There was a book written twenty years ago by one child psychologist named Judith Reisman entitled KINSEY, SEX AND FRAUD in which she claimed that Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his collegues did some sexual experiments on pre-teen children, including infants to test their extent of pleasure. Dr. Reisman denounced it as child sexual abuse.
However, the Kinsey Institute denies that any such experiments were ever done and that Dr. Reisman is a liar. Who is telling the truth?
Any info?
Barbara R.
Posts: 378 | From: Boonville, Missouri USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently read an article by Dr. James Dobson that requests Dr. Kinsey's "child victims" to come forward and prove Dr. Reisman's story.
I wonder? If anyone did come forward would he or she be telling the truth or would they be making it all up simply because they support an anti-Kinsey cause?
Hm-m-m-m?
Barbara R.
Posts: 378 | From: Boonville, Missouri USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard this story on many occasions each time with a different view on its veracity. The very fact that the story exists could indicate that it has the ring of truth.
-------------------- "Actually I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what I know."
George Bush after the Midterms Posts: 165 | From: Margate, Kent, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sapient Homo: The very fact that the story exists could indicate that it has the ring of truth.
Um, does that mean that there's a "ring of truth" to the idea that dead people sometimes get up and attack the living? Vampire/zombie stories are found all over the world...
Posts: 2787 | From: California | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sapient Homo: The very fact that the story exists could indicate that it has the ring of truth.
Um, does that mean that there's a "ring of truth" to the idea that dead people sometimes get up and attack the living? Vampire/zombie stories are found all over the world...
But zombies and vampires themselves are only found in small pockets of remote wilderness, and these habitats are shrinking rapidly due to logging and suburban sprawl.
Help protect these majestic creatures - support the Undead Wildlife Preservation Fund!
-------------------- Fools! You've over-estimated me! Posts: 3745 | From: New York City | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sapient Homo: The very fact that the story exists could indicate that it has the ring of truth.
Um, does that mean that there's a "ring of truth" to the idea that dead people sometimes get up and attack the living? Vampire/zombie stories are found all over the world...
But zombies and vampires themselves are only found in small pockets of remote wilderness, and these habitats are shrinking rapidly due to logging and suburban sprawl.
Help protect these majestic creatures - support the Undead Wildlife Preservation Fund!
Sumtimes you can be very,very funny! BTW-Yomank
-------------------- The views expressed in the above Post does not necessarily reflect those of snopes,The Infopoop Corporation,the Internet or most of society for that matter. Posts: 2474 | From: Scranton, PA | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I checked with the Kinsey Institute's website, and there is a link to his research programs past and present. However, I doubt very much that they would admit to performing sexual acts on babies or small children. Nevertheless, the myth is so strong that one cannot help but succumb to it.
I have often wondered where Dr. Reisman got her information. Who could have provided her with this account? If it is false, a lie, then who would make it up and why? Simply to discredit both Dr. Kinsey and the institute that bears his name? Obviously. But why? Because he helped instigate the sexual revolution of the 1960s? But why accuse him of experimenting on babies and little kids since such would be a serious crime?
Barbara R.
Posts: 378 | From: Boonville, Missouri USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people make up any of the false rumors that float around?
Why would Dr. Kinsey or the institute have performed sexual experiments on infants and small children? That seems rather more unlikely to me than the idea that someone would have made it up. If someone wanted to discredit people, what quicker way than to suggest they did bad things to children? It's not infrequent for even people who will normally stop and examine the facts of things before leaping to conclusions to skip those steps if children or puppies are involved.
Posts: 3700 | From: New York | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kinsey’s Pedophiles, was broadcast in Great Britain on August 10, 1998. In a review, England’s BBC Radio Times wrote that “this deeply unsettling documentary... makes a strong case that Kinsey cultivated [pedophiles whose crimes] he presented as scientific data.” London’s Daily Mail for August 11, 1998, agreed: “An academic study admitted the... repugnant... evidence of a child abuser as though this were a respectable scientific contribution.”
-------------------- No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie Posts: 3833 | From: Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the documentary fairly recently. The bit that made me go ick was a description of some of the research performed with paedophiles regarding intercourse with children. It was a quote that ran something like "except for a 6 year old girl, as there was a 'fit problem'" (meaning size mismatch). IIRC, part of the problem was that he wouldn't turn in the paedophiles because he had some sort of duty to protect his research subjects.
