Skip to comments.Kinsey's Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution
Posted on 07/23/2009 2:05:48 PM PDT by NYer
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Kinsey was a DIRTY OLD man pure and simple!
Moral Absolutes ping
What an awful, awful movie.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Go to many of the (local state federal) government affiliated healthcare sites (including hospitals) and you will find tax payer funded promotion of the sex positive agenda.
Encouragement of teen sexual experimentation.
Links to “go ask alice”’s anything goes approach. Go Ask Alice, Planned Parenthood, SEICUS.
They cite how “abstinence doesn’t prevent pregnancy”. It does every time it’s applied.
Abortion may cure pregnancy but it won’t cure STDs (which are rising again...)
Rise in teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease in US according to CDC study
July 18, 3:00 PM
The stated goal of the sex positive agenda is to end all moral judgements over all sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
If they tell you "it's no biggie, everyone does it", it may not make it "right" but it makes it easier to transgress.
From what I understand he wasn't just a dirty old man.
It's my understanding that he was a perverted sex addict that used some of his subjects for his "needs".
“It’s in the name of science!”
Same excuse used by Josef Mengele.
Much of the reason Freudian theory went out of vogue after Kinsey was that freud taught humans were governed by primitive drives, but civilization depended on the supression of those drives. Kinsey’s ideals went from disrepute to gining acceptance in higher education and so Freudian views were just seen as “Victorian”.
Much of today’s sexual experimentation is explained in the sense that Freud said that society has a lot to do with determining how far we will push the limits of the libido. When there are no liits humans will go through life without any real roadmap and will wind up unhappy. In fact, if we truly do see our coupling as a way to regain the love of our opposite sex parent for life then every time we enter into a significant relationship and then break up our only defense mechanism is to build a sheild around our feelings. By the time we MAY find that special someone it takes years to lower the wall subconsciously and trust that person.
I always thought Dr. Ruth was just a dirty old woman
I always thought Dr. Ruth was just a dirty old woman
Kinsey had been rumored to participate in sexual practices outside of those widely sanctioned by mainstream society at the time. James H. Jones’s biography, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, describes Kinsey as bisexual, and experimenting in masochism. He encouraged group sex involving his graduate students, wife and staff. Kinsey filmed sexual acts in the attic of his home as part of his research. Biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy explained that using Kinsey’s home for the filming of sexual acts was done to ensure the films’ secrecy, which would certainly have caused a scandal had the public become aware of them.
We are constantly being bombarded by advertisers and promoters to start doing X or Y. Sometimes we all start doing X, and sometimes we don't. Sometimes we do X for a while and then get bored of it. Tennis was more popular once, and now it is less popular.
There is a reason why Kinsey was so successful in spreading his message: it was a message that people wanted to hear.
There were already lots of movies in the 40's and 50's that hinted at an underground of people straining against the mores of the day. Kinsey just gave people the permission to go ahead and do what their fantasies were telling them to do.
Why so many people continue to engage in such behavior after all of the negative evidence that has come up since: disease, broken marriages, infertility, emotional desctruction, etc. is beyond my comprehension.
I imagine it is similar to what goes on in the head of an alcoholic or someone with a gambling problem: they know that in the long run they're going to regret it, but just then they need that one little drink or that one little bet or that one little sexual transgression to keep them going.
Yes, I have read similar things about Kinsey, but no one truly comments on why his views were such a success. If everyone was really such a prude then his ideas would have never gained credence. He would have been thought of at best a kook.
This is hardly surprising, when you look around at the culture the sexual revolution gave us. We have patterned it on a sampling of deviates.
Junk science and lies...It’s how libs operate....See Global Warming hoax for more info....
She’s always bugged me, but I really just thought she was out to make money. I just thought it was gross to watch an unattractive old lady tell people to have sex.
One reason people continue is that our society continues to lie to them and tell them it’s really ok.
LOL if suddenly someone came out with a study *proving* that being obese was actually normal and good for you, people would feel better about their weight and even gain more. That’s not at all surprising.
Do I ever agree with this article! I have always told people the bottom rung of hell would be occupied by Hefner and Gurley Brown. They have brought more misery to the world than is imaginable.
FWIW, Margaret Meads work on Samoan girls was later debunked to pieces. I have the book somewhere. An Australian researcher, I think.
parsy, who hasn’t had sex with animals, unless that girl I met once at ....oh, I don’t want to talk about that.
His ideas took YEARS to be accepted. Some of the kids of the sixties did, but most didn’t. Seventies were the true sexual revolution.
Making perversion accepted is a Marxist idea.
The Marxism has been working for years to take over. This is just one aspect. And look at how well it’s working!
