Dr. Alfred Kinsey

[I Are Baboon]

Cardinals fans too!!!

Cards are my pick for 2005. Sure they lost Renteria, but they improved their pitching staff.

 

[Eggs]

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.

Actually, it is a defense of what he was doing... anybody that can read and comprehend can understand that you are defending him...

So what you are in fact saying is that the sexual revolution that occured in the 50s was well worth the molestation of several hundred young boys. Thats nice. John H isnt the only sick fuck around here... being that you said you teach should I be worried for your students?

 

[kbm8795]

Actually, it is a defense of what he was doing... anybody that can read and comprehend can understand that you are defending him...

So what you are in fact saying is that the sexual revolution that occured in the 50s was well worth the molestation of several hundred young boys. Thats nice. John H isnt the only sick fuck around here... being that you said you teach should I be worried for your students?

I'm not sure whether to laugh or get pissy with the comprehension skills of someone who uses the Washington Times and Worldnetdaily as primary sources for understanding the world around him. However, I'm quite capable of stating facts clearly concerning my opinion.

While typing this macho swaggering performance, you might have paused long enough to notice that the "sexual revolution" didn't occur in the 1950's. Much of Kinsey's work, while hitting the best seller list, did little to change the norms of interaction in that puritanical decade. An easy example would be the observation of any television program of that decade in which the characters are "married" but sleeping in separate beds in the bedroom.

Of course, your moral concern for allegations of molestation curiously don't seem to transfer to the Catholic Church, in which the number of claims of sexual abuse has risen past the 1000 mark.

I don't think you need to be concerned about my students at all. . .they would have easily run circles around your comprehension skills.

 

[Eggs]

I'm not sure whether to laugh or get pissy with the comprehension skills of someone who uses the Washington Times and Worldnetdaily as primary sources for understanding the world around him. However, I'm quite capable of stating facts clearly concerning my opinion.

Ahhh, I see... so only CNN or another news agency of your liking can provide the "real" news right? I did a google search and got those articles, I'm not a regular reader of either. Regardless, the Pantano thing wasnt widely reported by the press, and neither was the "hit list" made by one of your homosexual sites Of course the general media doesnt want to delve into stuff like that, they prefer to stick to general murder and mayhem.

While typing this macho swaggering performance, you might have paused long enough to notice that the "sexual revolution" didn't occur in the 1950's. Much of Kinsey's work, while hitting the best seller list, did little to change the norms of interaction in that puritanical decade. An easy example would be the observation of any television program of that decade in which the characters are "married" but sleeping in separate beds in the bedroom.

Super. So what you're saying is that all the children he and others potentially molested for their cause really didnt do all that much, it just put a book on the top seller list and didn't change the norms of society.

Of course, your moral concern for allegations of molestation curiously don't seem to transfer to the Catholic Church, in which the number of claims of sexual abuse has risen past the 1000 mark.

Sure they do, I'm very much against that molestation as well. Though if they had been documenting their work for "research" you'd no doubt think it was for a good cause. Its funny how you havent made any attempts to deny that you think it was okay to molest kids to "benifit" society in regard to Kinsey. The primary problem you of course have with the Catholic molestation cases arent the molesatations themselves, but the fact that its a Christian institution and you find that inherently offensive in and of itself.

 

[Eggs]

Oh, and just to put your posts into perspective.. one could draw a comparison by saying:

"Not to Defend Hitler, but the work he did on Euthanasia was quite fascinating".

All for the name of science, right Kbm?

 

[Eggs]

Oh yes, and heres a link for that:

-Link removed by author-

*Disclaimer* Its an unsavory site, I actually recommend that everybody skips it. They are definitely demented. If you go there... dont take it out on me. Cause you've been warned.

 

[fantasma62]

I'm not sure whether to laugh or get pissy with the comprehension skills of someone who uses the Washington Times and Worldnetdaily as primary sources for understanding the world around him. However, I'm quite capable of stating facts clearly concerning my opinion.