Funnily enough, I was thinking about the documentary recently because of coverage of the Pitcairn Island case where girls became sexually active (generally with older men it seems) as young as 12.
posted
The Kinsey Report of 1948, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE revealed some pedophiles. These were men who bragged to Dr. Kinsey and his associates about having molested children, mostly boys, and some did this for many years. Or so they claimed.
Dr. Kinsey referred to one such pedophile, on whom he gave the pseudonym "Mr. Green." Kinsey report that this "Mr. Green" claimed to have molest 800 or more boys for more than 25 years!! (???!!!) Or was it 30 years? Anyway, that meant that he would have committed 26 and 2/3 acts of child molestation a year! Or about one every two weeks. "Mr. Green" also kept a diary of his sick activities! He supposedly showed it to Kinsey.
Whew! Anyway, Kinsey reported only on what those men told him and his collegues. That's not quite the same as performing experiments on children himself. Who knows, maybe "Mr. Green" and the others were lying. Or at least exaggerating.
Barbara R.
Posts: 378 | From: Boonville, Missouri USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I couldn't read the New York Times article. Their website is available only if you sign up.
I supposed this article was about the movie that was supposed to be made about Dr. Kinsey. About 2 or 3 years ago, there was a big brouhaha over a feature motion picture that was to be about Dr. Kinsey. Was the film ever completed? Will it ever be shown at theaters? Or will it be on television instead?
Barbara
Posts: 378 | From: Boonville, Missouri USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
There are many religious right websites out there describing the controversy as well.
-------------------- "There is no Heaven So I can't believe in Room 19." -Bob Geldof Posts: 207 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Barbara R.: Sorry, I couldn't read the New York Times article. Their website is available only if you sign up.
I supposed this article was about the movie that was supposed to be made about Dr. Kinsey. About 2 or 3 years ago, there was a big brouhaha over a feature motion picture that was to be about Dr. Kinsey. Was the film ever completed? Will it ever be shown at theaters? Or will it be on television instead?
posted
Sounds like he was in serious denial and ended up over-compensating via his report. I hope he sterilised his toothbrush before using it in the conventional manner . One half of me say "it would make it taste funny" the other half says "ouch - toothpaste would sting when put there"
posted
I seem to remember catching and episode of Bill O Reilly 2 or 3 years ago where he was having a bitchfest about the making of this movie. Or something like that. Basically he didn't want it to be made.
-------------------- Hey, check out my dads website -- www.eastcountyhwy.com He grooms dogs too. Posts: 1593 | From: Bedias, TX | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
archyros
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Well, how else was he supposed to get data on sexual response in children? Someone had to "stimulate" the children and report on the results... Who better than pedophiles? ugh! (I never really thought about it till now---what it meant that he had those stats and those stories)
IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
Oh my word... I don't think I wanted to know that part about the "wonderful elasticity of the human testicle"... Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by archyros: Well, how else was he supposed to get data on sexual response in children? Someone had to "stimulate" the children and report on the results... Who better than pedophiles? ugh! (I never really thought about it till now---what it meant that he had those stats and those stories)
Or maybe he got that information from interviewing pedophiles? Obviously, this makes it suspect (especially considering that much of that information comes from *one* pedophile - see the first website dam9191 put up), but it should be pretty clear that there is zero evidence that Kinsey "experimented" on children himself.
Speaking of the man, Stephen Jay Gould has a wonderful essay about him in his book The Flamingo's Smile. Kinsey was a biologist who specialized in studying wasps. His study of wasps, strangely enough, had a direct influence on his studies of men and women years later. He became an extreme anti-taxologist due to his initial research; that is, he realized that, given evolution, the work of Linnaeus was in part a matter of humans finding patterns where none existed. When he moved on to human sexuality, he discovered the same kinds of artificial distinctions placed on humans. If anything, human sexuality has an even worse version of the problem: there isn't a clear dividing line between gay and straight, for example.
Sorry for the semi-hijack; I just found Kinsey's fascination with wasps, um, fascinating.
