Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kinsey's Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution
ic ^ | July 23, 2009 | Sue Ellin Browder

Posted on 07/23/2009 2:05:48 PM PDT by NYer

It's now more than 50 years since the revolution began. Sexual "liberation" has been endlessly ballyhooed by the national media, promoted in the movies, embraced by Playboy guys and Cosmo girls as a freedom more delicious than Eden's apple. No American under 40 can honestly remember a time when sex on TV was taboo, when "living together" meant married, when "gay" meant happy, and when almost every child lived with both parents.
 
If truth be told, the revolution has been a disaster. Before the push to loosen America's sexual mores really got under way in the 1950s, the only widely reported sexually transmitted diseases in the United States were gonorrhea and syphilis. Today we have more than two dozen varieties, from pelvic inflammatory disease (which renders more than 100,000 American women infertile each year) to AIDS (which presently infects 42 million people worldwide and has already killed another 23 million). According to a report by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, a woman who has three or more sex partners in her lifetime increases her risk of cervical cancer by as much as 1,500 percent. In another finding that runs contrary to all that the sex researchers preached, a survey at the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center showed that married men and women, on average, are sexually happier than unwed couples merely living together. And even if live-in couples do marry, they're 40 to 85 percent more likely to divorce than those who go straight to the altar.
 
So what happened? Was science simply wrong? Well, not exactly -- the truth is more complicated than that.
 
 
Con Man
 
Alfred C. Kinsey had a secret. The Indiana University zoologist and "father of the sexual revolution" almost single-handedly redefined the sexual mores of everyday Americans. The problem was, he had to lie to do it. The weight of this point must not be underestimated. The science that launched the sexual revolution has been used for the past 50 years to sway court decisions, pass legislation, introduce sex education into our schools, and even push for a redefinition of marriage. Kinseyism was the very foundation of this effort. If his science was flawed -- or worse yet, an outright deception -- then our culture's attitudes about sex are not just wrong morally but scientifically as well.
 
Let's consider the facts. When Kinsey and his coworkers published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953, they turned middle-class values upside down. Many traditionally forbidden sexual practices, Kinsey and his colleagues proclaimed, were surprisingly commonplace; 85 percent of men and 48 percent of women said they'd had premarital sex, and 50 percent of men and 40 percent of women had been unfaithful after marriage. Incredibly, 71 percent of women claimed their affair hadn't hurt their marriage, and a few even said it had helped. What's more, 69 percent of men had been with prostitutes, 10 percent had been homosexual for at least three years, and 17 percent of farm boys had experienced sex with animals. Implicit in Kinsey's report was the notion that these behaviors were biologically "normal" and hurt no one. Therefore, people should act on their impulses with no inhibition or guilt.
 
The 1948 report on men came out to rave reviews and sold an astonishing 200,000 copies in two months. Kinsey's name was everywhere from the titles of pop songs ("Ooh, Dr. Kinsey") to the pages of Life, Time, Newsweek, and the New Yorker. Kinsey was "presenting facts," Look magazine proclaimed. He was "revealing not what should be but what is." Dubbed "Dr. Sex" and applauded for his personal courage, the researcher was compared to Darwin, Galileo, and Freud.
 
But beneath the popular approbation, many astute scientists were warning that Kinsey's research was gravely flawed. The list of critics, Kinsey biographer James H. Jones observes, "read like a Who's Who of American intellectual life." They included anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict; Stanford University psychologist Lewis M. Terman; Karl Menninger, M.D. (founder of the famed Menninger Institute); psychiatrists Eric Fromm and Lawrence Kubie; cultural critic Lionel Trilling of Columbia University, and countless others.
 
By the time Kinsey's volume about women was published, many journalists had abandoned the admiring throngs and joined the critics. Magazine articles appeared with titles like "Is the Kinsey Report a Hoax?" and "Love Is Not a Statistic." Time magazine ran a series of stories exposing Kinsey's dubious science (one was titled "Sex or Snake Oil?").
 
That's not, of course, to say that the Kinsey reports contain no truth at all. Sexuality is certainly a subject worthy of scientific study. And many people do pay lip service to sexual purity while secretly behaving altogether differently in their private lives.
 