>>There were already lots of movies in the 40’s and 50’s that hinted at an underground of people straining against the mores of the day. Kinsey just gave people the permission to go ahead and do what their fantasies were telling them to do.<<
There have been deviants around forever. Study up on the Hollywood crowd from the beginning. Theda Bara drank her champaign in cocaine rimmed glasses, people believed that Fatty Arbuckle sodomized a young girl because that kind of thing went on.
That doesn’t mean it was normal. That means that for years it’s been “Normalized”.
I recall a time when 'sodomy' was a crime, punishable by imprisonment. Today, it has been elevated to 'sacramental'. For many years, the gay community claimed homosexuality was genetic. Science has now proven them wrong. There is no gay gene! To remedy that, they have altered their argument in favor of a 'chosen' lifestyle.
That lifestyle will cost us, the taxpayer, a ton of money as more gov't funds are devoted to combat sexually transmitted diseases. I give the pope much credit for maintaining that 'homosexuality' goes against the Laws of Nature.
Why would they base their sexual behavior on these same people?
Kinsey's success has more to say about the depraved desires of the average person than the messages sent by Hollyweird.
He was a total evil fraud.
No, the Hollywood habits of the 1900 on have been slowly normalized by the media.
People are seriously not that weird. Did you read the article and how many actual scientists disagreed with him?
Marriage and our age-old moral would not have been destroyed if we ourselves had continued to live according to Judeo-Christian values. As Judaism and Christianity retreat from public life, as the continue to do since the Enlightenment, the resulting vacuum is filled with garbage such as Kinsely, socialism, environmentalism, etc.
We have met the enemy and it is we ourselves.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
F.R. Duplantier June 11, 1996
Kinsey, Pt. II Commentary from Americas Future, Inc.
[According to a videotape expose released by the Family Research Council in 1994, Alfred Kinseys famous research on human sexuality was either fraudulent or based on criminal experimentation on children funded by taxpayers. ]
A 30-minute documentary entitled The Children of Table 34 charges that Kinsey incorporated into his research data from the rape of children and infants, that he used these records of perversion and criminality as the basis for his influential observations on normal childhood development, and that he not only concealed the full extent of his experiments but shielded the adults involved in them from criminal prosecution. In a booklet that accompanies the videotape, Robert Knight of the Family Research Council observes that Kinseys 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, and his 1953 study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, ignited a controversy over sexual morality that persists to this day. Both painted a picture of Americans of all ages awash in secret sexual experimentation. The philosophy of Kinsey and his cohorts placed all sexual acts on the same moral, social, and biological level. The Kinsey Reports, says Knight, provided the [seemingly] scientific foundation for Americas sexual revolution.
That foundation remained unchallenged until 1981, when Dr. Judith Reisman offered a critique of Kinseys research at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology in Jerusalem. She began asking questions that have yet to be answered, says Knight.
How did the Kinsey team obtain the data on children? Did parents give consent? Was there any follow-up on the recorded experiments? Where are the children now?
Nearly 10 years later, Dr. Reisman attempted to answer some of these questions with a book called Kinsey, Sex and Fraud.
The book, says Knight, reveals shocking evidence that children were sexually abused by adults in the name of science. But that was just the beginning of the tragedy.
Kinseys bogus and/or criminal research became the basis for a burgeoning sex-education industry. The Kinsey data are the sole source of child sexuality data, since no other researchers have been willing to risk criminal prosecution for reporting on or conducting systematic molestation of children, Knight explains. Kinseys conclusions have permeated Americas educational institutions and are the major behavioral model on which sex education programs are designed for children.
Today, sex education programs in schools across America systematically strip children of sexual modesty, ridicule the idea of sexual restraint . . . and reduce parents roles to that of consultants, not authorities in their childrens lives. The
[rationalization] for this radical departure from traditional sexual morality begins with the Kinsey Reports, says Knight. Kinseys work remains an underpinning for many ongoing federally-sponsored research programs, he adds, noting that a group with close ties to Kinsey, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (known as SIECUS), was chosen in 1994 to evaluate sex education programs throughout the United States and to make recommendations to the federal government.
# # # # #
Behind The Headlines is produced by Americas Future, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the preservation of our free-enterprise system and our constitutional form of government. For a free transcript of this broadcast, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
Americas Future, 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.
