Let me repeat/elaborate on something I said in post 54.
Kinsey went out "in the interest of science" and portrayed raped children as sexual beings who really did like what was being done to them. In the words of many a rapist, Kinsey was just saying that "deep down they wanted it." (After all, if they didn't, what were they doing in that part of town wearing those revealing Dr. Dentons?) In fact, he portrayed these children (in some cases infants) as being just as enthusiastic about sex as any pair of newlyweds. He even went so far as to advance the theory that children who suffer psychological problems after being molested are really suffering trauma from their parents being horrified at the abuse. One of the footnotes to the infamous "Table 34" describes how children being sexually manipulated by child molesters would frequently cry and resist, but then explains that didn't really mean that they were non-sexual, or even not really enjoying it.
That's not a flaw. That's not "many flaws." That's pure, unadulterated evil. I think it's safe to say that if there was no child-rape data in Kinsey's "research," there would be no NAMBLA.
And you say this doesn't diminish his "accomplishments...in any way." It's not as bad as some talk show host getting a divorce, or Thomas Jefferson getting some non-white nookie. Your moral insight is truly outstanding.
Although I have read his research was flawed, I can't comment on its veracity because I am not a scientist.
You don't need to be a scientist. Unless one is dealing with very fine, highly technical points, the layman who has received a proper education can and should evaluate the research methods of scientists. If you can't figure out whether (to use a Kinsey example) a model of human sexual behavior based on interviews with homosexual prison inmates is likely to be accurate for the public at large, then you should stay out of adult conversations.
But at least he made a first effort into studying sex. He brought it out into the open.
You know, it's important to bring bike safety out into the open, too. Let me do a public service right now:
"Kids, when you're riding your bike at night, you don't really need to have your light on, and wearing dark clothes is a great idea. No need to look before crossing the street, either. They'll stop for you."
There. It wasn't even remotely accurate or helpful, but I "brought it out into the open." Where's my medal?
Thank God.
Um, three questions:
1. Do you realize you're thanking the Almighty for research based on child molestation?
2. How did Kinsey's research improve our society? (Note: "I'm much more likely to get nookie than prior generations" is not an acceptable answer.)
3. What other important social phenomena should we release false research on so we can get it "out in the open"?