NationStates Jolt Archive

a friend of mine sent me this link about Dr Alfred Kinsey, of whom I knew nothing prior to reading the article: http://film.guardian.co.uk/patterson/story/0,12830,1364576,00.html

quite honesty I didn't know whether to be repulsed by some of the attitudes described towards this man:
And because of that, the religious right still fear and despise Kinsey and all his works. Check out some of the (apparently coordinated) responses to the new movie. "Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi doctor Josef Mengele," says Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America, inadvertently showing us what he thinks of the Holocaust. Robert Peters of Morality in Media: "That's part of Kinsey's legacy: Aids, abortion, the high divorce rate, pornography." Focus on the Family's film critic (they have a film critic?), Tom Neven, calls the movie "rank propaganda for the sexual revolution and the homosexual agenda". And Judith Reisman, who has waged a decades-long war against Kinsey's memory, refers to "a legacy of massive venereal disease, broken hearts and broken souls".

or to just laugh (there were some funny bits too)

These people are of a piece with new Republican congressmen who really have sex on the brain, such as Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who thinks there is an epidemic of lesbianism in Oklahoma schools, and South Carolina's Jim DeMint (that second 'i' should really be an 'e') who wants gays and pregnant single mothers barred from teaching decent, God-fearing hillbillies. an 'epidemic of lesbianism'? wtf?!
...Hugh Hefner, who 'fessed up and said flat out that, yup, he was hornier than a dog with two dicks and didn't care who knew it :D lol

anyway, any opinions?

You have to laugh really. Otherwise you just end up beating these people with pointy sticks. And that won't do

blunt sticks do pretty well too :)

blunt sticks do pretty well too :)
Now that is allowed :D

*takes point off stick*

:D :D :D :p :D

Now that is allowed :D

*takes point off stick*

:D :D :D :p :D
lol :D

People had all the sexual behaviors long before Kinsey pointed them out. That's the reality. He just documented what people were doing. Porn has been around since film began and it hasn't changed much in substance. These critics you mention are the same pseudo-religious nuts who don't think women should have the same sexual freedoms as men. Men can do whatever they want and women if they get pregnant in an unmarried situation become outcasts. They are also against birth control as well as abortion.

All Kinsey was doing was some research, and he asked some pretty to-the-point questions. He found that such and such percent of males had had sex with animals, and that such and such percentage had had a homosexual experience.

The REAL trouble came when he did his book on females. It hinted that they might have sexual thoughts, or sexuality at all.

Then Kinsey mania really blew up.

People had all the sexual behaviors long before Kinsey pointed them out. That's the reality. He just documented what people were doing. Porn has been around since film began and it hasn't changed much in substance. These critics you mention are the same pseudo-religious nuts who don't think women should have the same sexual freedoms as men. Men can do whatever they want and women if they get pregnant in an unmarried situation become outcasts. They are also against birth control as well as abortion.
porn has been around since ART began

they found nasty frescos in the excavation of pompey including lesbian sex scenes

the japanese have a long history of sex art. as do the chinese

but to address the topic. kinsey wasnt a perfect human being. go figure. he did ground breaking studies on human sexuality. it was a tough job but someone had to do it!

I actually saw a porn flick from 1918. It was pretty ...ummm....interesting. It didn't help that there were two guys and a girl, and one of the guys looked a lot like Salvador Dali.

Kinsey just brought sexuality to a public that was in need of a realistic perspective on the matter.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13610

Here's a book on sex that predated Kinsey by about 25 years. I'd say we were due some more information.

they found nasty frescos in the excavation of pompey including lesbian sex scenes
Nasty? Nice, Shirley?

They hate Kinsey because he documented what they like to call "rare abberations," such as female orgasm, are normal and somewhat common events. In otherwords, he contradicted their agenda filled, non-reality based, non-scientific propaganda.

They hate Kinsey because he documented what they like to call "rare abberations," such as female orgasm, are normal and somewhat common events. In otherwords, he contradicted their agenda filled, non-reality based, non-scientific propaganda.

even today they like to pretend that he was just making it up or is responsible for the existence of all behaviors they don't like. check out these 'christian' movie reviews:

http://www.nationalcoalition.org/kinsey/kinseymgreview.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2004/kinsey2004.html

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13610

Here's a book on sex that predated Kinsey by about 25 years. I'd say we were due some more information.

I <3 the Steve Gutenberg foundation! No, really!

The Guardian article and the Christian reviews both were heavily loaded (at the front at least, I couldn't cut through the bullshit to make it to the end in any of 'em) with propaganda. They all made emotional appeals with fiery words that would make the blood of any civilized man or woman boil. So, I put precisely *zilch* stock in any of these authors.

Nasty? Nice, Shirley?
remember is only nasty if youre doing it right!

Kinsey was one hell of a sick dude. Read, for example, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman.

