gococksDJS

John H, you have been posting shit about this nutbag saying he should be commended, and im sick of you praising this psycho so hopefully everyone will see what this guy really is, and that you have some serious issues. The chart below was actually published in one of his own books, and look at the age of some of the children he performed tests on. This man is nothing but a pedophile and it pisses me off that John H is saying we should learn from his research.



Kinsey, Sex and Lies 8/5/2004
By Staff

Kinsey was a silent partner in the molestation of hundreds of children.



Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, a zoologist, revolutionized America's attitudes about sex through his books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). His work is the animating principle behind most sex education in America. However, analysis of his research by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., has yielded some alarming discoveries, including how Dr. Kinsey acquired sexual data about children. It's time to take an inventory of Kinsey's work and consider what it has brought to our society.

COMING TO CONCLUSIONS
Kinsey propagated the idea that all children are "sexual beings" from birth. The most frightening aspect of his philosophy is how he arrived at this view; Kinsey was a silent partner in the molestation of hundreds of children. The graph table below documents some of the abuse that Kinsey recorded.



In chapter five of his Male book, Tables 30-34 describe pre-adolescent children's orgasms, beginning at the age of two months.

And how did the pedophile know when the child or infant reached orgasm? The children reacted by "violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among the younger children)" (p. 161, Male volume).

Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's co-author, frankly admitted that Kinsey researchers interviewed pedophiles, and declined to report them to police. "'An example of criminality is our refusal to cooperate with authorities in apprehending a pedophile we had interviewed who was being sought for a sex murder,' Gebhard told an interviewer."

Shae

Little Wing

Flex

John H,

Great thing to praise. You're a sick fuck, you sick fuck.

You're a funny guy, Sully, I like you. Dat's why I'm going to kill you lahst.


* Got juice?*Need Motivation?*How to Train*
*Arnold vs. Ronnie vs. Haney vs. Sergio*
*YEAH BUDDY...LIGHT WEIGHT!*Ahhnold*

I Are Baboon

Du

Agreed.

My IronMag Journal

bio-chem

Kinsey was a huge masochist, and even the most open-minded psychiatrist would consider this man as having major psycho-sexual problems

maniclion

John H.,



"I think you're some kind of deviated prevert, and I think Gen. Ripper found out about your preversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts."

http://www.lukefisher.com/prevert.wav



Maniclion

Little Wing

lol what the hell is that from?

maniclion

Pepper

Let me respond for John H.:

GoCocks,

Sexuality is a gift from GOD so that ANYONE can enjoy. YOU CHOOSE to HATE people rather than be OPEN minded because you follow a MAN-MADE religion. ALL FORMS of SEXuality are GOOD and NATURAL and if you don't agree, you are just a CLOSE-MINDED BIGOT. Since you are from the SOUTH, you MUST now learn that ALL RELIGION is MAN-MADE and ALL SEX is GOOD.

John H.

My Carb Cycling Progress - you can't hide from the numbers.

Pepper

John H., you must really be a sick fuck to have Liberals and Conservatives, Clemson grads and Gamecock students all agreeing that you suck.

My Carb Cycling Progress - you can't hide from the numbers.

Chain Link

Well, I can vouch that there was no abuse involved in these two.. That was the day I discovered internet porn

Attached Images

kinsexchart.jpg (46.1 KB, 98 views)

gococksDJS

hahahaha....

gococksDJS

hahaha, touche

kbm8795

It might be a good idea to cite the source for this article. Not to defend Kinsey, but it's rather curious that Dr. Reisman, who is herself a rather controversial researcher with right wing ties, would somehow be the first person to have read page 180 in a book published nearly 50 years before her own debunking research.

bio-chem

regardless of who read page 180 first, i think we are all inteligent enough to understand what that table is documenting: sexual experiences of male children ages 5 mo to 14 years. the conclusions drawn from that table alone are extremely disturbing. even more so when it is known dr kinsey protected the sources of that information by not turning them into the police.

kbm8795

What the table is documenting and the context in which it was presented may be different. Since this is from a book which rose to the top of the bestseller list when it was released, I doubt something this obvious would have passed the minds of a very puritanical American population at the time and suddenly "discovered" in the same book by a rightwing researcher nearly 50 years later.

We also don't know much about the protection of sources from police in that situation, either. The 'article", which wasn't referenced, only said that Kinsey's co-author told an 'interviewer" that statement. I don't see any journalistic reason why the "interviewer" shouldn't be identified.

bio-chem

when i watched the same documentary on pbs that john was refering to it said that these issues where brought up within a few years of the publishment of the book, and his scientific method was questioned about how he got these statistics. dr kinsey refused to give up his sources. 3 of the top statiticians in the world at the time wrote a report saying his methods were flawed .a member of dr kinseys staff who was interviewed for the documentary (now an old man) said point blank dr kinsey instructed us this material was too important to the work and we should use it no matter where it comes from instead of turning it over to the police.

