** is found out, Moser says, the child may feel more co-conspirator than victim.  He stated that it is traumatic for a child to divulge the details of the ****** to strangers or to her mother who is, after all, "the other woman". He stated also that ****** is a symptom of a pathogenic (diseased) family, and that "pseudo ****** families" exist which have all the problems of an ****** family without the actual ******.

I was uncomfortable, to say the least, with Moser's analysis. Most ****** problems are not caused by therapists; but a bad therapist can aggravate any problem. Undoubtedly the judicial system brutalizes rape victims --- I wish that the system could be changed so that a child need only talk with a therapist, and if a court appearance is required that the child be represented by the therapist. The child should not have to detail the ****** to her mother or any other relative unless she is willing and ready to do so. And yes, a child can be made to feel like a co-conspirator by her father, who may exhort her to keep "our little secret". Can a child ever be a willing "co-conspirator" with her parent?

Warren Farrell asked that his data not be reported until his book on the "Family Sex Debate" comes out next year.  Tough, Warren.  [note: "next year" would be 1984]

Farrell advocates the use of neutral words to talk about ****** in order to leave room for both bad and good feelings around the situation.  He calls ****** "family sex" (sounds like a family outing at the swing club to me) and he prefers "****** participant" to "****** victim". His term has the advantage of including both parties.  Farrell interviewed "****** participants" and found that a significant percentage found the experience positive.  These tended to be the adult males, who are "involved with" (rather than "who commit") ******.  I mean family sex.  Language is confusing!  Farrell makes ****** sound innocent, bland, and harmless.

Certainly, some ****** victims (back to my language, where an unwitting victim is still a victim) have resolved their ****** issues before entering therapy for other problems.  And any good therapist allows a client to express all of her feelings, good and bad, about any situations. These factors do not make ****** less of a trauma for the vast majority of cases.

Farrell mentioned, but did not emphasize, that almost all of the girls involved in father-daughter ****** (the most common type) found the experience very negative.  His findings that many ****** participants found the experience positive is skewed because it includes perpetrators as well as every kind of ****** (including cousin-cousin, which is usually peer sex and not so comparable to other types of ******).


Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT)

From: "dr. warren farrell"



Subject: Re: Warren Farrell and 'Family Sex'

May 6, 1997

Dear Liz,

I was sent via e-mail a subscription plea for the feminist publication Off Our Backs.  It reprinted an article filled with inaccuracies.  I was told you are responsible for circulating it.  I do not know if that is true; I prefer checking with original sources.  If it is true that you are responsible, I ask you to be more responsible.  If it is not true, then please just let me know. In case you are responsible, here is what is accurate:

First, what was reprinted was something pubished in 1983 that says I have a book called The Family Sex Debate that will be coming out next year.  It is now 14 years later.  Where is this publication? The answer: It does not exist.  I decided not to publish my research because of its potential for misuse, to say nothing of its potential for being misquoted! Since then, I have published two books: Why Men Are The Way They Are (1986) and The Myth of Male Power (1993). 

Second, the reprint claims that I say that "most ****** problems are caused by 'treaters.' " That statement suffers from double jeopardy: It is neither what I have said, nor what I agree with. Specifically, I do not agree that most ****** problems are caused by treaters.

Third, the reprint says that I mentioned, but did not emphasize, that almost all the girls involved in father-daughter ****** found the experience very negative. The accurate portion: I did mention that; the inaccurate portion: I also emphasized that.

Sincerely, Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

Vivagalore Vivagalore 31-35, F 3 Responses Jan 17, 2013

Your Response


"feminist because i believe in equality." luz.

any one who came to this story by way of youtube by jackbarnes... please be ware!!!!

he is a well known *** hole and he goes out of his way to hate on women/feminist here on exp proj, and any one else who he doesn't lik.

he made those video hoping to ruin the those women/feminst and men. jack feels powerless over his world, and he sees women as a threat to that delusional world he lives in.

he has called feminist *****, *****,******* and has threatened them and their families and friends by way of shot gun,many of the feminists here are in contact with authorities. due to jackbarnes aka knightrunner

he claims to have a wife and daughter but yet he spends all his free time on exp prog and avfm and youtube making videos about feminist he hates on.

Looks like we have another anti-feminist liar here folks. He really should have gone back and read the playboy interview he gave before claiming he didn't say things that he did.

Who is Liz?

Ladyblue, please write a post showing what Nobile quoted Farrell as saying in Penthouse (not Playboy) in the 1970s, and what Farrell has said about that this century.

Consa you've seen my Penthouse story and commented on it, why are you making this request from lady?

Getting to the bottom of this will require a post/comment quoting what Farrell told Nobile in 1977, followed by what Farrell claimed in 1997 to have said earlier. Someone also needs to search the post 1997 record for remarks about his 1970s views on ******. This is important because Farrell's Nov. 2012 talk at the University of Toronto was disrupted by protestors claiming that he was a defender of ******. The protestors did not state the evidence for their accusations, and defenders of Farrell did not exonerate him either. It is possible that Farrell, as the intellectual leader of the men's rights movement, is compromised by an ******-defending past from which he declines to distance himself. To say definitively that he is compromised requires careful documentation of what he said he believed, and of his subsequent refusal to distance himself from what he said.

