Kinsey Report

[Mirdath]

What I described is what went on. Even your link says "the *bulk *of his observations came from interviews. What about the rest Mirdarth? What is there to admire about this pervert?

The rest? Lots of mail-in surveys, for one. If I recall correctly, some observations were indeed made through personal experimentation among Kinsey and his coworkers – all of whom were of age.

As for a reason to admire him, he basically kickstarted the serious study of human sexuality; a few others, of course, had gone before, but without him it would still be more a discipline of side projects for eccentric bio/socio professors.

Jennifer123:

My point about Dr. Reisman is that her exposes of Kinsey are more than a “bizarre vendetta” - they are valid research about the man who promulgated the myth that women who get raped are asking for it

Show me where Kinsey himself said that.

and for the record, pornography has been tied to violent behavior time and again.

Correlation is not causation.

As for the “same old lies” about Kinsey, certainly you don’t think that referring to his institute’s website for refutation isn’t unbiased?

Where would you have me go? Certainly, the Institute has an interest in keeping its founder’s name clear – but who is going to be interested in Kinsey’s activities without picking a side? Dr Reisman’s side has been presented, although mostly unsourced; I have shown the other side of the coin.

 

[estesbob]

The rest? Lots of mail-in surveys, for one. If I recall correctly, some observations were indeed made through personal experimentation among Kinsey and his coworkers – all of whom were of age.

As for a reason to admire him, he basically kickstarted the serious study of human sexuality; a few others, of course, had gone before, but without him it would still be more a discipline of side projects for eccentric bio/socio professors.n.

When Kinsey interviewed men who admiting they were molesting boys why didnt he turn them in? Was kickstarting serious study of human sexuality(what a eupahnism!) more important than stopping the abuse of chidlren. Go to the kinsey site and see how they gloss this over.

Kinsey is used today from everyone from NAMBLA to Sado machositst to radical homosexuals to try and give a legitimate sheen to their perversions. There is nothng to admire about this man. I have great sorrow for the untold victims of his perversities and that of his "subjects who he continued to allow to rape children to further his research. .

 

[Jennifer123]

Show me where Kinsey himself said that.

“the difference between a good time and a rape often largely depends on whether the girl’s parents happened to be awake when she returned home.”
West, Roy and Nichols, Understanding sexual attacks, p.136
Kinsey has also been quoted as saying rape is the most forgettable of crimes against women.

 

[Jennifer123]

When Kinsey interviewed men who admiting they were molesting boys why didnt he turn them in? .

Many were already in prison for molestation.

 

[Mirdath]

“the difference between a good time and a rape often largely depends on whether the girl’s parents happened to be awake when she returned home.”
West, Roy and Nichols, Understanding sexual attacks, p.136
Kinsey has also been quoted as saying rape is the most forgettable of crimes against women.

Disregarding the complete lack of context, how precisely is that equivalent to ‘women who get raped are asking for it’, as you claim Kinsey said?

 

[Jennifer123]

Disregarding the complete lack of context, how precisely is that equivalent to ‘women who get raped are asking for it’, as you claim Kinsey said?

wow - unbelieveable is really all I have to say. :whacky:

It’s obvious you’ve bought the Kinsey whitewash hook, line and sinker but if it will help any I will make the “correlation”.

Kinsey was not terribly fond of the rape label - since he argued from his “data” that all beings were sexual, even infants, rape was really impossible.

Much of his data came from a monster pedophile, Rex King, who described infants’ screams from the pain of rape as “orgasams”.

He was truly a sick person but I doubt you would do anything to even try to see Kinsey in any other light than famed “sexologist”.
Meanwhile the MSM will continue to supress any knowledge of the dark side of Kinsey, and our children and society will continue to suffer.

 

[Mirdath]

wow - unbelieveable is really all I have to say. :whacky:

It’s obvious you’ve bought the Kinsey whitewash hook, line and sinker but if it will help any I will make the “correlation”.

