Kinsey coverup

profitius

Interesting documentry on Dr Alfred Kinsey. The man who greatly influenced American and world culture. It looks like he was a paedophile pushing his own agenda. I seem to remember Liam Neeson staring in a film about him some years back.

His research was funded by the Rockefeller foundation. Surprise, surprise!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_x9fhfBj6Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1B_fnjNtj0

Heres the first part of a longer documentry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZiSjR6rE7I

Monty Burnz

I don't know the facts on Kinsey, but that 'documentary' is a hatchet job by right wing nutters. These are the same people who try to stop evolution being taught in schools (so they don't really believe in facts at all) and think that imprisoning gay people for being gay is a good idea.

With that in mind, I'd take the 'facts' presented here with a shovel-load of salt.

On the plus side, these guys thought it was great:

THE KINSEY COVER-UP presents the convincing case that the fraudulent science of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the phony sex researcher, ushered in the age of child abuse, sodomy and homo-fascism. Through interviews, news footage and analysis, it shows that Dr. Kinsey researched sex perverts and criminals to come up with statistics that convinced many countries, including the United States, that perversion was acceptable and normal, and heterosexuality was abnormal. There is a famous interview with a woman who had been abused when she was five years old by her father and grandfather who were paid by Kinsey to do just that. There are excerpts from the German case against the Nazi sex criminal, who was urged by Dr. Kinsey to perform horrendous sexual research on children for Kinsey’s books.

http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-kinsey-cover-up.html

profitius

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't know the facts on Kinsey, but that 'documentary' is a hatchet job by right wing nutters. These are the same people who try to stop evolution being taught in schools (so they don't really believe in facts at all) and think that imprisoning gay people for being gay is a good idea.

With that in mind, I'd take the 'facts' presented here with a shovel-load of salt.

On the plus side, these guys thought it was great:


http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-kinsey-cover-up.html

According to the documentrys he said that most men and women are unfaithful, children are sexual from birth, incest is a good thing, 10% of men are homosexuals and 35% of men have had homosexual experiences. Are you saying the documentrys facts are wrong?

It also showed one of his researchers saying where they got their "average person" facts from. From sex offenders in prison, prostitues etc.

Also, Kinsey spent most of his time traveling the world advising governments. He was more interested in changing things than the truth.

The funding from the rockefeller foundation is enough in itself to raise red flags.

Monty Burnz

profitius wrote: »

The funding from the rockefeller foundation is enough in itself to raise red flags.

Why?

And - as I said - the major red flag I see here is the fruit-loops who are behind the documentary. If they said that water was wet, I'd still check to be sure.

Monty Burnz

By the way, the nice lady who features so heavily in the 'documentary' is Judith Reisman.

Judith A. Reisman ( /ˈriːsmən/; born 1935) is an American cultural conservative writer best known for her criticism and condemnation of the work and legacy of Alfred Kinsey. She is noted as "the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement."[1] Her commentary is currently featured by WorldNetDaily and Salvo (magazine).[2][3

I wonder how credible she is?

Erototoxins

Reisman has postulated a physical mechanism to account for the dangers she ascribes to pornography: when viewed, an addictive mixture of chemicals which she has dubbed "erototoxins," floods the brain, causing harmful influences to it. Reisman hopes that MRI studies will prove porn-induced physical brain damage and predicts lawsuits against publishers and distributors of pornography similar to those against Big Tobacco which resulted in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Further, if pornography can "subvert cognition," then "these toxic media should be legally outlawed, as is all other toxic waste, and eliminated from our societal structure." Finally, individuals who have suffered brain damage from 'pornography are no longer expressing "free speech" and, for their own good, shouldn't be protected under the First Amendment.'

So if you watch porn, you are brain damaged and should have your right to free speech withdrawn? And this whole 'erotoxins' business sounds more than a little flakey. The fact that she has no proof whatsover, added to the fact that it flies in the face of biology, might make a lesser person doubt that it was possible, but not Judith.

Any other interesting views, Judith?