Kinsey was one hell of a sick dude. Read, for example, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman.

What makes you think he was sick? Was he into bondage and domination, just none of us know it? Was he into little kids? What makes him sick in your opinion?

I mean, next thing you know, you'll be trying to tell us that Wilhelm Reich was crazy or something.

Kinsey was one hell of a sick dude. Read, for example, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman.

a book full of claims that are outright falsehoods and ridiculous misinterpretations.

the japanese have a long history of sex art. as do the chinese

It wasn't considered to be real art though. Japan always had a pretty uptight attitude to sex. Which, IMO is part of what made them so receptive to fascism in the early 20th century. Anyway, the "sex art" was never considered art until quite recently.

even today they like to pretend that he was just making it up or is responsible for the existence of all behaviors they don't like. check out these 'christian' movie reviews:

http://www.nationalcoalition.org/kinsey/kinseymgreview.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2004/kinsey2004.html

Wow. I laughed so hard that I actually cried.

I wonder how they haven't figured out yet that Kinsey also invented the time machine and travelled back in history to influence DeSade?

Japan always had a pretty uptight attitude to sex. Which, IMO is part of what made them so receptive to fascism in the early 20th century.
I've heard that theory before, that sexual repression has a lot to do with fascism. Makes sense if you look at the opposite side, the free-love hippies who are probably the least receptive to fascism and authoritarianism.

I've heard that theory before, that sexual repression has a lot to do with fascism. Makes sense if you look at the opposite side, the free-love hippies who are probably the least receptive to fascism and authoritarianism.
It's not any kind of mysterious or obscure theory. The fact is, "free-love hippies" are certainly social libertarians, while fascists are social authoritarians.

It wasn't considered to be real art though. Japan always had a pretty uptight attitude to sex. Which, IMO is part of what made them so receptive to fascism in the early 20th century. Anyway, the "sex art" was never considered art until quite recently.
i never thought of that! i always just assumed they were jumping onthe bandwagon

a friend of mine sent me this link about Dr Alfred Kinsey, of whom I knew nothing prior to reading the article: http://film.guardian.co.uk/patterson/story/0,12830,1364576,00.html

quite honesty I didn't know whether to be repulsed by some of the attitudes described towards this man
The fact that you don't know whether to be repulsed strikes me as rather ominous. But you can't really blame the so-called Christians, they're actually trying to help. Remember Pilate in The Last Temptation Of Christ:
"You just don't get it, do you? We want things to stay exactly the way they are. Crucify him!"

even today they like to pretend that he was just making it up or is responsible for the existence of all behaviors they don't like. check out these 'christian' movie reviews:

http://www.nationalcoalition.org/kinsey/kinseymgreview.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2004/kinsey2004.html

Aside from these cites, several psychologists and historians, even the history and discovery channels, have looked at his research, and found that his research group was prone to orgies while workingm and manipulating... well... outright making up data for his infamous Kinsey reports.

So, give him credit as starting a revolution. But he desrves none as actually discovering anything.

LOL I never would have imagined the Kinsey report would still be making waves all these years later.

I'm not sure what's more amusing, seeing the reaction of you fresh young minds when you discover it or the fact that you can still get a knee-jerk response from the religious right with it.

Anything that pisses off the Religious Right is most likely a good thing. :p

Anything that pisses off the Religious Right is most likely a good thing. :p
True beyond words.

This kind of reaction lets you know you're headed in the right direction.

Aside from these cites, several psychologists and historians, even the history and discovery channels, have looked at his research, and found that his research group was prone to orgies while workingm and manipulating... well... outright making up data for his infamous Kinsey reports.

So, give him credit as starting a revolution. But he desrves none as actually discovering anything.

You need to be careful about trusting what you see on the History and Discovery channels. They have a reputation for spotty reporting. They are, after all, a business, out to make money. As to those historians and psychologists, well, there are revisionists in every field.

Aside from these cites, several psychologists and historians, even the history and discovery channels, have looked at his research, and found that his research group was prone to orgies while workingm and manipulating... well... outright making up data for his infamous Kinsey reports.

So, give him credit as starting a revolution. But he desrves none as actually discovering anything.

yes, kinsey encouraged his co-workers to have lots and lots of sex. no, his data is neither faked nor wrong. there was some sample bias (you try getting a truly random sample of people who will volunteer information about their sex lives, even today), but additional studies have confirmed that they got pretty much everything right the first time.

You need to be careful about trusting what you see on the History and Discovery channels. They have a reputation for spotty reporting. They are, after all, a business, out to make money.

yeah, sometimes the shows they put on to pander to the religious right (or ufo nuts, or dumb people) are just painful to watch. a damn shame really, cause other times their shows are fantastic.