Who is Liz?

Excuse me Farrell'a silence says much does it not? The article I posted of the 1977 penthouse article is what Farrell said. It's also the same information he talked about in his speech to the government. In both the article and in the speech he is speaking of the same research and the same book.

Noone is under obligation to exonerate him, making a request of lady to further prove something is simply moving the goalposts.
I actually have more email from Farrell so you might be careful what you wish for.

The protesters did actually state the reasons they didn't want Farrell to present information at UofT, stating his views on ****** and ********** and his positions on date rape made him unsuitable for being paid for an appearance in an academic setting.

Consa since for the most part you are very polite i will find the emails from Farrell and post them for you.

He asked nicely and I have it, so it doesn't have to be such an issue. However, I agree with your basic premise.

I am reluctant to draw conclusions from silence.

The "moving of the goalposts" you complain of is an everyday fact of life. It also assumes that he is under some sort of "indictment". I wish to make very clear what the evidence against him is, and what the charges based on that evidence are. That he said deplorable things to Nobile in 1977, who published them in Penthouse, does not suffice. We have to show that Farrell refuses to distance himself from what he said 35 years ago.

The protestors stated their opinions. They did not elaborate on what evidence grounded their opinions. It would have helped if they had prepared a statement, no longer than both sides of a single sheet of paper, laying out their reasons for thinking poorly of him, and made that statement available to anyone who was curious.

I care. Establishing which side bears the burden of proof is the single most important strategic detail in any serious dispute.

Much of my writing on the internet opposes routine infant circumcision in the English speaking countries. We who oppose it assert that the burden of proof rests on those who defend the procedure. RIC should not be done unless the benefit and harm are clearly understood. The AAP and other defenders of RIC argue that it is OK for parents to elect to have it done, unless someone can clearly show that it is harmful. In effect, they say that the burden of proof rests on those who argue that the RIC is harmful. The whole argument is polarised because there is no agreement on who bears the burden of proof.

Consa- since the proof of the claim is very clear in the penthouse magazine, in the speeches and responses to the government there is ample evidence of what Farrell said and did. If he distances himself from that now, how does that absolve him? Surely, it doesn't. His only redress is to claim, it did not happen or that he was not accurately portrayed, your suggestion that if "he distances himself from it now" or "doesn't feel the same way now" doesn't hold water. If a murder kills someone, but professes to no longer believe in murdering people, that person is still a murderer. To suggest absolution by distance is IMO poor form. I've presented plenty of evidence that not only was Warren involved in rape/****** apologia he is also a LIAR regarding that very issue,

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim, your job is to present the counter evidence. Stop insisting that others do your work for you, that is ridiculous. It appears as if you are trying to say the finding of "no defense" is a defense, that since no defense is known to exist, there must be one... that absolutely is not sound logic.

@ray A talk inside the J.J.R MacLeod Auditorium by Warren Farrell sponsored by UofT campus group "Men's Issues Awareness at the University of Toronto (MIAUT)" brought out protestors in front of the Medical Sciences Building. Toronto Ontario Canada, Friday Night November 16 2012.

Consa we are not debating circumcision, we are discussing A HUMAN BEING and WHAT THAT HUMAN BEING DID and what those behaviors mean.

I wrote as I did to give a clear example of what I mean when I invoke "burden of proof", and not to post off-topic.
We are not talking about what Farrell did, but about what he said or wrote, to whom he said it and when, and if he still agrees with what he said or wrote.

I cannot agree with nearly everything you say in this comment. Also, if you were involved in a bitter dispute with Farrell years ago, EP is not the best place to continue the fight.

I hold no brief for Farrell. I have never met the man, attended any of his lectures, or read any of his books. I know about him only second hand. The bits of MRM writing I have read here, YouTube, Facebook, blogs, almost never mention him. Apparently, under 40s don't pay him much mind. As my youngest daughter would put it sarcastically, he is "so last century" lol!

When a human being A says X, and I believe that X is deplorable, (s)he is under the ban, as far as I am concerned. If A later retracts X in a manner I deem sincere, and that is part of the public record, I forgive A for having said X. A is no longer under the ban. My holding a grudge against A for having said X decades ago, when A no longer believes or defends X now, would be deplorable and vindictive behaviour on my part.

Hence if Farrell were to distance himself from the statements he is reported to have made to Nobile, I would have to let him off the hook. That said, if Farrell has repudiated what he said to Nobile, I know nothing about it. It is in Farrell's pragmatic interest to repudiate everything he said to Nobile, if only as a youthful indiscretion of sorts, and I am disappointed that he cannot see that. If I were his counsel, I would advise him to do just that, and to stop daydreaming about defamation.

Why are you insinuating that I have a past bitter feud or grudge against warren Farrell ?

I would certainly not allow anyone who was involved in **********/****** apologia be alone or near my children even if they now claim to have changed their minds about it. Sorry.

I find it distasteful that the MRA allows a man who has no formal training, has no children of his own, has raised no children and for several years embarked in ******/********** apologia (which he has not publicly refuted decades later) sitting on boards involving the best interests of children. Sorry.

13 More Responses