Kinsey was not terribly fond of the rape label - since he argued from his “data” that all beings were sexual, even infants, rape was really impossible.

You still have not made any kind of connection between ‘rape victims deserve it’ and the statement you quoted.

Much of his data came from a monster pedophile, Rex King, who described infants’ screams from the pain of rape as “orgasams”.

Do you think I’m defending the people Kinsey interviewed? How useful would the studies be if he only got data from the most uptightly chaste, moral Christians around? Defining sexual behavior of humans means you don’t get to restrict your study group to the Osmond family. You have to look at the best, the worst, and everything in between. There is a use for monsters: do you know just how much Josef Mengele contributed to modern medicine?

He was truly a sick person but I doubt you would do anything to even try to see Kinsey in any other light than famed “sexologist”.
Meanwhile the MSM will continue to supress any knowledge of the dark side of Kinsey, and our children and society will continue to suffer.

I have no problems seeing Kinsey in other lights, just as I can see Freud as a cokehead and Feynmann as a gleefully promiscuous bongo player. The reputation Reisman and others would like to see become Kinsey’s legacy, however, is a near-total fabrication.

If you disagree with Kinsey’s theories or methodology, that’s just fine, and if you’re willing to put in the time and effort, you might even make a case for your ideas. Even that won’t necessarily disqualify his research – the two may eventually be taught side by side as two similar, or even complementary bodies of work!

Reisman et al are apparently not willing to make this kind of effort. Instead, they’d rather slander a dead man. But all the character assassination they can sling doesn’t in any way detract from the work he did. Actually demonstrating problems with Kinsey’s studies – as has been done by many later scholars – is too much work for such people. Lying is easier.

 

[Jennifer123]

you think I’m defending the people Kinsey interviewed? How useful would the studies be if he only got data from the most uptightly chaste, moral Christians around? Defining sexual behavior of humans means you don’t get to restrict your study group to the Osmond family. You have to look at the best, the worst, and everything in between. There is a use for monsters: do you know just how much Josef Mengele contributed to modern medicine?

**Why can Kinsey define sexual behavior by only relying on pedophiles, incarcerated or not? By not interviewing rape victims or prostitutes? By manufacturing evidence when answers he was given didn’t fit his theories? All of which has been documented and admitted to by Kinsey associates?
As for Dr. Mengele,Kinsey deserves to be associated with him, it is fitting. As for scientific knowledge being brought by immoral and unethical means, I see very little use for the knowledge of sexual arousal of infants other than to exploit children. **

I have no problems seeing Kinsey in other lights, just as I can see Freud as a cokehead and Feynmann as a gleefully promiscuous bongo player. The reputation Reisman and others would like to see become Kinsey’s legacy, however, is a near-total fabrication.

No these aren’t fabrications - and I doubt you’ve ever even read anything by Reisman or the other few who have braved the wrath of the MSM, Rockefeller Foundation, Playboy, Hustler, and all the other benefactors of Kinsey’s work.

If you disagree with Kinsey’s theories or methodology, that’s just fine, and if you’re willing to put in the time and effort, you might even make a case for your ideas. Even that won’t necessarily disqualify his research – the two may eventually be taught side by side as two similar, or even complementary bodies of work!

Reisman et al are apparently not willing to make this kind of effort. Instead, they’d rather slander a dead man. But all the character assassination they can sling doesn’t in any way detract from the work he did. Actually demonstrating problems with Kinsey’s studies – as has been done by many later scholars – is too much work for such people. Lying is easier.

I’m too tired to do a thesis on the problems of Kinsey’s work, plus I’ve done it before in an earlier thread. There are other bodies of research other than Reisman’s. I leave it up to the readers of the thread to make up their own minds.
They should look at Dr. Reisman’s website for starters:
drjudithreisman.com/
Or the Kinsey Syndrome:
kinseysyndrome.com/index.html

 

[edwest2]

This is not a make up your own mind issue. A Report that was distorted and agenda driven affected legal and social policy. Look here also:

rsvpamerica.org/pages/PR%204%20page%20limit.html

No matter the reader’s background, regardless of your belief system, if we don’t speak the truth to each other it can lead to nothing good. And truth, regardless of your belief system, should be protected, and if you don’t believe it, examined by you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

Why can Kinsey define sexual behavior by only relying on pedophiles, incarcerated or not? By not interviewing rape victims or prostitutes? By manufacturing evidence when answers he was given didn’t fit his theories? All of which has been documented and admitted to by Kinsey associates?