KINSEY, KIDS, AND GAY SEX WHY SCHOOLS ARE TEACHING YOUR KIDS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
by Steven A. Schwalm This speech was delivered on Thursday, May 14, 1998, to parents at St. Pauls Girls School in Baltimore. Parents organized a forum to address what they deemed the promotion of homosexuality at the school by Headmistress Evelyn Flory. Dr. Flory had given a talk introducing sexual orientation to the girls , and posted pink triangles, a homosexual-rights symbol, in the school. According to the parents, teachers had also invited girls to come out as lesbians to faculty members.
I want to thank you all for making the sacrifice of missing the media event of the year — the Seinfeld finale — to be here tonight. And thank goodness for programmable VCRs. Your presence truly does show your commitment to your children.
Many of you might wonder how we got here, talking about homosexuality and your children today, and, second, about where were going — what can you expect after homosexual issues are introduced in your school?
Two things underlie efforts to introduce homosexuality to young children. One is the sexualization or eroticization of children. The other is the normalization of homosexuality. Both have their American roots in the Kinsey studies.
Many of you are familiar with how the works of sexologist Alfred C. Kinsey changed the way America viewed sexuality. Kinseys research purported to show that sexual behavior considered deviant and aberrant was actually widespread , common, and therefore normal. Kinsey also promoted the idea that children are sexual from birth. These ideas have become axioms for all sex research and sex education curricula since that time, and Kinseys research has been at the root of the push for sex education in schools as well as the gradual normalization of homosexuality.
Recent books like Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Judith Reisman, Ph.D., and a biography by James Jones detail the astounding extent to which Kinsey was either complicitly or directly involved in child abuse, pedophilia, masochism , homosexuality, bestiality, and other criminal sex acts. These activities formed the basis for his so-called research.
Kinsey himself called for the liberalization of sex crime laws and changes in child molestation laws. In his second study, he 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.
Even so, Kinsey continues to serve as the basis for sex education in the United States. Later researchers like Masters and Johnson and virtually all sex-education foundations and quasi-governmental institutions, such as SIECUS , the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, all accept and utilize Kinseyan principles. SIECUSs co-founder Dr. Mary Calderone said in 1980 that its primary role was to educate society on the vital importance of infant and child sexuality. Dr. John Money, Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University, has written of the need to legalize sex with children in the pseudo-academic Journal of Paedophilia.
The acceptance of homosexuality by the American Psychological Association in 1973 was preceded by an unquestioning acceptance of Kinseys work and under heavy political pressure by the nascent gay lobby, which recognized that to normalize homosexuality, they had to get it taken off the list of psychological disorders. More recently, in 1995, the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual removed sadism and pedophilia from classification as disorders. Only guilt feelings associated with pedophilic impulses are now considered disordered by American psychology.
Sex-Ed Subterfuge Sex educators generally view parents as obstacles. One group at Cincinnatis St. Xavier High School issued a report warning, The parent community will raise a backlash against actions to get the issue in the open. They fear that their own children might turn out to be gay. They fear recruiting. They fear experimentation. If a school raises these issues, it should expect a backlash and prepare for it.
They have prepared for it by reframing the issue as AIDS prevention or safety.
Kevin Jennings, executive director of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) in the early 1990s, recognized that parents would not sit for a direct push for acceptance of homosexuality. Instead, says Jennings, We immediately seized upon the opponents [thats you] calling card — safety, arguing that an epidemic of gay teen suicide was the result of homophobia. The myth of widespread gay youth suicide is just one of the latest statistical stratagems used to promote the gay agenda. Using safety as her issue, Dr. Flory has brought the issue of homosexuality to St. Pauls, even though there had been no prior incidents to prompt it.
There have indeed been unfortunate incidents of gay-baiting among kids — but teachers and administrators can and should ensure a civil atmosphere free of harassment among students at school without describing or advocating homosexual behavior, and without encouraging kids to identify as homosexual. For Jennings and others, of course, the safety issue was merely a tactic. As the Jan.-Feb. issue of The Lambda Report has discovered, Jennings real goal is to directly promote homosexuality in schools as a positive good.
Once the Trojan Horse of diversity and acceptance has brought the issue of homosexuality into the schools, the next stage of the safety strategy is to encourage gay safe sex. Doubtless, Dr. Flory would disavow any plans to introduce gay safe sex at St. Pauls. Then again, we dont know, because she has not made her diversity policy available to parents. Nevertheless , generally the youth strategy quickly moves from verbal and emotional safety to explicit safe sex instruction. I have here a copy of a pornographic pamphlet describing sex acts many of you have probably never heard of. It was distributed to kids between the ages of the 12 and 14 in the New York School system. These bags full of sex aids and instructions were handed out at a gay youth pride rally in Washington, D.C., last month. One of the speakers at that youth rally was Jose Uclas, sponsor of the Districts latest Dungeon Dance, a sadomasochistic sex party. I invite any interested party to come up and review it, with the proviso that it is extremely graphic. Just today I spoke to someone from Newton, Massachusetts. The high school there had a gay day where they passed out pink triangles to every student — along with literature that said , If you havent had sex with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldnt like it?