Nevertheless, Kinsey's version of the truth was so grossly oversimplified, exaggerated, and mixed with falsehoods, it's difficult to sort fact from fiction. Distinguished British anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer put it well when he called the reports propaganda masquerading as science. Indeed, the flaws in Kinsey's work stirred up such controversy that the Rockefeller Foundation, which had backed the original research, withdrew its funding of $100,000 a year. A year after the book on female sexuality came out, Kinsey himself complained that almost no scientist outside of a few of his best friends continued to defend him.
 
So, what were the issues the world's best scientists had with Kinsey's work? The criticism can be condensed into three troublesome points.
 
 
Problem #1: Humans as Animals
 
Before he began studying human sexuality, Kinsey was the world's leading expert on the gall wasp. Trained as a zoologist, he saw sex purely as a physiological "animal" response. Throughout his books, he continually refers to the "human animal." In fact, in Kinsey's opinion, there was no moral difference between one sexual outlet and any other. In our secular world of moral relativism, Kinsey was a radical sexual relativist. As even the libertarian anthropologist Margaret Mead accurately observed, in Kinsey's view there was no moral difference between a man having sex with a woman or a sheep.
 
In his volume about women, Kinsey likened the human orgasm to sneezing. Noting that this ludicrous description left out the obvious psychological aspects of human sexuality, Brooklyn College anthropologist George Simpson observed, "This is truly a monkey-theory of orgasm." Human beings, of course, differ from animals in two very important ways: We can think rationally, and we have free will. But in Kinsey's worldview, humans differed from animals only when it came to procreation. Animals have sex only to procreate. On the other hand, human procreation got little notice from Kinsey. In his 842-page volume on female sexuality, motherhood wasn't mentioned once.
 
 
Problem #2: Skewed Samples
 
Kinsey often presented his statistics as if they applied to average moms, dads, sisters, and brothers. In doing so, he claimed 95 percent of American men had violated sex-crime laws that could land them in jail. Thus Americans were told they had to change their sex-offender laws to "fit the facts." But, in reality, Kinsey's reports never applied to average people in the general population. In fact, many of the men Kinsey surveyed were actually prison inmates. Wardell B. Pomeroy, Kinsey co-author and an eyewitness to the research, wrote that by 1946 the team had taken sexual histories from about 1,400 imprisoned sex offenders. Kinsey never revealed how many of these criminals were included in his total sample of "about 5,300" white males. But he did admit including "several hundred" male prostitutes. Additionally, at least 317 of Kinsey's male subjects were not even adults, but sexually abused children.
 
Piling error on top of error, about 75 percent of Kinsey's adult male subjects volunteered to give their sexual histories. As Stanford University psychologist Lewis M. Terman observed, volunteers for sex studies are two to four times more sexually active than non-volunteers.
 
Kinsey's work didn't improve in his volume on women. In fact, he interviewed so few average women that he actually had to redefine "married" to include any woman who had lived with a man for more than a year. This change added prostitutes to his sample of "married" women.

In the December 11, 1949,
New York Times, W. Allen Wallis, then chairman of the University of Chicago's committee on statistics, dismissed "the entire method of collecting and presenting the statistics which underlie Dr. Kinsey's conclusions:' Wallis noted, "There are six major aspects of any statistical research, and Kinsey fails on four."
 
In short, Kinsey's team researched the most exotic sexual behavior in America -- taking hundreds if not thousands of case histories from sexual deviants -- and then passed off the behavior as sexually "normal," "natural;" and "average" (and hence socially and morally acceptable).
 
 
Problem #3: Faulty Statistics
 
Given all this, it's hardly surprising that Kinsey's statistics were so deeply flawed that no reputable scientific survey has ever been able to duplicate them.
 
Kinsey claimed, for instance, that 10 percent of men between the ages of 16 and 55 were homosexual. Yet in one of the most thorough nationwide surveys on male sexual behavior ever conducted, scientists at Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle found that men who considered themselves exclusively homosexual accounted for only 1 percent of the population. In 1993, Time magazine reported, "Recent surveys from France, Britain, Canada, Norway and Denmark all point to numbers lower than 10 percent and tend to come out in the 1 to 4 percent range." The incidence of homosexuality among adults is actually "between 1 and 3 percent;" says University of Delaware sociology and criminal justice professor Joel Best, author of Damned Lies and Statistics. Best observes, however, that gay and lesbian activists prefer to use Kinsey's long-discredited one-in-ten figure "because it suggests that homosexuals are a substantial minority group, roughly equal in number to African Americans -- too large to be ignored."
 