Homosexuals and Nazism

Reisman has said that she believes that a homosexual movement in Germany gave rise to the Nazi Party and the Holocaust, she endorses The Pink Swastika, which elaborates on this view and has compared modern youth groups for gays to the Hitler Youth.[1]

Wow. Even I didn't see that one coming.

Di0genes

profitius wrote: »

According to the documentrys he said that most men and women are unfaithful, children are sexual from birth, incest is a good thing, 10% of men are homosexuals and 35% of men have had homosexual experiences. Are you saying the documentrys facts are wrong?

It also showed one of his researchers saying where they got their "average person" facts from. From sex offenders in prison, prostitues etc.

Also, Kinsey spent most of his time traveling the world advising governments. He was more interested in changing things than the truth.

The funding from the rockefeller foundation is enough in itself to raise red flags.

I believe the percentage of people who are gay ranges from 1-20% so the figure presented by Kinsey of 10% is fair.

As for the rest, it's typical smear campaigns, a mixture of facts and specious nonsense. Where did Kinsey say incest is wrong?

Profitus would you prefer society ignore Kinsey's work and go back to pre 1950s sexual politics and relationships?

Torakx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

By the way, the nice lady who features so heavily in the 'documentary' is Judith Reisman.


I wonder how credible she is?


So if you watch porn, you are brain damaged and should have your right to free speech withdrawn? And this whole 'erotoxins' business sounds more than a little flakey. The fact that she has no proof whatsover, added to the fact that it flies in the face of biology, might make a lesser person doubt that it was possible, but not Judith.

Any other interesting views, Judith?



Wow. Even I didn't see that one coming.

By the sounds of it, she has a real issue with anyone who deviates from the natural order of things regarding sex.
It may have been because of a past experience.
If the documentary is correct in stating she was abused sexually, then i would not be suprised if she spent her later life focusing on these things.

From the wiki it says there was no evidence against kinsey himself.
But then, i doubt there would ever be any available.

Would like to hear more opinions and info if anyone has any.
Dont know alot about this one.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

By the sounds of it, she has a real issue with anyone who deviates from the natural order of things regarding sex.

I don't mean to jump down your throat here Torakx, but the phrase 'the natural order of things' suggests that everyone is heterosexual, and if they aren't, it's unnatural. But if it happens in nature, it's natural (by definition). Therefore, homosexuality, bestiality, even paedophilia are all natural as these are all behaviours that occur in human society. A pig that can fly - that's not natural, and therefore you don't ever see it. Donkeys that play cards: unnatural - it doesn't happen.

On the other hand, we can decide which natural phenomena we will accept and which ones we won't. Murder is natural too, as is robbery, and we as a society say that they harm people, so we ban them and punish people who do them. Similarly with sex, we can say that paedophilia is devastatingly harmful, so we prohibit it and punish those who do it. But homosexuality between consenting adults does not harm people any more than heterosexual sex, so we do not prohibit it.

(of course, the people who made that 'documentary' would probably have me executed for saying this stuff, or at least 're-educated'...)

Torakx

Yeah ive been known to say stuff like that,i was more trying to speak from her perspective.She would consider it so, i would imagine.
I have no issue myself with anyones behaviour as long as all parties happily consent.
Sorry to anyone who might have taken offense.

I myself just consider sex for creating babies and it happens to be enjoyable, i presume through evolution making it like this so we make more babies.
I see evolution as being part of the natural order of life on this planet.
Sex is there to keep the species alive.These days that isnt as important and so i think other variations on sexual behaviour will become more and more popular over time.

So any deviance from that procreation aspect appears to be unatural in that respect,i must stress, i see it as unnatural only in this respect.
Be it protected straight, gay or sex with animals,dolls,pies etc etc.

Im not apposed to the idea that animals will deviate from the natural order of things too.I see us as animals.

However my point still stands i think that just because she is extremely biased doesnt mean she is wrong.
I think because she is so biased there must be a reason for it.
And possibly that reason is spoken of by her in that first documentary in the OP.

So what is the best route to find the truth here?
Question the woman in the documentary more or Kinsey facts and fiction?
Im not really sure myself.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

So what is the best route to find the truth here?
Question the woman in the documentary more or Kinsey facts and fiction?
Im not really sure myself.