There are errors in his final report. His samples were ill gathered in some instances. Some of his data is wrong. But so what? Darwin, Newton, and Einstien had errors to, but we still use their theories. Hell, newton made up some of his data. By and large Kinsey's findings were correct. His study changed the face of sexual psychology. The fact that you don't like what he said doesn't make it all false, and it won't make it all go away.

There are errors in his final report. His samples were ill gathered in some instances. Some of his data is wrong. But so what? Darwin, Newton, and Einstien had errors to, but we still use their theories. Hell, newton made up some of his data. By and large Kinsey's findings were correct. His study changed the face of sexual psychology. The fact that you don't like what he said doesn't make it all false, and it won't make it all go away.

It's also important to realize that his reports were the BASIS for a lot our sexual psychology theories, but those theories are no longer solely based on his reports. On the whole, his books about male and female sexuality were remarkably accurate. Modern science has since built on his foundation to make its theories even better.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13610

Here's a book on sex that predated Kinsey by about 25 years. I'd say we were due some more information.

I like how they thought the moon's 4-week cycle has something to with the menstrual cycle or "periodicity." :p

even today they like to pretend that he was just making it up or is responsible for the existence of all behaviors they don't like. check out these 'christian' movie reviews:

http://www.nationalcoalition.org/kinsey/kinseymgreview.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2004/kinsey2004.html

HAHA
I didn't even have to read past the first paragraph before I tuned out. They trash the guy's morals before they even discuss the actual movie. They're probably associated the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or something.

porn has been around since ART began

they found nasty frescos in the excavation of pompey including lesbian sex scenes

the japanese have a long history of sex art. as do the chinese

but to address the topic. kinsey wasnt a perfect human being. go figure. he did ground breaking studies on human sexuality. it was a tough job but someone had to do it!

All that Art was never considered to be porn. Porn came out of the victorian sexual repression that this christian stuff continues. Sex is bad, women are bad, women having sex is bad.

All that Art was never considered to be porn. Porn came out of the victorian sexual repression that this christian stuff continues. Sex is bad, women are bad, women having sex is bad.
This is an idea that mainly sprang up in medieval western europe and is particularly associated with evangelist protestantism. In other times/places it was not such a big deal, much less of an issue.

HAHA
I didn't even have to read past the first paragraph before I tuned out. They trash the guy's morals before they even discuss the actual movie. They're probably associated the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or something.

Me too.

The movie begins by showing Kinsey’s father, a Methodist Sunday School teacher, speaking out against dancing and other behavior that leads to sex, including masturbation.

Masturbation leads to sex? I have done a great deal of "scientific research" in this "field" and let me tell you that is NOT true.

The REAL trouble came when he did his book on females. It hinted that they might have sexual thoughts, or sexuality at all.

Rhetorical question: had Freud not yet made it to the US then?

Kinsey was one hell of a sick dude.

Hey, if the good doctor Kinsey was in the habit of inserting a toothbrush into his own urethra, surely that was his own affair?

Rhetorical question: had Freud not yet made it to the US then?

I've been given the impression that Psycho-Analysis is very popular among USA-nian Psychologists and researchers.

I've been given the impression that Psycho-Analysis is very popular among USA-nian Psychologists and researchers.

Yes, the words 'rhetorical question' were a sign that Freud's theories concerning the sexual drives of women and children were already well known in the US prior to Kinsey - thus questioning Sheilanagig's assertion that the shit hit the fan when Kinsey wrote a study of female sexuality, as if it was terra incognita in the American psyche.

Yes, the words 'rhetorical question' were a sign that Freud's theories concerning the sexual drives of women and children were already well known in the US prior to Kinsey - thus questioning Sheilanagig's assertion that the shit hit the fan when Kinsey wrote a study of female sexuality, as if it was terra incognita in the American psyche.

Yes, I know. I was wondering whether it wasn't as popular as I had been led to believe.

Hey, if the good doctor Kinsey was in the habit of inserting a toothbrush into his own urethra, surely that was his own affair?

I'm sorely disappointed that no one has yet responded to this remark.

Hey, if the good doctor Kinsey was in the habit of inserting a toothbrush into his own urethra, surely that was his own affair?

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the man to investigate such an affair.

yeah, sometimes the shows they put on to pander to the religious right (or ufo nuts, or dumb people) are just painful to watch. a damn shame really, cause other times their shows are fantastic.


UFOs are true. :mad:

Masturbation leads to sex? I have done a great deal of "scientific research" in this "field" and let me tell you that is NOT true.
lmao :D

UFOs are true. :mad:

yes, there are objects in the sky that people have seen that are unidentified. no, that by itself is not reason to believe them to be alien.

man, i used to be so into that whole deal - ufos, von daniken's ancient astronauts, etc. cool stuff, shoddy science.