Not surprisingly, Kinsey's numbers showing marital infidelity to be harmless also never held up. In one Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy study of infidelity, 85 percent of marriages were damaged as a result, and 34 percent ended in divorce. Even spouses who stayed together usually described their marriages afterwards as unhappy. Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman, M.D., estimates that among couples who have been married for a long time and then divorce, "over 90 percent of the divorces involve infidelities."
 
Speaking at a 1955 conference sponsored by Planned Parenthood, Kinsey pulled another statistical bombshell out of his hat. He claimed that of all pregnant women, roughly 95 percent of singles and 25 percent of those who were married secretly aborted their babies. A whopping 87 percent of these abortions, he claimed, were performed by bona fide doctors. Thus he gave scientific authority to the notion that abortion was already a common medical procedure -- and should thus be legal.
 
 
Living With the Wreckage
 
When Reader's Digest asked popular sex therapist Ruth Westheimer what she thought of Kinsey's misinformation, she reportedly replied, "I don't care much about what is correct and is not correct. Without him, I wouldn't be Dr. Ruth."
 
But Kinsey's deceptions do matter today, because we're still living with the Kinsey model of sexuality. It permeates our entire culture. As Best observes, bad statistics are significant for many reasons: "They can be used to stir up public outrage or fear, they can distort our understanding of our world, and they can lead us to make poor policy choices."
 
In a 1951 Journal of Social Psychology study, psychology students at the University of California, Los Angeles, were divided into three groups: Some students took an intensive nine-week course on Kinsey's findings, while the other two groups received no formal Kinsey instruction. Afterward, the students took a quiz testing their attitudes about sex. Compared with those who received no Kinsey training, those steeped in Kinseyism were seven times as likely to view premarital sex more favorably than they did before and twice as likely to look more favorably on adultery. After Kinsey, the percentage of students open to a homosexual experience soared from 0 to 15 percent. Students taught Kinseyism were also less likely to let religion influence their sexual behavior and less apt to follow sexual rules taught by their parents.
 
 
Influencing Court Decisions
 
Kinsey's pseudoscience arguably did the most damage through our court systems. That's where attorneys used the researcher's "facts" to repeal or weaken laws against abortion, pornography, obscenity, divorce, adultery, and sodomy. In the May 1950 issue of Scientific Monthly, New York City attorney Morris Ernst (who represented Kinsey, Margaret Sanger, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood) outlined his ambitious legal plan for Kinsey's findings. "We must remember that there are two parts to law," Ernst said. One was "the finding of the facts" (Kinsey's job); the other was applying those findings in court (Ernst's job). Noting that the law needed more tools "to aid in its search for the truth," the attorney argued for "new rules," under which "facts" like Kinsey's would be introduced into court cases in the same way judges allowed other scientific tools, such as fingerprints, lie-detector results, and blood tests. The inexhaustible Ernst also urged the courts to revise laws concerning the institution of marriage.
 
The legal fallout from Kinsey's work continues. The U.S. Supreme Court's historic 2003 decision striking down sodomy laws was the offshoot of a long string of court cases won largely on the basis of Kinsey's research. And 50 years of precedents set by Kinsey's "false 10 percent" are now being used in states like Massachusetts to redefine marriage.
 
 
A Sorry Legacy
 
Inspired by the first Kinsey report, Hugh Hefner founded Playboy in 1953. A decade later, Helen Gurley Brown turned Cosmopolitan into a sex magazine for women. Even today magazines like Self and Glamour continue to quote Kinsey with respect, never acknowledging the grave errors riddling his research. An estimated 30,000 Web sites offer pornography, and U.S. producers churn out 600 hard-core adult videos each month. Although reliable figures are difficult to come by, the U.S. sex industry pulls in an estimated $2.5 billion to $10 billion a year. Clearly, we're living Kinsey's legacy.
 