-------------------- Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes. Posts: 4267 | From: Seattle | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. Anatole France Posts: 1576 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
ST
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
There can be no doubt that Dr. Kinsey's data came from the abuse of children. Reisman got her data from material published by Dr. Kinsey, specifically, The children of Table 34.
There has been quite a bit of activism from conservatives on this issue. In 1997, for example, Concerned Women for America held a rally in Bloomington, Indiana to "expose and close" the Kinsey Institute.
IP: Logged |
posted
Concerned Women for America, however, shouldn't be considered a bastion of facts.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Holy Crap!!! Is the Guardian a legitimate publication or is it put out by your garden variety whack jobs?
Posts: 624 | From: Kansas | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ST: There can be no doubt that Dr. Kinsey's data came from the abuse of children. Reisman got her data from material published by Dr. Kinsey, specifically, The children of Table 34.
Are you going out of your way to not read the material posted?
-------------------- Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes. Posts: 4267 | From: Seattle | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Prussian Blue
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Simon Says: Holy Crap!!! Is the Guardian a legitimate publication or is it put out by your garden variety whack jobs?
Er... Kinsey never worked for the Guardian.
Ian Mayes, the paper's Readers' Editor, pointed out recently how pieces can get misinterpreted when quoted out of context on the web. "The buoyant and jaunty nature of G2 journalism, marking a cultural distinction from the broadsheet, was not apparent on the website."
"Both... publications have their own characters, distinct from each other and from the broadsheet paper... These distinctions begin to disappear when the material is put up on the website. They disappear almost entirely when linked from the home page. And there is no context whatsoever when they are picked up by bloggers, individuals conducting their own websites."
Basically, you've got the Guardian Newspaper, a respected, serious left-wing broadsheet. Then you've got the G2 supplement, which is not supposed to be taken so seriously. You can get satire in there that wouldn't be out of place in The Onion. John Sutherland is a US Resident correspondent. His pieces are mostly film reviews and presumably the piece linked above is to be read in that spirit, not to be taken too seriously. By the way, it was G2 that ran the Clark County campaign. Mayes had this to say about that controversy:
"In a poll I conducted among Guardian staff who had been following the story, of 71 respondents, 13 thought it a legitimate and worthwhile exercise, 14 were undecided and 44 were against it. So over half of the Guardian's own staff were against it!
IP: Logged |
posted
okay, but seriously...how accurate is information [on sexual response in children] gathered from paedophiles going to be, really?
It's a bit like asking rapists to report on the experience of their victims, innit?
-------------------- Windows cannot open this file. To open this file correctly, defenestrate, then try running the file again... Posts: 5383 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by plain old Marrya: okay, but seriously...how accurate is information [on sexual response in children] gathered from paedophiles going to be, really?
It's a bit like asking rapists to report on the experience of their victims, innit?
Not pedophileS, pedophilE.
From the Kinsey Institute's rebuttal (which I've been really, really trying not to quote directly, since it has been linked to twice in this thread):
quote:I decided to check on the sources of this information and found that, without any doubt, all of the information reported in Tables 31-34 came from the carefully documented records of one man. From 1917 until the time that Kinsey interviewed him in the mid-1940s, this man had kept notes on a vast array of sexual experiences, involving not only children but adults of both sexes.
Gruesome? Yes. Statistically useful? Not in the least. I have a hard time giving Kinsey that much grief for compiling this data, though. Today, he'd be required to report that scumbag to the authorities, but, well, the early 1940s are not today. Certainly, one can surmise that had he reported every instance of admitted illegal sexual behavior, he'd never have been able to get all that data together in the first place.
My guess is, people like Judy Reisman have a problem with the conclusions that must be drawn from the data (for example: that many women had extramarital sex in the 1940s and 50s) and try to demonize the person who compiled the data in order to take peoples' attention away from it.
-------------------- Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes. Posts: 4267 | From: Seattle | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
ST
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Johnny Slick: Are you going out of your way to not read the material posted?
What exactly did I miss?
quote:Originally posted by Johnny Slick: I have a hard time giving Kinsey that much grief for compiling this data, though. Today, he'd be required to report that scumbag to the authorities, but, well, the early 1940s are not today. Certainly, one can surmise that had he reported every instance of admitted illegal sexual behavior, he'd never have been able to get all that data together in the first place.