Now you assert he ‘only’ studied responses from people who shared one highly specific paraphilia? I’m not even sure what to say to that, other than that it’s ridiculous, you’re wrong, and it’s quite obviously not so.

Still waiting for you to match up the ‘good time’ comment with ‘victims of rape had it coming’.

No these aren’t fabrications - and I doubt you’ve ever even read anything by Reisman or the other few who have braved the wrath of the MSM, Rockefeller Foundation, Playboy, Hustler, and all the other benefactors of Kinsey’s work.

Assuming ignorance ill becomes you. It’s never safe – and yes, I have indeed heard many arguments against Kinsey from the horse’s mouth, as it were.

 

[estesbob]

I am curious. Just exactly what is it Kinsey found out about human sexuality that wasn’t known before? It appears that the main result of his studies was validating sexual perversion as legitimate

 

[Mirdath]

I am curious. Just exactly what is it Kinsey found out about human sexuality that wasn’t known before? It appears that the main result of his studies was validating sexual perversion as legitimate

He was the first person (or one of the first people) to make any kind of systematic, general study of human sexuality rather than a mere, ah, stab in the dark.

 

[estesbob]

He was the first person (or one of the first people) to make any kind of systematic, general study of human sexuality rather than a mere, ah, stab in the dark.

He was? So if he is the first person to do this what conclusion did he come to that differ from conclusions prior to his studies?

 

[StratusRose]

Does this thread suggest that Americans should revert to old attitudes about sex? Or does it suggest that maybe Kinsey went about studying sex in the wrong way? I can accept the latter. Old attitudes about sex made the sexual revolution completely understandable. One can’t just go about pretending that sex does not exist, and believing old wives tales like oral stimulation can affect fertility. I saw the movie recently and I felt it portrayed him both positively and negatively. He didn’t realize the moral and emotional consequences he subjected his guinea pigs (and himself) to. It’s unfortunate the way the sexual revolution unraveled, not saying that it was good, but this is what happened when people were told lies about sex and were not educated about it. I doubt that JPII would have written TOB if it weren’t for this catalyst.

 

[Mirdath]

He was? So if he is the first person to do this what conclusion did he come to that differ from conclusions prior to his studies?

Thing is, there just wasn’t much in the way of general conclusions prior to Kinsey. It’s why he’s considered the father of the field.

Kinsey’s work is essential just as a catalogue. Nobody before had documented sexuality to anywhere near the extent the Reports covered.

 

[edwest2]

If you check the web sites referenced, his Report was agenda driven and not representative of how people really were. I don’t understand why anyone would view this Report as proper in any sense.

I think it would be helpful if all Christians lived by Biblical principles that are long established. Sex is for married couples only. No fornication. No adultery.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Does this thread suggest that Americans should revert to old attitudes about sex? Or does it suggest that maybe Kinsey went about studying sex in the wrong way? I can accept the latter. Old attitudes about sex made the sexual revolution completely understandable. One can’t just go about pretending that sex does not exist, and believing old wives tales like oral stimulation can affect fertility.

I grew up in the 1950’s without benefit of the sexual revolution, or even much in the way of “sex education,” so apparently we did have “old attitudes about sex.” Apparently no one noticed that they were being deprived. I don’t recall anyone lying about sex or denying that it existed. And the old wives wouldn’t tell me anything. In my high school, we had an out of wedlock pregnancy rate of zero. I haven’t checked lately, but surely, later innovations in sex education must have improved that figure. Why is it that most of the troubling developments in sexual behaviors having adverse effects on society seem to have arisen after the sexual revolution?