In his book The End of Sex, an obituary of the sexual revolution, Esquire contributor George Leonard accurately observed that "wherever we have split 'sex' from love, creation, and the rest of life . . . we have trivialized and depersonalized the act of love itself." Treasuring others solely for their sexuality strips them of their humanity. When Kinsey tore the mystery of love from human sexuality, he abandoned us all to a sexually broken world.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; adultery; babyboomers; badresearch; childabuse; childmolesters; culturewar; downourthroats; drruth; drruthwestheimer; homosexual; homosexualagenda; indiana; junkscience; kinsey; moralabsolutes; prisonsex; pseudoscience; psychology; ruthwestheimer; science; sex; sexpositiveagenda; taxdollarsatwork; teensex; unwedpregnancy; youpayforthis

1 posted on 07/23/2009 2:05:54 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Kinsey's pseudoscience arguably did the most damage through our court systems. That's where attorneys used the researcher's "facts" to repeal or weaken laws against abortion, pornography, obscenity, divorce, adultery, and sodomy.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 07/23/2009 2:06:59 PM PDT by NYer ("One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Kinsey was a DIRTY OLD man pure and simple!


3 posted on 07/23/2009 2:07:30 PM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Moral Absolutes ping


4 posted on 07/23/2009 2:10:17 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

What an awful, awful movie.


5 posted on 07/23/2009 2:11:19 PM PDT by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; a fool in paradise; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

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 ]


6 posted on 07/23/2009 2:13:12 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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...)

http://www.examiner.com/x-16915-Phoenix-Sex-and-Dating-Examiner~y2009m7d18-Rise-in-STDs-in-teen-boys-is-a-concern

Rise in teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease in US according to CDC study
July 18, 3:00 PM


7 posted on 07/23/2009 2:15:36 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan
I saw the movie. It was disturbing, to say the least.
8 posted on 07/23/2009 2:16:44 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Implicit in Kinsey's report was the notion that these behaviors were biologically "normal" and hurt no one. Therefore, people should act on their impulses with no inhibition or guilt.

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.

9 posted on 07/23/2009 2:18:22 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Kinsey was a DIRTY OLD man pure and simple!

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".

10 posted on 07/23/2009 2:20:50 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

“It’s in the name of science!”

Same excuse used by Josef Mengele.


11 posted on 07/23/2009 2:23:00 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


12 posted on 07/23/2009 2:30:26 PM PDT by Bushwacker777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Ah, but he used the Reverse Scientific Method of the liberals so skillfully:

  1. Decide the conclusion you wish to reach.
  2. Find or manufacture evidence to support it.
  3. Discard or bury any which does not.

I hope he enjoys his long stay in hades and, as a Zoologist, gets a gorilla for a bunk mate.
13 posted on 07/23/2009 2:48:54 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or, are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I always thought Dr. Ruth was just a dirty old woman


14 posted on 07/23/2009 2:55:25 PM PDT by Lyantana (A Southern View)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I always thought Dr. Ruth was just a dirty old woman


15 posted on 07/23/2009 2:55:32 PM PDT by Lyantana (A Southern View)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

From wikipedia:

Sex life

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.[14] 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.


16 posted on 07/23/2009 2:56:14 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Kinsey may have poured a lot of gasoline around, but there had to have been fires burning already in order for the forest fire to have taken off.

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.

17 posted on 07/23/2009 2:59:30 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

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.


18 posted on 07/23/2009 3:13:58 PM PDT by AceMineral (Offically unapproved of since 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
In fact, many of the men Kinsey surveyed were actually prison inmates. Wardell B. Pomeroy, Kinsey co-author and an eyewitness to the research, wrote that by 1946 the team had taken sexual histories from about 1,400 imprisoned sex offenders. Kinsey never revealed how many of these criminals were included in his total sample of "about 5,300" white males. But he did admit including "several hundred" male prostitutes. Additionally, at least 317 of Kinsey's male subjects were not even adults, but sexually abused children.

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.

19 posted on 07/23/2009 3:26:22 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Junk science and lies...It’s how libs operate....See Global Warming hoax for more info....


20 posted on 07/23/2009 3:28:42 PM PDT by jakerobins ( NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyantana

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.


21 posted on 07/23/2009 3:28:54 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

One reason people continue is that our society continues to lie to them and tell them it’s really ok.


22 posted on 07/23/2009 3:30:32 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AceMineral

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.


23 posted on 07/23/2009 3:31:42 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


24 posted on 07/23/2009 3:33:17 PM PDT by parsifal ("Knock and ye shall receive!" (The Bible, somewhere.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AceMineral

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!


25 posted on 07/23/2009 3:59:06 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

>>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.<<

Goodness!
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”.


26 posted on 07/23/2009 4:03:25 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; trisham
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).

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.

27 posted on 07/23/2009 4:10:46 PM PDT by NYer ("One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Even today people are reluctant to base their religious or political beliefs on the beliefs of those crazy callow orgiasts in Hollywood.

