Posted on 04/10/2009 8:02:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Kinsey, Darwin and the sexual revolution
by Jerry Bergman
Alfred Kinsey is the father of the modern Western sexual revolution. A review of the life and work of Kinsey reveals Darwinism was critically important in his crusade to overturn traditional sexual morality. He tried achieving this goal by convincing the public and the scientific world that what was widely regarded as deviant behaviour then, including adultery, fornication, homosexuality, sadomasochism and paedophilia, were all widely practiced and therefore ‘normal’ and acceptable. Kinsey’s conclusions have now been shown by extensive empirical research to be fatally flawed. Kinsey’s sexual revolution has caused major social problems, an epidemic of disease and the breakdown of the family...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
Also see:
Ten Worst Books 10: Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/02/05/ten_worst_books_10_alfred_kinsey_s_sexua_1948
No thanks - he was a perv zoologist who experimented on babies, and used pervs like himself to draw erroneous so-called scientific conclusions.
The works of Kinsey, Frank Davis, and Keynes are as trashy as their lifestyles, and I am amazed at the credence given these fools. What wreckage in children's lives because of these men, and we venerate them, teach university classes on them....
Those who are willing to harm children -- what are their limits? What twisted moral compass....scary.
ALFRED KINSEY – THE LEFT’S PERVERT HERO
By Don Feder (posted December 24, 2004)
http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0412Kinsey.pdf
If the first sentance is wrong, why should I read further?
Jesus said, “Temptations, stumbling blocks, enticements are surely to come, but whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better that a giant millstone would be tied around their neck and they would be thrown into the heart of the sea.”
I always about Kinsey’s scientific methods (how scientific were they actually). Also Kinsey himself actually had a lot of baggage ( to put it mildly)-—like he was actually getting off on all this stuff. Now fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and even paedophilia have been with us for ages—but there were social taboos in place that prevented these things from being paraded out in the open. The S&M thing was always fringy and still is fringy sex behavior (although there is a lot more porn and talk about it-—plus the fascination with body piercings has its roots in S&M)
"In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Alfred C. Kinsey published two surveys of modern sexual behaviour. In 1948, Alfred C. Kinsey and his co-workers, responding to a request by female students at Indiana University for more information on human sexual behaviour, published the book Sexual behaviour in the Human Male. They followed this five years later with Sexual behaviour in the Human Female. These books began a revolution in social awareness of, and public attention given to, human sexuality." "These books laid the groundwork for Masters and Johnson's life work. A study called Human Sexual Response in 1966 revealed the nature and scope of the sex practices of young Americans." Those were the books that were the handbooks of the sex movement, throw in some Frued and there you were.
Kinsey was a rotten apple. His statistics were all cooked, to make it appear that homosexuality was a lot more common than it actually was—and still is, even now.
What’s interesting is that certain foundations and influential individuals backed him, because they wanted to get rid of any restraints on sexuality.
They were pretty much same people who later went all out for unlimited abortion, and population control in the third world.
The Rockefeller Foundation, for one.
Thanks for the ping!
Freedom, especially from Victorian societal and religious oversight, is still a rather new experiment. I'd argue that the ‘sexual revolution’ was coming to a free society one way or another. Kinsey is a bad scientist with bad methodology and that leads to bad data. So he didn't help matters, but freedom is a messy wonderful thing. I think we as a society are still struggling to grow up and take responsibility for our freedom. Think of the sexual morays and rational thought process of an 18 year old vs. a 35 year old. A Republic is the only government I know of that assigns integrity and dignity to the individual-with civil rights comes civil responsibility, and more importantly personal responsibility.
Kinsey is not more responsible for the difficult societal journey to maturity than the Catholic Church's pathetic lip service (and no action) to its predatory pedophiliac priest issue. I trust the Republic will move towards maturity despite all the problems of Freedom without responsibility.
Frank Colton invented Enovid - the first oral contraceptive and Dr. Earle C. Haas who is considered the “inventor” of the modern tampon are the prime movers in the sexual revolution. Kinsey is but a foot note in the history shaking revolution resulting from the work of these two.
Sounds as if you’ve drunk the koolaid. That Catholic Church had no more “pedophilia” than any other organization at that time—in fact a good deal less. And, with very few exceptions, it wasn’t actually pedophilia, as the press pretended, but homosexuality with teenage or older victims. And the source was not in the Church, but in the so-called Sexual Revolution, which infected some members of the Church.
A few bishops did play along and cover it up. Most of them are now out. And most of the scandals that were broken were from the 1970s, the height of the “sexual revolution.”
A free Republic can only survive if a sufficient number of its citizens are morally mature and willing to restrain themselves, rather than be restrained by the law and the police. De Tocqueville makes that case extremely persuasively. The ONLY way that the Republic can survive is through morality, and the only really stable base for morality is religion.
Christianity (and Judaism in lesser numbers) is such a religion, since it teaches both morality AND free will. That’s why the Founders based their whole experiment on inalienable, God-given rights and freedoms. Islam or Hinduism would not work, for instance, because one is arbitrary and tyrannical and the other is caste-ridden.
But our Republic did very well as long as it was Christian. It will not survive if the values of the 60s countercultural revolution prevail.
"That’s why the Founders based their whole experiment on inalienable, God-given rights and freedoms."
Actually the founding fathers didn't mention God in the law of the land that started this experiment. They mentioned God-given rights in a Declaration dissolving a social contract. In the our social contract the founding fathers, deist, theist, Quakers, Atheist, et al. saw fit to leave the whole god/religion thing out of the document that is the law of the land. not by accident mind you, but rather with intent. You'll excuse me now as I have to dust off my copy of Madison's notes on the Const. Convention. Thanks for the lob. I look forward to the exchange of more ideas in the free market place of ideas provided here.
Any thoughts on the idea that many societies existed and prospered long before the advent of ‘J-C values? What could they have possible used as their core morals? Perhaps there is a evolving social contract that produces stable societies. Perhaps that social contract started with basic stable ideas like: we can't tolerate murder, we can't tolerate stealing . . . just perhaps.
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.