What you say here is true. But while laws change over time, can the same be said of morality? I would argue that Kinsey had a moral obligation to turn over admitted criminals to the authorities, if for no other reason than to make sure that this individual did not harm anyone else.
Had Kinsey turned in admitted criminals like "Mr. Green", then he might not have been able to compile some of his "data". The importance of that "data", though, is insignificant next to the need to protect society from people like "Mr. Green". At the very least, Kinsey protected this person by not turning him in.
Can the "data" be discredited if the character of the person collecting the "data" is suspect? I would argue that it certainly can. If you can't trust the researcher, can you trust his "data"?
IP: Logged |
posted
But if researchers were to turn in people who admitted to criminal activities, very soon noone would admit criminal activities to researchers, so no more criminals would actually be caught but research data would be skewed, showing less criminal activities than really occur.
Furthermore, if a researcher promises someone confidentiality, breaking that promise is "immoral".
I think that as unpleasant as it is, researchers must not turn in people who admit to criminal activities.
But then again, if I were doing a study and someone came in and confessed to being a serial killer or something like that, I am not sure about what I would do.
Posts: 3745 | From: New York City | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troodon: But if researchers were to turn in people who admitted to criminal activities, very soon noone would admit criminal activities to researchers, so no more criminals would actually be caught but research data would be skewed, showing less criminal activities than really occur.
As someone who's done research in the past, I wanted to point out this post as very accurate. There are certain criminal activities that, under the law, must be reported if they are discovered (child abuse, credible threat to an identifiable person). Other than that, researchers use their own discretion to determine what to report or not report. I know when I was doing my research, there were times when the subjects reported criminal activity and I did not report it because it would have reduced the rapport I had built with them (it was a longitudinal study).
However, I don't know what the legal reporting requirements were at the time that Kinsey was doing his research, so I don't know the legalities of his decision not to report the one subject that admitted to pedophilia. Who would he have reported it to? The fact is that he got some data from someone who claimed to be a pedophile. People who say this means he did sexual research on children are being disingenuous at best, and barking mad at worst.
Alli "I vote for barking" son
-------------------- If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. Anatole France Posts: 1576 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simon Says: Holy Crap!!! Is the Guardian a legitimate publication or is it put out by your garden variety whack jobs?
Er... Kinsey never worked for the Guardian.
Ian Mayes, the paper's Readers' Editor, pointed out recently how pieces can get misinterpreted when quoted out of context on the web. "The buoyant and jaunty nature of G2 journalism, marking a cultural distinction from the broadsheet, was not apparent on the website."
"Both... publications have their own characters, distinct from each other and from the broadsheet paper... These distinctions begin to disappear when the material is put up on the website. They disappear almost entirely when linked from the home page. And there is no context whatsoever when they are picked up by bloggers, individuals conducting their own websites."
Basically, you've got the Guardian Newspaper, a respected, serious left-wing broadsheet. Then you've got the G2 supplement, which is not supposed to be taken so seriously. You can get satire in there that wouldn't be out of place in The Onion. John Sutherland is a US Resident correspondent. His pieces are mostly film reviews and presumably the piece linked above is to be read in that spirit, not to be taken too seriously. By the way, it was G2 that ran the Clark County campaign. Mayes had this to say about that controversy:
"In a poll I conducted among Guardian staff who had been following the story, of 71 respondents, 13 thought it a legitimate and worthwhile exercise, 14 were undecided and 44 were against it. So over half of the Guardian's own staff were against it!
Thanks for the info, but I was actually referring to the link about Kinsey in Hell's Granny's post. Go back to page one and read and then you too can learn about the "wonderful elasticity of the human testicle" and other such horrors.
But now, your post begs the question: Is G2 a bunch of BS like the Onion generally is?
Posts: 624 | From: Kansas | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Prussian Blue
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
No, but you're not supposed to take it so seriously. It's arty, rather than newsy.
I got the meaning of your original email Simon and I did read the link first time round. I was adding the Ohio bit out of interest (sorry for confusion).
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. One half of me say "it would make it taste funny" the other half says "ouch - toothpaste would sting when put there"
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