While typing this macho swaggering performance, you might have paused long enough to notice that the "sexual revolution" didn't occur in the 1950's. Much of Kinsey's work, while hitting the best seller list, did little to change the norms of interaction in that puritanical decade. An easy example would be the observation of any television program of that decade in which the characters are "married" but sleeping in separate beds in the bedroom.

Of course, your moral concern for allegations of molestation curiously don't seem to transfer to the Catholic Church, in which the number of claims of sexual abuse has risen past the 1000 mark.

I don't think you need to be concerned about my students at all. . .they would have easily run circles around your comprehension skills.

You are very humorous...
So to defend yourself, you immediately go after the Catholic Church, correct?
I have to admit that us catholics really like to have priests that molest children. We choose them to serve that particular purpose. We really believe that by molesting children, we are opening their minds to new and natural things because all things that are natural are good correct? So, if sex is natural, then children should have sex....I can also use the truth tables, if you'd like me to use logic and continue agreeing with you in that the catholic church is a bad place that harbors criminals. Oh and we are so proud of that, we beam with pride....
Are you kidding me here? Is this your only out? To go after the catholic church? Religion? All I have seen out of your posts is religion this, catholics that, and like John, you repeat yourself over and over again. You then flaunt your "supposed" superiority at Eggs when your only topic of discussion has been attacking religion, just like John H. I am very sure that Egg can defend himself here and in fact he already probably did, however, remember this, you are not superior, you are not all knowing, you are not the fountain of all knowledge...
See? I know I forgot something.....Oh yes, regarding Kinsey, are you saying that all his work was remarkable? Including that done in babies? Priests are bad but the good doctor was Ok in testing on children? It wouldn't bother me as much if I knew that he tested heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality on adults. You know, the consenting kind. But by researching over the weekend when I was trying to poke holes in John H's facts, I found his research and results on children to be perturbing, enough to make me stop my research. Shame on you if you really do feel that this research was remarkable too.....You can be religious or not religious and still be appalled by this piece of human garbage....

 

[kbm8795]

Ahhh, I see... so only CNN or another news agency of your liking can provide the "real" news right? I did a google search and got those articles, I'm not a regular reader of either. Regardless, the Pantano thing wasnt widely reported by the press, and neither was the "hit list" made by one of your homosexual sites Of course the general media doesnt want to delve into stuff like that, they prefer to stick to general murder and mayhem.

You really do love to make assumptions, don't you? And I don't know of "homosexual" sites - those would be, I'm assuming, some kind of sexually-related material. But then I don't usually use "Google" either. There might be several reasons why the Pantano thing hasn't been reported more widely - and that might be related to the missing and/or sketchy information...or the general reluctance of the Pentagon at this point to discuss these kinds of cases.

Super. So what you're saying is that all the children he and othersp potentiallu molested for their cause really didnt do all that much, it just put a book on the top seller list and didn't change the norms of society.

No, I"m saying that all I've seen is one page supposedly "copied" from a book with hundreds of pages and a variety of findings that wasn't sourced. His books didn't "change" the norms of society - they might have influenced discussion and thought then and later on. "Potentially" molested is still an allegation - and it seems to me that if that was published as shown.


Sure they do, I'm very much against that molestation as well. Though if they had been documenting their work for "research" you'd no doubt think it was for a good cause. Its funny how you havent made any attempts to deny that you think it was okay to molest kids to "benifit" society in regard to Kinsey.

I do like your sense of humor. It seems to me that a 50 year coverup by the Church was apparently some "research" design of their own. Really, you have no basis for knowing what I think - that is as projecting as your willingness to pass judgement on the basis of any snippet of information. I don't need to deny something that I believe was made quite clear in earlier posts. . .and certainly not to satisfy your inability to understand that.



Another example of your amazing ability to project misinformation and make quick and erroneous judgements. I teach adults.