Gay activists have been able to disarm parents concerns about the dangers of introducing children to homosexual practices by using victim imagery, as detailed in Principle 5 of the homosexual strategy manual After The Ball. The authors say, Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection to make straights feel very ashamed and to lay the groundwork for the process of conversion. The authors also advise using symbols and spokespersons that reduce the straight majoritys sense of threat and induce it to lower its guard. Dr. Flory did exactly that with an unhistorical portrayal of gays as unique victims of systematic Nazi persecution. If any of you are ashamed by the fact that you dont want your children taught homosexuality, the strategy has worked on you.
Linking homosexuality with the civil rights movement is another variation on homosexual victimology. With a great deal of help from the media, homosexuals have made objections to their behavior a discrimination issue. They have succeeded to the extent that many of you here tonight are uncomfortable to be viewed as being against homosexuality, even when it is introduced to your own children.
It is a false connection. There are three traditional criteria used by our courts for denoting legitimate minorities for the purpose of extending special legal protections. These are economic deprivation, political powerlessness, and immutable characteristics. I do not propose to go into detail on these here, but to note only that homosexuals fail all three. On average, they are far wealthier, more educated, and more politically powerful than other Americans.
The central distinguishing characteristic of homosexuality is not identity, but a set of behaviors. This cannot be emphasized enough. Someone who does not act on or express same-sex impulses is no more gay than a married person who does not act on or express his opposite-sex attractions is an adulterer. No one says it is simple, but we can control our actions, and even change unwanted impulses.
But not if these attractions and desires are encouraged and given free rein.
As parents at a girls school, youll be fascinated to hear this. It comes from Dean Hamer, one of the gay gene scientists, quoted in the January 30 issue of our local gay paper, The Washington Blade. Hamers research involving women found that sisters of lesbians have about a 6 percent chance of becoming lesbian, but that daughters of lesbians have about a 33 percent chance of being a lesbian. This whopping jump in the percentage of lesbians among daughters of lesbian mothers, said Hamer, could only mean one thing; being a lesbian was culturally transmitted, not inherited. Unlike race, almost by definition, homosexuality is not a trait handed down from one generation to the next. In fact, how could anyone identify a homosexual if that person did not make an issue of it? The whole purpose of gay pride and coming out of the closet is simply to force your public acceptance of a private behavior. Let us be clear that this is not an issue of what people do in private bedrooms, but what is favored and taught in public classrooms.
So here we are discussing homosexuality and your children. Others sex lives are being made your business, because acceptance of homosexuality is being forced upon your children. The seductions of the homosexual lobby are being brought to your children in your school, and that seduction is followed by destruction.
*** Steven A. Schwalm is a senior writer/analyst at Family Research Council.
I recall the look of horror on one psych professor's face when the chapter on Kinsey came up, the horror over a 'scientific observation' of a 3year old whose molestation Kinsey documented but didn't stop, calling the child a 'subject'. It was just one revolting, sickening example of Kinsey's 'studies'.
They didn't express an opinion about what humans might secretly want to do if there were not social or legal prohibition.
We now have the answer to that question ... and the answer is a rather disturbing one.
Except for rape victims, noone has a gun put to their head to do the things that supposedly everyone else is doing, or that some so-called expert like Kinsey thinks they ought to be doing.
There are loads of experts who tell us to eat healthy diets and excercise regularly. We have plenty of famous people who seem to be very popular because they look so great in their lean and fit bodies. And yet the vast majority of us choose to eat poorly and excercise too little.
I wish I could blame it all on the evil liberal MSM and the secret communist conspiracy that is poisoning our minds, but that would be too simple.
The point that your missing is the normalization of mores. It’s the “I have black friends” syndrome. In the past to show we accepted people of another race, we told of our “black friends”. Now it’s gays.
But true acceptance comes when one sees nothing wrong with a behavior. That shifting of mores comes with time. And it doesn’t mean it’s right, or that people believed that way all along.
Go into some areas of the country with a gun and you will be suspected and watched. Is having a gun wrong? No, but the mores of the area are shifted.
You see sexual deviance as normal. I see it as deviance made normal.
He's dead but still affiliated with a public university in Indiana. Isn't is about time to cut funding?
But gay public bathhouses can still continue to spread STDs unabated.
I think so.
The author I was trying to recall is J.D. Unwin (a “u”
not an “e”) Sex and Culture, a much ignored book he
published in 1934.