Lucifer

Kinsey? Where is that little cocksucker? I'm horny.

bio-chem

ewww.....that was deffinitly a withdrawl from the emotional bank account

kbm8795

Obviously then, this information was visited at the time. Although I'm not a Kinsey scholar, it isn't unusual for the scientific method of any initial study to need refinement. This isn't a defense of all of his techniques or all the areas that he chose to explore. But taking into account the difficulty in gathering any information on this subject back in the 1940s, the work is remarkable in that it does provide the first attempt at a comprehensive look at sexual behavior among Americans.

Despite many issues surrounding the scope of his work, there wasn't anyone else doing anything remotely near the scale of his projects. Since you watched that program, you likely also gathered WHY nothing had been done, too. As a foundational piece of work, it at least opened the door to more developed material later - in fact, if it hadn't existed, Dr. Reisman would likely not have her own career.
It is also likely that sexual ignorance would have remained a standard of American society - meaning we'd all be afraid of whacking off for fear of blindness and turning green. Hmm...now I wonder who created THAT piece of scientific methodology which was unquestioned for ages?

bio-chem

i hardly consider kinsey the only one who could have been the calalyst for the sexual revolution. if not him someone else, and perhaps that someone else would have done it in an ethical way. but enough of the what if's. while i do realize some may have called it a "sexual ignorance" im not one to agree with that personally. true it wasnt talked about as openly as today, but i hardly feel earlier generations had problems with their sex lives. the truth is little boys wack off as soon as they figure out its not just for peeing, regardless if they are told they will go blind. and i just read an article about sex in world war 2. seemed more like an edition of playboy than a repressed society. like one of the girls was quoted as saying "we werent immorral there was a war going on". my point is this, people have been enjoying sex in america in every generation since the founding of jamestown. they may not have talked openly about it, but its pretty self explanitory once the lights go out.

kbm8795

Actually it isn't. . .and while humanity may have been sexually active, the viewpoint of partners and proper activities within a relationship were certainly "taught" differently through the ages. During a major war, people turned their heads more frequently and responsible behavior among men in uniform was encouraged but not always enforced - hence the prostitution and the rapes that occur among invading armies.

There were very few studies, particularly large-scale ones, of the variety of sexual behavior among Americans. Part of the reason for that research silence was the "not talked about" attitude, which also perpetuated myths about everything from getting pregnant from kissing to the physical damages of masturbation. Most women knew nothing about masturbation or, for that matter, sexual satisfaction - those who privately engaged in it, as you saw in the documentary, actually thought they had discovered something alone that no one else knew about.

As far as research ethics are concerned, while there are obvious flaws in construction with some research the importance of the study is that it generated conversation and broke ground for further work. Perhaps someone else MIGHT have studied these things later - but given the rather puritanical attitudes that governed America (AND sexual research at the time) it is unlikely any design would have been accepted without challenge. The opposition to Kinsey's work as evident even before anything was ever published or his design was known to others - it was the subject matter alone that fed that frenzy. In some areas, he was quite successful at establishing a scale of sexuality that indicated that humans weren't all lumped at one end of the spectrum.

It doesn't surprise me that the Right targets him regularly, however - believing, as Dr. Reismanseems to project, absolute blame for ruining the sexual purity of 1950s America. It seems to me that the larger question here is why this research wasn't done before, and what powers were so determined to prevent it? And just how ethical were those people?

bio-chem

i guess im just going to have to disagree with you. i do not believe the ends justify the means in this instance. his conclusions are wrong because his sample was not general enough. (all the statiticians believe this) and he clearly let his personal goals taint his judgement (he protected a child rapist so he could use this mans experiences in his book) i do not believe preceeding generations were as suxually repressed as some people think, and i do not think there was one benifit whatsoever to society from the work kinsey did. what kinsey did would have been done by someone else, and with a much more ethical standard. like ive said i think kinsey was about as ethical as the german doctors doing experiments on the jews during world war 2. this guy does not deserve thanks, admiration, or recognition for the things he did

kbm8795

I don't think we can easily speculate that "someone else" would have done this research more ethically, especially in a society that strongly discouraged any discussion about sexuality at all. To claim that all of his conclusions were statistically wrong because of his sampling methods is only partially true - the work remains significant if for no other reason than it opened the discussion and set the stage for further work, including contradictory research. This isn't a defense of his personal life or choices for exploration - but then, I think it's curious for him to be singled out while the Church, which regularly dispensed unscientific directives outlining appropriate sexual behavior takes no responsibility for their actions. We can look at the sexual "studies" of Rev. Moon, for example, whose church holds mass weddings and the couples are told which specific sexual positions are acceptable for their first weeks of matrimony.

We can look at the religious basis for the establishment of sodomy laws, for example, and the claim that oral sex was committing murder of the 'babies" that the man carries. Or the belief that lesbian affection was perfectly natural (in fact, considered sexually nonexistent) because a woman couldn't reach sexual satisfaction until she was with a man. These were widespread beliefs about sexuality a century ago in this country.

The resistance at the time to Kinsey's work extended far beyond criticism of his eventual published methodology. Religious organizations condemned even the idea of researching any of these topics. They would likely have no approval for anyone else's work in this area, too.

I Are Baboon