 

[fantasma62]

Now that I think about it more carefully, as I said earlier, this is a thread that I don't need. I have children whom I love very much and it bothers me to think that someone would molest them whether it's a priest or the good doctor....

I am done with this thread and it's contents. I don't want to get into a discussion of Kinsey and all the good that you think he may have done for humanity....

 

[Dale Mabry]

I see where everyone is coming from here. Now I am going to go have a sandwich.

 

[kbm8795]

Oh, and just to put your posts into perspective.. one could draw a comparison by saying:

"Not to Defend Hitler, but the work he did on Euthanasia was quite fascinating".

All for the name of science, right Kbm?

Keep trying.

 

[kbm8795]

You are very humorous...
So to defend yourself, you immediately go after the Catholic Church, correct?
I have to admit that us catholics really like to have priests that molest children. We choose them to serve that particular purpose. We really believe that by molesting children, we are opening their minds to new and natural things because all things that are natural are good correct? So, if sex is natural, then children should have sex....I can also use the truth tables, if you'd like me to use logic and continue agreeing with you in that the catholic church is a bad place that harbors criminals. Oh and we are so proud of that, we beam with pride....
Are you kidding me here? Is this your only out? To go after the catholic church? Religion? All I have seen out of your posts is religion this, catholics that, and like John, you repeat yourself over and over again. You then flaunt your "supposed" superiority at Eggs when your only topic of discussion has been attacking religion, just like John H. I am very sure that Egg can defend himself here and in fact he already probably did, however, remember this, you are not superior, you are not all knowing, you are not the fountain of all knowledge...
See? I know I forgot something.....Oh yes, regarding Kinsey, are you saying that all his work was remarkable? Including that done in babies? Priests are bad but the good doctor was Ok in testing on children? It wouldn't bother me as much if I knew that he tested heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality on adults. You know, the consenting kind. But by researching over the weekend when I was trying to poke holes in John H's facts, I found his research and results on children to be perturbing, enough to make me stop my research. Shame on you if you really do feel that this research was remarkable too.....You can be religious or not religious and still be appalled by this piece of human garbage....

No Tony - I think I made that rather clear. I merely pointed out the situation with the Catholic Church as an example of some obviously covered up sexual issues that are occuring today. And the point of that reference is also that, if we look back into history for most of the previous teachings concerning sex, most were developed by the Church. There were some upstart organizations in the late 19th Century that conducted smaller scale research and challenged many of the myths propagated beforehand, like the notions about the harms of masturbation, etc.

Moreover, we are basing. . .or, in this case, DE-basing the entire work of the Kinsey Institute on the publication of one unsourced "page" and an accompanying article that isn't sourced. I don't defend Kinsey and am not a Kinsey scholar, and I've made that clear in previous posts. But I don't believe the bulk of his work and research was conducted on or about children and then published for the masses to read at that time period. It would have been immediately banned in a social climate which wouldn't even show Lucy and Ricky Ricardo sleeping in the same bed together.

I haven't said anything about children having sex - I've only questioned the origination of the allegation and the "discovery" of this "page" from the original book 50 years later by a rightwing researcher. Do you think the entire book and all of Kinsey's research revolved completely around children and so the man apparently didn't produce anything else of value? This, to me, is the same thing as saying that if the Church lied about masturbation, then it has no credibility in anything else it ever says about sexual activity. That was the point. And if the Church is involved in covering up child sexual abuse, then it obviously has no qualifications for issing edicts on sexuality at all. Obviously, most of us don't indict the entire teachings because of one very questionable and contradictory area.

I just don't tend to jump right on the bandwagon of condemnation here without more information. Certainly Kinsey had some personal issues - and he went places that were clearly not the norm for research at the time. However, there WERE no research norms in a culture that didn't talk about it at all. At least his work revealed many realities in our culture (even if some of the numbers ended up being off) that we ignored and it opened the door for much better work to be done later.