Kinsey was debunked many years ago. I don’t know anyone or any organization that takes his work seriously now or in the last 20 - 30 years.
I admire your attempt to dig into the preconditions for the radicals' success.
If you've ever caught Part I of the documentary The Century of the Self, it recounts how the first PR man linked sexual and political liberation with consumption (of cigarettes, even!). It's possible that one of the "burning fires" was the idea that self-restraint is oppressive, an idea promoted by consumerism throughout the 20th century.
But what if the prime factor was not lust or MSM maliciousness, but rather pride or magnanimity? Adherents of established mores were so self-confident that they thought a few loons couldn't do harm to their society. They presumed that their own children would see through the looniness, not recognizing their duty to form them well.
I mean, how many conservative parents have taken the time to explain to their kids why gay "marriage" is wrong and crazy? Ten years ago, you couldn't have predicted it would be such a major issue. Perhaps the triumph of radicalism feeds off of a typical vice of the conservative temperament: assuming that future generations would be like previous generations without the effort of explicit teaching.
So what you are saying is that even though the full weight of the government is backing up the scientists and health-conscious celebrities to tell us not to eat bad foods and smoke cigarettes, vast numbers of Americans continue to do so.
The good news is that the public are not complete mind-numbed sheep that always follow what the government says, or what the general consensus is. The bad news is that when the public resist, it is often to do things that are even worse than what the government recommends.
You make a very good point here. I remember back in the 70's when the "gay community" started advocating for just being left alone, and specifically declared that they would never ever ask for gay marriage.
The first response of conservatives ... and the typical person ... was to say nothing. For decades no one even mentioned gays. It would have been like shouting profanities during dinner. Nice people just didn't discuss those things. And as a strategy in the short run it seemed to be rather effective. If something was so evil and repugnant that grown-ups refused to even discuss it, then kids quickly got the message that that was something that they wanted no part of.
When the "silent treatment" strategy failed, we switched over to the "gory details" strategy. In this case if the topic of gays was brought up, we also brought up all of the diseases and problems associated with that "lifestyle choice." This strategy worked for some kids, but like all of the "reefer madness" type messages in the past it failed ... and was even laughed at ... by many more.
The problem seems to be that at the moment one is engaged in some bad behavior there appears to be little or no damage done. It is only over time that one realizes that error of ones ways. So we can bring up the horrors of smoking, drugs, or deviant sex, but the urges at that moment will often overcome years of proper training and instruction.
It would be nice if the MSM would be honest and report all of the problems associated with the gay death-style. But even if they did, I wonder how successful it would be in helping to curtail that behavior. We have been told for years of the hazards of divorce, adultery, etc. And yet people still let their marriages lapse into failure. The MSM sends out a mixed message that basically says its bad, but everyone is doing it. It's almost as if skiing necessarily involved breaking ones legs, but since everyone continued to ski it was just something we all have to live with.
You're right in that there is a lot of pride going around. And it could be that at the moment when someone does something wrong, even knowing all of the potential pitfalls, they believe that they will someone escape injury: no unwanted pregnancies, no diseases, no addictions, etc.
If this is the milieu in which we live, then this needs to be considered in how the message is spread. Before people felt more like a part of a greater whole. If the greater whole said "X was bad" then people might not do X, even if they wanted to, just so that they could consider themselves part of the whole.
Now the message needs to be more personalized: you need to stop doing X, because doing X is stupid or will cost you money or will make you sick or will lead to a life of unhappiness.
Every individual capable of independent thought is ultimately responsible for doing the right thing. I believe this is one of the core beliefs that all conservatives can agree with. It is true whether we are talking about wise investing, proper career choices, good health decisions, or moral choices.
So we can restrict personal freedoms and responsibilities when it comes to what we eat but keep big brudda out of the bedrooms and gay bathhouses where “anything goes” and don’t give a damn about the repurcusions and health costs.
STD rates can’t be aborted away.
We are also free to misread posts and come to nonsensical conclusions therefrom ... evidently.
It still amazes me how many people out there STILL do not realize the poor quality and dubious sources of Kinsey’s research and conclusions.
You mentioned smoking earlier. Look what has actually happened to smoking. More than half the population once smoked, and now it's down to 20 percent because in part the media coordinated with medical doctors and Hollywood to put out "the message."
The old establishment folded into the new one. Mere anti-elitism ignores the necessity of allies in high places.
I don't hear much of the hazards of divorce or adultery. You can't talk about divorce without talking about the effects of single parenthood (usually motherhood) and after the Murphy Brown-Dan Quayle flap that became taboo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.