Good question. I guess there must be books out there - biographies of Kinsey or about the Kinsey Institute - that are critical and objective, rather than biased towards or against them. Can't say I'd have the interest in reading one right now though.

N8

profitius wrote: »

It looks like he was a paedophile pushing his own agenda.

bit like the media's favourite Irish presidential candidate even post paedophile relevations ...

profitius wrote: »

His research was funded by the Rockefeller foundation. Surprise, surprise!

Is this to be compared to the same sort of media support and supposed public support of a paedophilic advocant past presidential candidate and present time ex partner jailed for child rape?

(btw not consensual as defined by most folk and law (ie rape and not to be confused with the age gap indicating grooming of an underage boy by a 40 yr old with the consexual sex between a 17 yr old with the 15 yr old) and so illegal not to mention immoral. Lets not mention said same rapist's postion of hierarchy ...)


http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Further-revelations-over-David-Norris-views-on-underage-sex-127263293.html?showAll=y

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Therefore, ... even paedophilia [is] all natural

:eek:


Mentioning on CT by way of media support for paedophiles including Kinsey and David Norris (Irish Senator)

Monty Burnz

N8 wrote: »

:eek:

If it happens, it's natural, no? Or is it supernatural?

It's not a value judgement, it's a statement of fact.

N8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If it happens, it's natural, no? Or is it supernatural?

It's not a value judgement, it's a statement of fact.

sorry Monty you're right - theft, assault, rape, murder, paedophilia - happen all the time and its natural - sure lets stop jailing them all?

Monty Burnz

N8 wrote: »

sorry Monty you're right - theft, assault, rape, murder, paedophilia - happen all the time and its natural - sure lets stop jailing them all?

Did you read my post at all?

N8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Did you read my post at all?

yes I read a few of them - my question still stands

Monty Burnz

N8 wrote: »

yes I read a few of them - my question still stands

Ok.

Do me a favour, and ask me that question again. At the end of your post, quote what I said about the subject in my original post. That will save me having to post it again, because I think it's pretty clear to everybody else what the answer to your question is.

N8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok.

Do me a favour, and ask me that question again. At the end of your post, quote what I said about the subject in my original post. That will save me having to post it again, because I think it's pretty clear to everybody else what the answer to your question is.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't know the facts on Kinsey, but that 'documentary' is a hatchet job by right wing nutters. These are the same people who try to stop evolution being taught in schools (so they don't really believe in facts at all) and think that imprisoning gay people for being gay is a good idea.

With that in mind, I'd take the 'facts' presented here with a shovel-load of salt.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Therefore, ... even paedophilia [is] all natural

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If it happens, it's natural, no? Or is it supernatural?

It's not a value judgement, it's a statement of fact.

N8 wrote: »

sorry Monty you're right - theft, assault, rape, murder, paedophilia - happen all the time and its natural - sure lets stop jailing them all?

same question as per your post advice .... theft, assault, rape, murder, paedophilia - happen all the time and its natural - sure lets stop jailing them all?

Sparticle

N8 wrote: »

yes I read a few of them - my question still stands

MFW


I don't think you understand what Monty was saying.

He's not defending them he's just pointing out that since they exist in nature they are therefore natural. I think you're mixing up the word natural with morally justified.

Monty Burnz

I really wonder why I bother sometimes. They still teach reading comprehension in primary school, don't they?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But if it happens in nature, it's natural (by definition). Therefore, homosexuality, bestiality, even paedophilia are all natural as these are all behaviours that occur in human society. A pig that can fly - that's not natural, and therefore you don't ever see it. Donkeys that play cards: unnatural - it doesn't happen.

On the other hand, we can decide which natural phenomena we will accept and which ones we won't. Murder is natural too, as is robbery, and we as a society say that they harm people, so we ban them and punish people who do them. Similarly with sex, we can say that paedophilia is devastatingly harmful, so we prohibit it and punish those who do it. But homosexuality between consenting adults does not harm people any more than heterosexual sex, so we do not prohibit it.

N8

Sparticle wrote: »

I think you're mixing up the word natural with morally justified.

I think that given Monty has previously on other threads tried to justify homosexual statutory rape by a predator in a position of power (not an Irish priest but Irish presidential hopeful David Norris's partner - not ex at the time either) I am asking him to justify his - sure its natural sentiment

raping a child is not natural neither is preying upon or grooming an underage child

Monty Burnz

N8 wrote: »

I think that given Monty has previously on other threads tried to justify homosexual statutory rape by a predator in a position of power (not an Irish priest but Irish presidential hopeful David Norris's partner - not ex at the time either) I am asking him to justify his - sure its natural sentiment

You're going to have to back that up, I'm afraid. I think I'm justified in suspecting you may not have quite grasped the point I was making.

N8 wrote: »

raping a child is not natural neither is preying upon or grooming an underage child

So it's magic?

profitius

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why?

And - as I said - the major red flag I see here is the fruit-loops who are behind the documentary. If they said that water was wet, I'd still check to be sure.

Well, the "fruitloops" are making serious accusations and seem to be able to back it up. So why don't we concentrate on Kinsey. After all thats what the thread is about.

So what was Kinsey like. According to this he is a proven liar who used research from a paedophile - who abused hundreds of children - as scientific research. He also made strange conclusions. I'd be interested on hearing your views on Kinsey after watching it.

Start watching this one at 3:10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG5EwGvW9kw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmNeZEpPcM

Monty Burnz

profitius wrote: »

Well, the "fruitloops" are making serious accusations and seem to be able to back it up. So why don't we concentrate on Kinsey. After all thats what the thread is about.

So what was Kinsey like. According to this he is a proven liar who used research from a paedophile - who abused hundreds of children - as scientific research. He also made strange conclusions. I'd be interested on hearing your views on Kinsey after watching it.

I'm sorry profitius - I don't know enough about this guy to make any intelligent comment. The only thing I can offer on this thread is quick and easy observations about those behind the videos you are posting.

You haven't commented on Judith Reisman, who also seems to be one of the main people behind this second hatchet job 'documentary' that you have posted. Do you think that she is a reliable commentator, based on what we know about her?

If we agree that those behind the videos are unreliable at best, and nutters at worst, then I'm not sure these videos are good starting points for looking in to Kinsey and his work. Which is not to say of course that there is nothing to discuss; just that this isn't a good way to frame an objective discussion, any more than a hagiography of the guy would be.

profitius

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sorry profitius - I don't know enough about this guy to make any intelligent comment. The only thing I can offer on this thread is quick and easy observations about those behind the videos you are posting.

You haven't commented on Judith Reisman, who also seems to be one of the main people behind this second hatchet job 'documentary' that you have posted. Do you think that she is a reliable commentator, based on what we know about her?

If we agree that those behind the videos are unreliable at best, and nutters at worst, then I'm not sure these videos are good starting points for looking in to Kinsey and his work. Which is not to say of course that there is nothing to discuss; just that this isn't a good way to frame an objective discussion, any more than a hagiography of the guy would be.

Well, if shes not accurate feel free to let us know where.

I want to concentrate on Kinsey. In the last two videos I posted Judith Reisman seems to be correct and has her facts in order and its not only her giving evidence.

Also, those videos were 2 out of 17 in total so there seems to be an abundance of evidence against Kinsey.

studiorat

profitius wrote: »

So what was Kinsey like. According to this he is a proven liar who used research from a paedophile - who abused hundreds of children - as scientific research. He also made strange conclusions. I'd be interested on hearing your views on Kinsey after watching it.

Why is research "from a paedophile" unscientific?

The reality is most people don't really pay much attention to Kinsey anymore, he began a stream of study which I suppose is the modern study of human sexuality. Kinsey's neutrality seems to upset these people who would rather examine everything in a moral framework, or rather not "measure" sexual activity at all...

studiorat

profitius wrote: »

Well, if shes not accurate feel free to let us know where.

She advocates the argument used in the book "the Pink Swastika". Check it out... Tell us what you think.

Monty Burnz

profitius wrote: »

I want to concentrate on Kinsey. In the last two videos I posted Judith Reisman seems to be correct and has her facts in order and its not only her giving evidence.