 

[Eggs]

You really do love to make assumptions, don't you? And I don't know of "homosexual" sites - those would be, I'm assuming, some kind of sexually-related material. But then I don't usually use "Google" either. There might be several reasons why the Pantano thing hasn't been reported more widely - and that might be related to the missing and/or sketchy information...or the general reluctance of the Pentagon at this point to discuss these kinds of cases.

Yes, assumptions are great. As to homosexual sites, I'm quite sure you arent so clueless that you have forgotten all of our past conversations. You should use Google, its a nice tool to use. Back to the question at hand, I'm quite sure as well that the the reason most news sites havent discussed this is because the details are a bit shady, and because of course its bad for credibility if they post a messy story/one which is later debunked.

No, I"m saying that all I've seen is one page supposedly "copied" from a book with hundreds of pages and a variety of findings that wasn't sourced. His books didn't "change" the norms of society - they might have influenced discussion and thought then and later on. "Potentially" molested is still an allegation - and it seems to me that if that was published as shown.

Kinsey either had factual information or he didnt. If he did, then children were indeed molested... if he didnt, then he is a liar and a fraud. You can choose either of those routes. If he is not the one who molested the children, then he protected those who did. Which in my book is nearly equivalent.

I do like your sense of humor. It seems to me that a 50 year coverup by the Church was apparently some "research" design of their own. Really, you have no basis for knowing what I think - that is as projecting as your willingness to pass judgement on the basis of any snippet of information. I don't need to deny something that I believe was made quite clear in earlier posts. . .and certainly not to satisfy your inability to understand that.

Of course I dont know what you think.. you post, then spend the next ten dancing around what you said. Okay, recap of your posts..

#1 - Automatically trying to move blame to a right winger.
#2 - Defense of Kinsey because the "scientific method" needs refinement.
#3 - Attacking right wingers and trying to twist the argument around, good utilization of a red herring.

Note: Remember, the topic isnt about grown up subjects, its about Kinsey and molestation of children.
#4 - More of the same.

Another example of your amazing ability to project misinformation and make quick and erroneous judgements. I teach adults. But if you'd like to continue publishing defamatory insinuations about my professional behavior for the general public, you certainly best be capable of providing evidence and have a very deep bank account.

It really is amazing isnt it? I'm glad you teach adults either way, its better that people that take your classes have already developed some aspect of thought on their own so know what to take with a grain of salt.

"To prove defamation in the US, the plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff was specifically targeted by the statement; the statement was false; the statement was published (a private email would not qualify but publication to a user group would); the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the communication; the statement was published deliberately; and the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault."

1 - Its obvious who the target was as I was replying to your post.
2 - You'd have to prove the statement was false.
3 - Was published.
4 - I'm not sure what damages you feel youve suffered... but feel free to post your feelings on that.
5 - As to how deliberate my statement was, you can take it how you want to. There is no set meaning there, and it could have meant a variety of things. I'm quite sure there is no specific sexual referance in that post, on top of which I could very well have been expressing my concerns for your viewpoints figuratively.

Moreover, I was merely expressing concern as you seem to have no qualms with the actions of Kinsey. Your comments have continuously supported his actions and never called into question his methods.

I'm not surprised with the threat of a lawsuit though, it is so very much like you. However, being that I like Ironmagazine and wouldnt want it to become embroiled in your attempts to make a quick buck because you're offended, I'll remove the material which you find offensive.

 

[Eggs]

Kbm, very few of us are drawing conclusions about how correct Kinseys work was... perhaps one person did, but that isnt the problem most people in this thread have had with him. Their problem is that his research contained what seems to be referances to molesation of children. Whether or not his research ended up being correct or not, he should not have contained material about children being sexually abused. Perhaps he was well intentioned with it when he wrote it, and perhaps some of his work has made the world a better place. The fact still remains that it was a poor judgment call on his part to include research on children.