Hey, if the good doctor Kinsey was in the habit of inserting a toothbrush into his own urethra, surely that was his own affair?

shit, if its gonna be that kind of party, i'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes

yes, there are objects in the sky that people have seen that are unidentified. no, that by itself is not reason to believe them to be alien.

man, i used to be so into that whole deal - ufos, von daniken's ancient astronauts, etc. cool stuff, shoddy science.

The Aliens debate is still raging on, my friend, but this is unrelated to the UFO debate.

UFOs are true. :mad:

Interesting side note: the report of fairy abductions slacked off significantly about the time that UFO abduction stories started occuring.

Interesting side note: the report of fairy abductions slacked off significantly about the time that UFO abduction stories started occuring.

Source?

All that Art was never considered to be porn. Porn came out of the victorian sexual repression that this christian stuff continues. Sex is bad, women are bad, women having sex is bad.

Are you seriously claiming that pornography was an invention of Victorian Britain? Really? Fanny Hill? One Hundred Days Of Sodom? The Satyricon? - all these were fakes cooked up by forgers then?

Yes, the words 'rhetorical question' were a sign that Freud's theories concerning the sexual drives of women and children were already well known in the US prior to Kinsey - thus questioning Sheilanagig's assertion that the shit hit the fan when Kinsey wrote a study of female sexuality, as if it was terra incognita in the American psyche.

Ah, but you are forgetting that psychology back then (and by some even today) was easily dismissed as quackery and nonsense - thus letting the idea of the female sex drive remain (perhaps uneasily) underground in the American psyche. Then along came Kinsey with his statistcal (and thus somehow in the American mind more scientific) proof to back up the idea that women had sex drives, forcing many Americans face a notion that they would have preferred, and may have been actively trying, to keep hidden.

Ah, but you are forgetting that psychology back then (and by some even today) was easily dismissed as quackery and nonsense - thus letting the idea of the female sex drive remain (perhaps uneasily) underground in the American psyche. Then along came Kinsey with his statistcal (and thus somehow in the American mind more scientific) proof to back up the idea that women had sex drives, forcing many Americans face a notion that they would have preferred, and may have been actively trying, to keep hidden.

Ah good, I was expecting this kind of response: that Freud's findings were on the basis of hypothecation based on a very limited sampling of aristocratic Europeans who were suffering mental distress - true, but then what of such female writers of erotica as Anais Nin, who was well known in the US even prior to Kinsey? Was she just dismissed by the male population as another aberrant case?


The question is also raised here of whether prior to the publication of the report and the discourse concerning female sexuality that it engenedered, did the female population of the US feel that all their own sexual drives and appetities were just solitary instances of aberrant mental or physical conditions?

Ah good, I was expecting this kind of response: that Freud's findings were on the basis of hypothecation based on a very limited sampling of aristocratic Europeans who were suffering mental distress - true, but then what of such female writers of erotica as Anais Nin, who was well known in the US even prior to Kinsey? Was she just dismissed by the male population as another aberrant case?


The question is also raised here of whether prior to the publication of the report and the discourse concerning female sexuality that it engenedered, did the female population of the US feel that all their own sexual drives and appetities were just solitary instances of aberrant mental or physical conditions?

Uhm, there is still a significant portion of the population who try to make females - especially younger ones - feel guilty and abberant about having sex drives today. Just look at how easily the word slut is tossed around. I don't think this is concious so much as social conditioning, but the idea that women don't and/or are not supposed to like sex just as much as men is still pretty damned common.

Hell, look at how often Cosmo has to re-inform its readers that women have orgasms (providing that they are fashionable and behave in an appropriate "good girl" manner :rolleyes: ). Look at the response Nancy Friday got when she "discovered" that women have sexual fantasies. Hell, there are people -male and female -out there who are still *shocked* about the fact that women masturbate.

Many women are still to this day surprised when they discover that they are not solitary freaks for having strong sexual desires.

Never, ever underestimate the abilty of the American public to overlook and forget and cover up the obvious if it finds those truths uncomfortable.

Source?

The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer.

The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer.

You couldn't possibly quote the passage and/or references?

Also, I think a lot of the "shock value" was for the city-bred, upper & middle classes, as well. Your average farm boy and girl 50 years ago knew all about the birds and bees, and how much fun it could be for everyone involved long before they reached "adult" status. It was never talked about, but it was sure as heck practiced!

This is a tradition that goes all the way back to the Pilgrims, who frequently had "out-of-wedlock" pregnancies. Although that's not what they were called. The first baby was just "eager to be born" so it was a seven-month baby. This happened because it was viewed as only smart to not marry a girl until you knew you could get her pregnant.

Ahhhh...colonial thinking. Gotta love it.

You couldn't possibly quote the passage and/or references?

Not right this instant, no. I'm sorry. I loaned the book the Modericinia. If you Tg him, he might be able to look it up for you. Better tell him I sent you, though, he's a little paranoid.