How have you verified her claims?

profitius wrote: »

Also, those videos were 2 out of 17 in total so there seems to be an abundance of evidence against Kinsey.

It's a single hatchet job cut into 17 pieces (hence 'part 4 of 17' etc). I'm not sure that constitutes an abundance of evidence.

Torakx

From the wiki on him, it sounds as if no official evidence exists and only one womans testimony.
Did anyone else come forward about Kinseys methods?
Like the co-workers who were also involved sexually with/in these studies.

Its said he did "experiments" in his attic and recorded it.Any tapes left?

The contraversial part i think is where it states he noted in over 300 children of a few months to fourteen years having orgasms.
And that this was taken from adults memories of their pasts.

So how do you find out or even estmate if he got these from memories of test subjects or from raw data researched by himself or others.
I think the only way for sure is find some of those people.
Anything else is going to be speculation or psychological profiling, unless i missed something.

Also, i am curious why that woman would in the first place go so far out of her way to ruin his reputation.
What else do people think happened to her that she projects such anger toward him?
Apart from, that she was a victim of course.

clever_name

profitius wrote: »

Well, if shes not accurate feel free to let us know where.

I want to concentrate on Kinsey. In the last two videos I posted Judith Reisman seems to be correct and has her facts in order and its not only her giving evidence.

Also, those videos were 2 out of 17 in total so there seems to be an abundance of evidence against Kinsey.

There is a difference between evidence and opinion, these videos seem to contain lots of opinions and not much of what I would call evidence.

It seems strange to me that people will accept Kinseys background and personality as evidence that his research is invalid while overlooking the background and personalities of the people who appear in these videos.

profitius

studiorat wrote: »

Why is research "from a paedophile" unscientific?

The reality is most people don't really pay much attention to Kinsey anymore, he began a stream of study which I suppose is the modern study of human sexuality. Kinsey's neutrality seems to upset these people who would rather examine everything in a moral framework, or rather not "measure" sexual activity at all...

Well first of all its child abuse.

Secondly paedophiles are sick people who could easily interpret things wrongly according to their beliefs.

Thirdly the Kinsey institute claimed there was only 1 paedophile giving Kinsey information but Kinsey calimed there were more. Who lieing is anyones guess.

And if you watch the videos, Kinsey made some big leaps coming to conclusions.

And how do you know he was neutral. It was suggested he was a paedophile himself. He traveled the world tryng to change laws.

profitius

studiorat wrote: »

She advocates the argument used in the book "the Pink Swastika". Check it out... Tell us what you think.

Just checked it out and I don't really agree with it. Its doesn't let Kinsey off the hook though.

studiorat

If someone is as you say sick, interviewing them is useless is it? So you don't interview paedophiles, you just decide why they are acting they way they are yourself? Maybe the bible or the koran would be more scientific. You don't for instance ask a murderer why they did what they did? Is that it?

His research was neutral or attempted to be, it wasn't moral guidance like the holy joe's in the video you're telling people to watch.

Like I said, Kinsey may not have been scientifically correct, he did start something which hadn't been done before, what he did or attempted to do was examine the human sexual condition. Because he didn't pass judgement or condem behavior out of the norm he himself is portrayed as to condone it. A with us or against us argument...

You are presenting an argument from people who would rather use their personal morality and present it as scientific fact. Because Kinsey's studies were firstly dealing in unchartered territory and crude to say the least. Your holy joe pals have used this as an argument to attempt to prevent any research that isn't grounded in religious morality. They are saying Kinsey's research is flawed, therefore all sexual research which is outside of the moral compass is flawed, unless of course it's to condem it.

clever_name

profitius wrote: »

Well first of all its child abuse.

Did Kinsey ever say otherwise?

profitius wrote: »

Secondly paedophiles are sick people who could easily interpret things wrongly according to their beliefs.

Well child sdusers are still researched today, important word there is research, its not endorsement or sponsoship or approval. Research.

profitius wrote: »

And if you watch the videos, Kinsey made some big leaps coming to conclusions.

Thats if you accept the videos are true and accurate.

profitius wrote: »

And how do you know he was neutral. It was suggested he was a paedophile himself. He traveled the world tryng to change laws.