Oh, and if that material you didnt like earlier really offends you, the only part of it left is in your post... if you want it all gone you'll have to remove that part yourself.

 

[kbm8795]

Yes, assumptions are great. As to homosexual sites, I'm quite sure you arent so clueless that you have forgotten all of our past conversations. You should use Google, its a nice tool to use. Back to the question at hand, I'm quite sure as well that the the reason most news sites havent discussed this is because the details are a bit shady, and because of course its bad for credibility if they post a messy story/one which is later debunked.

Well, apparently you are the clueless one. I don't know of any site that calls itself "homosexual" and purports to containing news. The term you use refers to sexual interaction, not news. If you are attempting to refer to gay news services, they don't reference themselves in that manner.

And bingo! The credibility issue may well be the reason. . .and the tendancy for this Administration to attempt to tightly control information, especially about the military.

Kinsey either had factual information or he didnt. If he did, then children were indeed molested... if he didnt, then he is a liar and a fraud. You can choose either of those routes. If he is not the one who molested the children, then he protected those who did. Which in my book is nearly equivalent.

We don't know that from the information on this thread. We have a copied and pasted supposed page number from a book that was a best seller. I tend to think, if that was published at the time, the uproar would have likely closed the institute.[/I]

Of course I dont know what you think.. you post, then spend the next ten dancing around what you said. Okay, recap of your posts..

#1 - Automatically trying to move blame to a right winger.
#2 - Defense of Kinsey because the "scientific method" needs refinement.
#3 - Attacking right wingers and trying to twist the argument around, good utilization of a red herring.

Note: Remember, the topic isnt about grown up subjects, its about Kinsey and molestation of children.
#4 - More of the same.

Nice try. And nice political use of the term "scientific method." So you recap your analysis according to your own personal interpretation. Merely pointing out the few references in the article and their political affiliations isn't an "attack" nor a "defense."

It really is amazing isnt it? I'm glad you teach adults either way, its better that people that take your classes have already developed some aspect of thought on their own so know what to take with a grain of salt.

Again, another assumption. I've been rather open about what I teach in other threads before - it isn't human sexuality. And you really aren't in any kind of professional or personal position to speculate about my pedagogical skills.

"To prove defamation in the US, the plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff was specifically targeted by the statement; the statement was false; the statement was published (a private email would not qualify but publication to a user group would); the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the communication; the statement was published deliberately; and the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault."

1 - Its obvious who the target was as I was replying to your post.
2 - You'd have to prove the statement was false.
3 - Was published.
4 - I'm not sure what damages you feel youve suffered... but feel free to post your feelings on that.
5 - As to how deliberate my statement was, you can take it how you want to. There is no set meaning there, and it could have meant a variety of things. I'm quite sure there is no specific sexual referance in that post, on top of which I could very well have been expressing my concerns for your viewpoints figuratively.

It's a public forum. You have no knowledge who could read those statements. And you have no idea what viewpoints are expressed in my classrooms so have no basis for your "worries," particularly those descriptively expressed in a physical manner.

Moreover, I was merely expressing concern as you seem to have no qualms with the actions of Kinsey. Your comments have continuously supported his actions and never called into question his methods.

I don't think so.

I'm not surprised with the threat of a lawsuit though, it is so very much like you. However, being that I like Ironmagazine and wouldnt want it to become embroiled in your attempts to make a quick buck because you're offended, I'll remove the material which you find offensive.

Nice backstepping. But then, if you could be so wrong about other personalized statements, how would you know what is like "me" and what isn't?

 

[Eggs]

I was referring to the site that had a "hit list" of people, their pictures, etc that it wished would die. Its a in a recent thread that we visited.