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.

28 posted on 07/23/2009 4:35:56 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He was a total evil fraud.


29 posted on 07/23/2009 6:11:15 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (TAZ:Untamed, Unpredictable, Uninhibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

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?


30 posted on 07/23/2009 6:55:15 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This is a common mistake --- to look for a force that destroys the old order. Kinsely has not destroyed it at all; if he did not even exist, there would be another Kinsely.

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.

31 posted on 07/23/2009 8:00:07 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

BEHIND THE HEADLINES

F.R. Duplantier June 11, 1996

Kinsey, Pt. II Commentary from America’s Future, Inc.

[According to a videotape expose released by the Family Research Council in 1994, Alfred Kinsey’s 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 Kinsey’s 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 America’s sexual revolution.”

That foundation remained unchallenged until 1981, when Dr. Judith Reisman offered a critique of Kinsey’s 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.

Kinsey’s 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. Kinsey’s conclusions “have permeated America’s 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 children’s lives. The

[rationalization] for this radical departure from traditional sexual morality begins with the Kinsey Reports,” says Knight. “Kinsey’s 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 America’s 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:

America’s Future, 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.


32 posted on 07/23/2009 8:15:25 PM PDT by dsc (Only dead fish go with the flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bookmark


33 posted on 07/23/2009 8:19:34 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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. Paul’s 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 we’re 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. Kinsey’s 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 Kinsey’s 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. SIECUS’s 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 Kinsey’s 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 Cincinnati’s 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 opponent’s [that’s 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. Paul’s, 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. Paul’s. Then again, we don’t 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 District’s 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 haven’t had sex with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn’t 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 majority’s 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 don’t 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, you’ll 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. “Hamer’s 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.

Thank you.

*** Steven A. Schwalm is a senior writer/analyst at Family Research Council.

— 9/10/98


34 posted on 07/23/2009 8:19:34 PM PDT by dsc (Only dead fish go with the flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Phony science? Kinsey was one giant perv. Not a phony science as much as delving into perversions, calling them 'science' and duping generations into believing him. And his willing audience loved the emperor's new clothes.

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'.

35 posted on 07/23/2009 8:51:39 PM PDT by fortunecookie (Please pray for Anna, age 7, who waits for a new kidney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
The scientists disagreed with his methods and his conclusions regarding typical human behavior at the time.

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.

36 posted on 07/23/2009 9:59:56 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

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.


37 posted on 07/24/2009 4:26:55 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
People are seriously not that weird. Did you read the article and how many actual scientists disagreed with him?

He's dead but still affiliated with a public university in Indiana. Isn't is about time to cut funding?

38 posted on 07/24/2009 9:06:16 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
You neglected to mention that the bad foods and substances like tobacco we put into our bodies are being legislated and taxed out of existence.

But gay public bathhouses can still continue to spread STDs unabated.

39 posted on 07/24/2009 9:08:40 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I think so.


40 posted on 07/24/2009 9:14:32 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Derek Freeman is the author, Margaret Mead and Samoa I'm not sure how long he waited to publish. There were some strong hints in the introductory anthopology course I took rather a long ago shortly before he published about her reliability. Perhaps someone here can furnish me with the name of an author of some decades ago who wrote a much-neglected study on the correlation of premarital chastity with cultural vitality. I think his last name began with an "E" and he used just initials for the first name.
41 posted on 07/25/2009 8:56:35 PM PDT by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cycjec

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.


42 posted on 07/26/2009 12:20:14 AM PDT by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


43 posted on 07/26/2009 12:37:33 AM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Kinsey may have poured a lot of gasoline around, but there had to have been fires burning already in order for the forest fire to have taken off.

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.

44 posted on 07/26/2009 10:32:04 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"You neglected to mention that the bad foods and substances like tobacco we put into our bodies are being legislated and taxed out of existence."

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.

45 posted on 07/27/2009 7:32:44 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
"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."

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.

46 posted on 07/27/2009 8:00:46 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

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.


47 posted on 07/27/2009 8:36:41 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

We are also free to misread posts and come to nonsensical conclusions therefrom ... evidently.


48 posted on 07/27/2009 12:11:01 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


49 posted on 07/27/2009 12:14:28 PM PDT by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
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.

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.

50 posted on 07/28/2009 12:22:25 AM PDT by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson