top of page

Letter of Ariane Bilheran (PhD) to Pr. Judith Reisman, July, 18 2018

Dernière mise à jour : 27 août 2021

Juillet 2018

This letter is a response to the American Professor Judith Reisman who asked me some questions in relation to the very common beliefs in USA supposedly based on Freud about the “psychosexual development” of the child and justifying the precocious sexualization of the child.

She was surprised that I could sometimes refer to Freud, who is often popularized as the theorist of the “sexualized” children, especially in texts supporting the “sexual education” of children.

What is the truth in this world where lies and interpretations prevail which are all together as delusional as they are frivolous?

So here is my answer, these arguments seem to me all the more important if Freud was actually opposed to the “sexual education” and the sexualization of the child… then the only “scientific validation” remaining in the programs of the W.H.O on “sexual education” is the sinister figure of Kinsey.

However, Judith Reisman has already achieved the masterful work of denouncing this scientific imposture and this incredible fraud, work until now is unfortunately still too little known in France.

Therefore, there is no longer any scientific validation for the “sexual education” of children and for the conception of children as “sexualized at birth”.

N.B.: Thanks to Philippe Vergnes, my tireless colleague denouncing the pathologies of power and mass manipulations, from whom I take up below the examples from the “Guide of the Trainer” of pedagogical supports of the education in sexuality in a ministerial document, as well as some of the analysis we conducted jointly.

Dear Judith,

First let me tell you that I totally understand your dismay, if Freud is being taught this way in the United State of America, based on that “psychosexual development” as you sent me which is nothing but Kinsey’s notion adapted to a bazaar of pseudo-psychology.

In France as well, the twisting of Freud’s precepts began approximately in the 1960s, with the “sexual revolution”.

Some psychoanalysts put words in Freud’s mouth, and they even made him say the opposite of what he said.

Now, as no one strictly refers to the sources… it is very easy to make up the fraud, just as the Nazis fabricated the fraud on Nietzsche’s work about the “superman”, a kind of supra-virile Aryan, which has nothing to do with the superhuman defined by Nietzsche (in which women were included…), which describes the human being who has managed to tame his/her passions. You see how far the misinterpretation goes.

Almost the same holds true for Freud, for several reasons :

1° A lack of reference to the texts, and the work of Freud is a work in motion (for example see the evolution between the 1st and the 2nd topics), as Nietzsche’s work, therefore one needs to apprehend its detail, its ensemble and its chronology to grasp the complexity of his thoughts.

2° Some serious translation errors, or even, translations intentionally rendered in ambiguous terms (so if we had twisted minds, we would claim that the pedophiles themselves have quickly seized the question of Freud on sexuality issue, in order to infiltrate into the translation and change the meaning). We must therefore return to Freud’s sources in German.

3 ° Some ambiguities that could be found in Freud’s work, but which are not what people believe (nevertheless they are serious enough to be noted).

Let me start with a quote from Freud himself:

“It is during the total or at least partial period of latency, that the psychic forces are formed which will later hinder sexual urges and, as dikes, will limit and restrict their course (loathing, modesty, moral and aesthetic aspirations). We may gain the impression that the erection of these dikes in the civilized child is the work of education: and certainly education contributes to it. In reality, however this organically conditioned evolution and marked by heredity can sometimes occur without any intervention of education (very important point; the human being therefore naturally develops modesty, loathing etc. if he/she is not disturbed by perverse seduction, Freud speaks of this elsewhere). Indeed education remains properly within its assigned realm only if it strictly follows what is organically preformed, to deepen and purify it. Educators, in as far as they pay some attention to infantile sexuality, behave as if they shared our views on formation, at the expense of sexuality, defensive moral forces, and as if they knew in other respects that sexual activity makes the child uneducable.”

(Excerpt of Three essays on the Theory of Sexuality).

From the start, we must therefore affirm without any ambiguity that Freud, one of the great developers of the psychic life of the child, as well as Piaget, an eminent psychologist specialized in the mental development of the child, are in complete agreement to say that inciting the child to sexuality makes him/her uneducable.

Let’s recall that to educate means to repress urges according to Freud, so, above all, it is a question of not talking about sexuality to children and contribute to repress urges through education!!!!

However, during this period of latency (around 6/7-12 year of age) in which are built morality, virtue, but also the operative thinking (mathematics, logic, Latin…, 7 years: “age of reason”) in the child’s mind, the pedophile lobby teaches “sex with penetration”! (See the Matrix of the “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe”, Spanish version, at age 6, teaching of “relaciones sexual con penetration“, sexual relations with penetration).


We are well in the kingdom of the perverts, who seduce the child in a traumatic way.

About “Sexual Education“

It is therefore perfectly wrong and outrageous to indicated that Freud would have supported a “sexual education” of children or some sexual rights” of children, knowing that he affirms the contrary, that is, and to summarize a complex thought within the broad outlines:

The human being is born with urges that should be channeled (these urges are linked to the “principle of pleasure”: “I do what I want right now when I want”, and to the survival), to contain, to repress, to master, to be able to live in society in a civilized way.

I am going to recall that it is Freud who has studied and brought to light the narcissistic and sexual perversions, as being a primitive psychic block precisely before the Oedipus stage, on a very archaic level where the other is seen as an instrument, and not a subject. In psychosis (paranoia, schizophrenia), the other is seen as an extension not detached from oneself, it is therefore short of perversion where the other is an exterior lived as a pure instrument for the benefit of its own enjoyment.

It is also Freud who has worked a lot on paranoia in connection with the disorders of sex change (so, for him, wanting to change sex is: a psychosis), and the relationship between repressed homosexuality (in male) and paranoia (homosexuality that he classified as a perversion). See Schreber case.

To realize the extent of the falsification of Freud’s texts, let us take two examples with the “Trainer’s Guide of educational materials for sex education in the document of the French Ministry”, which show how Freud’s texts are systematically perverted and corrupted. However, these excerpts were written by a psychologist (unknown, certainly, in France):

Excerpt 1:

We can say that hate is older than love, the object is born in hatred(S. Freud).

Note: this is completely wrong.

This is an excerpt from the book Metapsychology, chapter: “Urges and their destinies”

Freud never said that.

He speaks of the ambivalence of feelings: the joint positive feelings of love and negative feelings of hate, which constitute the relations of the subject with the object.

Excerpt 2 (unbelievable!):

“It is worth noting the fundamental aspect of infantile sexuality and of the psychosexual development as a determinant of the future adult sexuality. Freud shows us the child, as a being confronted with his partial urges, truly “a little polymorphous perverse“ who will be structured and unified gradually through his infantile neurosis”.

See below the answer to the question “Is the child according to Freud a polymorphous perverse?

Excerpt 3:

“As in the Sophocles legend, the Oedipus complex in its positive form corresponds to an attraction for the parent of the other sex and the feelings of hatred or of rivalry for the same-sex parent. The inverted Oedipus complex corresponds to a contrary situation and most often there is an oscillation of the child between these two attitudes. “

See below the answer about the confusion Oedipe/incest

Is the child according to Freud, a polymorphous perverse?

I bring up excerpt 2 of the Guide of the French Ministry:

It is worth noting the fundamental aspect of infantile sexuality and of the psychosexual development as a determinant of future adult sexuality. Freud shows us the child as a being confronted with his partial urges, a true “little polymorphous perverse” who will be structured and unified gradually through his infantile neurosis.