My original complaint was not that the news wasnt credible, but that it put pressure on the military to act in a certain manner... and in this case (and others) have pushed the military to put forth charges against the Lt. because it wanted to cover its own butt. Certainly the military and the government could just throw out the charges, but they probably do not find that practical after all the bad press that they received after the various prisoner abuse scandals, etc that took place. News agencies with credebility probably shouldnt report on this as of yet... unless its a snipet about 10 pages back. But regardless, I think that the media is at least partially responsible for the climate in the military of CYA (cover your ass). That really isnt a healthy climate during wartime. Especially when morale among many takes a dive already.

So you're saying that its a possibility that the chart isnt from the book. Certainly it is a possibility, but rather slim considering that if someone were indeed to create false information such as that chart and have it spread via the news or whatever else... it would be quickly called into question and debunked. I'm sure there are many people who have read Kinsey's book, and it wouldnt be so hard to do.

Of course I recap my analysis according to my personal interpretation... if you have any doubts look at my signature. That said, how would you interpret you posts?

Again, another assumption. I've been rather open about what I teach in other threads before - it isn't human sexuality. And you really aren't in any kind of professional or personal position to speculate about my pedagogical skills.

We've been here and done this... I'm not going to discuss this any further with you. If you were indeed offended by my remark you would obviously remove it from your post so that it could not be seen. However, that you have failed to do so points out that you dont really care if others see it. I'm not going to go deeper into this topic with you either way.

As to your last point, I'm not saying I'm wrong about any personalized statements... I'm merely saying that I dont feel like going "there" with somebody who threatens suit when somebody offends them. I'd be happy to discuss what I think about lawsuits and what a shame it is that our society is so trigger happy when it comes to trying to sue.

 

[kbm8795]

I was referring to the site that had a "hit list" of people, their pictures, etc that it wished would die. Its a in a recent thread that we visited.

I responded that it appeared to be a parody of the original "christian gallery" web site, so I got their strategy right away in creating it as a political statement. Which is why I referred you to the http://www.godhatesfags.com web site so you could see what a serious hate organization advocates. And a direct parody of that site (although milder) called http://www.godhatesshrimp.com

Since the site worldnetdaily linked to was a "Queer" site, it was an indication that it was using queer theory political discourse, which isn't the same as a gay/lesbian organization. Queer political theory is an "in-your-face" approach that is much less about gay issues than it is about issues in sexual identity, period. I can see why worldnetdaily wouldn't understand that, but I suspect it was intended for a specific audience as a parody on the original anti-abortion site.

My original complaint was not that the news wasnt credible, but that it put pressure on the military to act in a certain manner... and in this case (and others) have pushed the military to put forth charges against the Lt. because it wanted to cover its own butt. Certainly the military and the government could just throw out the charges, but they probably do not find that practical after all the bad press that they received after the various prisoner abuse scandals, etc that took place. News agencies with credebility probably shouldnt report on this as of yet... unless its a snipet about 10 pages back. But regardless, I think that the media is at least partially responsible for the climate in the military of CYA (cover your ass). That really isnt a healthy climate during wartime. Especially when morale among many takes a dive already.

I didn't get the impression that the complaint from the "disgrunted" enlisted soldier was ferreted out by the media, but that is was directly handled through military channels. That was shown by the lack of information the article had about the specific complaint surfacing so much later and being attributed do that soldier.
At least in this war, the media have had more restrictions in movement and coverage ability. I hear mo compliant about not being able to venture out on their own as an assertion that the country isn't nearly being secured. And the Pentagon is pretty tight with any security this time around on information.

So you're saying that its a possibility that the chart isnt from the book. Certainly it is a possibility, but rather slim considering that if someone were indeed to create false information such as that chart and have it spread via the news or whatever else... it would be quickly called into question and debunked. I'm sure there are many people who have read Kinsey's book, and it wouldnt be so hard to do.

I'm saying it's possible that isn'from the book. Or maybe even possible that it was never published and retrieved somehow from archives. Since the source for the article isn't cited, we don't have anything to check on but the researcher they quoted. And, while some of her work is good on other issues and has been used before governmental bodies, the Kinsey stuff seems like it's played more to an extreme political agenda. I honestly can't imagine how that book, with that page in it, could have been published and soared to the top of best seller lists back then without the Institute suffering major criminal charges. Adultery was still prosecuted back then. . .researched on sexuality of children would hardly get past the government in a book that popular.