How do you know he was not neutral? Is it from the videos that might be biased? Suggested by who? any proof?

"He traveled the world tryng to change laws." so does Al Gore, is he a child abuser?

Jonny7

profitius wrote: »

Well, the "fruitloops" are making serious accusations and seem to be able to back it up. So why don't we concentrate on Kinsey. After all thats what the thread is about.

What were your thoughts on Kinsey before you saw the documentary?

profitius

Studiorat wrote:

If someone is as you say sick, interviewing them is useless is it? So you don't interview paedophiles, you just decide why they are acting they way they are yourself? Maybe the bible or the koran would be more scientific. You don't for instance ask a murderer why they did what they did? Is that it?

His research was neutral or attempted to be, it wasn't moral guidance like the holy joe's in the video you're telling people to watch.

Like I said, Kinsey may not have been scientifically correct, he did start something which hadn't been done before, what he did or attempted to do was examine the human sexual condition. Because he didn't pass judgement or condem behavior out of the norm he himself is portrayed as to condone it. A with us or against us argument...

You are presenting an argument from people who would rather use their personal morality and present it as scientific fact. Because Kinsey's studies were firstly dealing in unchartered territory and crude to say the least. Your holy joe pals have used this as an argument to attempt to prevent any research that isn't grounded in religious morality. They are saying Kinsey's research is flawed, therefore all sexual research which is outside of the moral compass is flawed, unless of course it's to condem it.

You seem to be of the opinion that a bunch of prudes are trying to blacken Kinseys name for no reason and you're ignoring the facts.

You and others calling them and me holy joes for hightlighting Kinsey says more about you than it does me. So far none of you have gone into any facts I'm talking about, just attacking everyone who is questioning Kinseys behaviour and his research. Excuse me for highlighting child abuse!

Its clear Kinsey was not scientific and had his own agenda. He was clearly not neutral because he was obsessed about changing laws, got funding from people who want to change society for the worse and Kinsey used to self harm.

Jonny7 wrote: »

What were your thoughts on Kinsey before you saw the documentary?

I had none. Didn't see the film and just thought he was a normal scientist.

clever_name

profitius wrote: »

You seem to be of the opinion that a bunch of prudes are trying to blacken Kinseys name for no reason and you're ignoring the facts.

So far none of you have gone into any facts I'm talking about,

Its clear Kinsey was not scientific and had his own agenda.

So everyone else is ignoring the facts about kinsey?, all your facts come from one place and your entire opinion is based on these same clips, as you yourself stated what your opinion of kinsey was before you saw the videos;

profitius wrote: »

I had none. Didn't see the film and just thought he was a normal scientist.

So you are happy to accept everything in those videos as true and accurate with no bias and anyone who disagrees is ignoring the facts?

I would respectfully suggest you try to find some other sources, I do find it ironic that you are criticising Kinseys research while basing all of yours on limited sources.

profitius wrote: »

So far none of you have gone into any facts I'm talking about,

Again thats because most of what you are showing is opinion and not fact. Also you seem to be misunderstanding some comments, which leads to...

profitius wrote: »

Excuse me for highlighting child abuse!

I can only guess that you are either not reading or just
ignoring the replies that have been posted regarding this issue, again I respectfully suggest you look back over the thread. I think this might highlight the fact that we are all aware that child abuse happens and is a very bad thing.

So bad that I think we can all agree 100% that everything should be done to prevent it - this includes researching the people who commit these acts.

profitius wrote: »

got funding from people who want to change society for the worse

Making society worse? How in particular? Worse in your opinon?

I am making a presumption here so please correct me if needed, it seems that you are cherry picking evidence to supprt your newly formed opinion that kinsey was a bad guy.

profitius wrote: »

and Kinsey used to self harm.

So? should we ignore anyone who has ever self harmed? A person self harms and any research before or after is void?

Jonny7

profitius wrote: »

I had none. Didn't see the film and just thought he was a normal scientist.

Ask yourself who made the documentary, why did they make the documentary, etc.

studiorat

profitius wrote: »

got funding from people who want to change society for the worse

ho ho! Go on then, how has it changed for the worse?