I already posted a link to Sex, Lies, and Videotape:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea1.asp

Here are another couple of articles:

Kinsey’s Stranglehold on Sex Education
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea1sb1.asp

Rethinking Kinsey
members.tripod.com/hreview/vol2/kinsey.html

“This brings us to one Professor James H. Jones and his biography of Dr. Kinsey due out in October. It has been reported by Jones himself in a recent issue of The New Yorker that Kinsey’s sampling methods were unsound and his ethics questionable. He raises the possibility that the doctor’s sampling method was weighted toward interviewing those on the “sexual fringe,” thus skewing the statistics he would later report.”

Obviously, sampling from the fringe would not provide valid results for the general population.

 

[edwest2]

I had the same experience. No one denied anything but we were taught to treat young ladies with respect and vice versa. The so-called revolution was just an attempt to break the rules and to create a set of myths. Liberation from Christian moral principles has led to what we have today.

And no, life was not perfect but everyone I knew was very concerned about drawing the line when it came to male-female relationships.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jennifer123]

Now you assert he ‘only’ studied responses from people who shared one highly specific paraphilia? I’m not even sure what to say to that, other than that it’s ridiculous, you’re wrong, and it’s quite obviously not so.

Still waiting for you to match up the ‘good time’ comment with ‘victims of rape had it coming’.

Assuming ignorance ill becomes you. It’s never safe – and yes, I have indeed heard many arguments against Kinsey from the horse’s mouth, as it were.

If it were patently false, there would be repurcussions that we would have already heard about. There have been none - only smears of Dr. Reisman’s reputation that she’s a shrill, prude homophobe that has a bizarre vendetta against Kinsey.
The fact is, Kinsey’s own records show that most of his evidence came from incarcerated pedophiles and Kinsey associates have admitted to many of his misdeeds.
And I don’t have to justify the quote, in fact I find it repugnant that there may be any other context that a quote like this could be placed in that would justify even saying it. I’ve provided evidence that the quote is Kinsey’s, there is ample other evidence that Kinsey didn’t believe in a rape classification.
Kinsey wasn’t a pioneer, he was the man who ushered in the era of uninhibited sexuality that is literally killing humanity.

 

[Mirdath]

If it were patently false, there would be repurcussions that we would have already heard about. There have been none - only smears of Dr. Reisman’s reputation that she’s a shrill, prude homophobe that has a bizarre vendetta against Kinsey.

I said ‘bizarre vendetta’, but other than that you’re putting words in my mouth.

The fact is, Kinsey’s own records show that most of his evidence came from incarcerated pedophiles and Kinsey associates have admitted to many of his misdeeds.

Most of his evidence on pedophilia, and why bother gathering evidence on the past child predation of a person who never did anything of the sort? Kinsey interviewed or received surveys from thousands of people, only a few of whom were pedophiles. Sure, his samples contained a disproportionate number of incarcerated people – not all of them pedophiles, I might add, but people who don’t change addresses and have little to do but fill out surveys – and that is a serious methodological problem, but when the stats were ‘cleaned’ to reflect that, the Institute found the numbers weren’t all that different.

And I don’t have to justify the quote, in fact I find it repugnant that there may be any other context that a quote like this could be placed in that would justify even saying it. I’ve provided evidence that the quote is Kinsey’s, there is ample other evidence that Kinsey didn’t believe in a rape classification.

Yeah, you do have to justify it. There is nothing in that quote that in any way resembles ‘women who are raped deserve it’. Either show the connection or leave off.

Kinsey wasn’t a pioneer, he was the man who ushered in the era of uninhibited sexuality that is literally killing humanity.

What makes you think it was so inhibited beforehand? It might not have been spoken of in polite society, but you bet it was going on. Even the legendarily prudish Victorian age was full of smut, deviancy, and prostitution. The only thing the Kinsey Reports changed was the willingness of people to talk about what was already happening.