Of course I recap my analysis according to my personal interpretation... if you have any doubts look at my signature. That said, how would you interpret you posts?

As tentative about the content of the article and careful about automatically trashing the entire research of an Institute without more information.


We've been here and done this... I'm not going to discuss this any further with you. If you were indeed offended by my remark you would obviously remove it from your post so that it could not be seen. However, that you have failed to do so points out that you dont really care if others see it. I'm not going to go deeper into this topic with you either way.

Good. And I forgot to remove it from my post.

As to your last point, I'm not saying I'm wrong about any personalized statements... I'm merely saying that I dont feel like going "there" with somebody who threatens suit when somebody offends them. I'd be happy to discuss what I think about lawsuits and what a shame it is that our society is so trigger happy when it comes to trying to sue.

And I'd be happy to discuss the limits of publishing damaging speech with a reckless disregard for the truth. Going "there" wasn't part of the discussion on Kinsey. It's really not an issue now, anyway. You removed it and I appreciate that. And it isn't a matter of whether you think you are "right" or "wrong" in making personalized remarks. You are still responsible for them.

But I am glad that you started to see what I was saying about the article. I appreciate that, too.

 

[fantasma62]

Guys, I am not big on that chart. There is a woman out there whose name escapes my mind who has been crusading.

I found information that supposedly was in the book, under page number,etc.
I found the same information in many different places and I just couldn't bear to find anymore information as it was mentally destroying me.
I'll copy it here if you guys wish from my other post and make your own conclusions

 

[fantasma62]

This are excerpts from www.cwfa.org
This information to me is apalling and hard to read, but I said I would do this and with a knot in my stomach, I am doing so:


"Kinsey and the kids
According to early reviews, the film barely mentions Kinsey's recording of child sexuality data, with one young staff member expressing distaste.



Kinsey's 1948 book and the companion Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) claim that sexual activity in even very young children is natural, healthy and to be encouraged. In his research, Kinsey recorded children having orgasms during manipulation by adult "partners" and insisted that the children's "definite pleasure from the situation" was evidenced in their "screams," "convulsions," "hysterical weeping," "fighting," and "striking the partner (adult)" (Male volume p. 161).



In the Female book's chapter on "Pre-Adolescent Sexual Development," Kinsey wrote:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts." (P. 121.) "

This is not made up bullshit, this are excerpts from his books.

This is the post I made in another thread....

 

[bio-chem]

This is the post I made in another thread....

thats as conclusive for evidence as your going to get. directly from his book damn. kinsey in certifiably insane

 

[kbm8795]

This is the post I made in another thread....

No offense, Tony, because I know this has been unpleasant for you to read and post about. But the "Concerned" Women For America is just about as RightWing as one can get and they have quite a history of dispensing disinformation on any number of topics. They also cite Dr. Reisman again who seems to have spent "30 years" not being able to get enough attention about her discoveries in a book that made the bestseller lists when published? And they attribute every change in moral values to two books that were published 15-20 years before the "sexual" revolution?

I'm not saying that something isn't there - I don't know, and I'm not a Kinsey scholar, as I've said before. But fear and hysteria are trademark for organizations like the CWFA, and much of their claims about Kinsey's research have been dealt with in later studies. Seeing an excerpt from pages without the context doesn't tell the whole story here at all. . .and this is an organization that wouldn't have any problem doing that at all.

If I can find some time this week, I'll go to the library here and see if the book is available. It would be better to see the actual material and find some archived reviews about the book than rely on the CWFA to "discover" something the public read 55 years ago. If it had been so influential, one would think an entire generation of American children were raised on orgasmic stimulation. . .

 

[bio-chem]

i dont care the context those quotes can not be rationalized. i can think of no appropriate sexual stimulation of adult to child period. the chart coming from his book shows stimulation of children ages 5 mo to 14 yrs old. its wrong. its cool that your holding your judgement till you read it for yourself thats commendable, however barring those being commpletely false quotes, and accepting them as real thats the most damning information i could possibly think of. and truthfully i dont think these books were near as influential as john h would lead people to believe. the truth is oral sex was practiced in america long before kinsey decided it was appropriate to rape children in the name of science.

 

[kbm8795]

i dont care the context those quotes can not be rationalized. i can think of no appropriate sexual stimulation of adult to child period. the chart coming from his book shows stimulation of children ages 5 mo to 14 yrs old. its wrong. its cool that your holding your judgement till you read it for yourself thats commendable, however barring those being commpletely false quotes, and accepting them as real thats the most damning information i could possibly think of. and truthfully i dont think these books were near as influential as john h would lead people to believe. the truth is oral sex was practiced in america long before kinsey decided it was appropriate to rape children in the name of science.

You don't have to care about the context of his research. I just don't happen to believe that Dr. Reisman, or that original article wasn't written from an extreme political agenda viewpoint, something an organization like the CWFA would be more than capable of doing. Dr. Reisman is hardly a clinician - her PhD is in Communications, which happens to be my own field of study. Her books are also published by rightwing companies and she also has been quoted as calling "Romeo and Juliet" a child pornographic play. So she is certainly not without her critics.

When Kinsey's original work was published, there was controversy over his research, but I don't recall that it was centered around references to children that were presented in this manner. This doesn't mean it didn't happen. . .in fact, one article in the British medical journal The Lancet called for an investigation of the Kinsey Institute about 14 years ago. However, that is the only professional or "expert" support for her point of view so far in 55 years.

There is one footnoted criticism of Reisman online that seems well-written, even if that web site appears to be a parody site of the "religious" Right. While I'd chalk that story up to a political viewpoint also, it at least provides quotes from publications on both sides of the issue regarding her charges over the years. It's at least an interesting read here :

http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/sex/kinsey/judith_reisman.html

Here are the official statements in response to the CWFA and Reisman's crusade issued by the Kinsey Institute:

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy 2.htm

 

[fantasma62]

No offense, Tony, because I know this has been unpleasant for you to read and post about. But the "Concerned" Women For America is just about as RightWing as one can get and they have quite a history of dispensing disinformation on any number of topics. They also cite Dr. Reisman again who seems to have spent "30 years" not being able to get enough attention about her discoveries in a book that made the bestseller lists when published? And they attribute every change in moral values to two books that were published 15-20 years before the "sexual" revolution?

I'm not saying that something isn't there - I don't know, and I'm not a Kinsey scholar, as I've said before. But fear and hysteria are trademark for organizations like the CWFA, and much of their claims about Kinsey's research have been dealt with in later studies. Seeing an excerpt from pages without the context doesn't tell the whole story here at all. . .and this is an organization that wouldn't have any problem doing that at all.

If I can find some time this week, I'll go to the library here and see if the book is available. It would be better to see the actual material and find some archived reviews about the book than rely on the CWFA to "discover" something the public read 55 years ago. If it had been so influential, one would think an entire generation of American children were raised on orgasmic stimulation. . .

None taken....
I do agree with you about old what's her name. I think she's in the mold of feminazi.....er......feminist to the nth power....
If you have time to go to the library this week, find out and let me know because I do understand about the womens groups, in fact, all I have seen is this lady, what's her name, in all the articles I read....
Please, all I ask is that you tell me: "yup, that's right, he's a nut case" or "nope, Tony, you were not on the right on this one". I am a big boy and if I am wrong, I'll be the first one to admit it and eat crow.....
However, I really would beg you to keep it at that and not add to what I wrote if true. You don't have to, I know, but I can ask, right?