'Kinsey' draws ire

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Do religious extremists attack anyone who studies sexuality? It seems like Kinsey is a target because he's the main authority.

No, what gets "attacked" is the tripe junk scientists like kinsey spew, and it isn't just the "religious extremists" that know kinsey's "science" was bunk.
Oh, and calling him "the main authority" is hilarious.:p

CsG

Okay, who are the non-religious people that are calling him a pervert? The last site you gave me was a protestant christian site

:roll: if you would have READ what I said - it wasn't the site that did the Report. The report doesn't rely on you being a "religious extremist" to understand that kinsey's "research" was flawed. Also, since you seem to be all caught up about the "site" - why not try my second link. Oh wait....that would mean you couldn't continue your anti-"religious" chant.

Now try reading for once before you start spouting.

CsG
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Do religious extremists attack anyone who studies sexuality? It seems like Kinsey is a target because he's the main authority.

No, what gets "attacked" is the tripe junk scientists like kinsey spew, and it isn't just the "religious extremists" that know kinsey's "science" was bunk.
Oh, and calling him "the main authority" is hilarious.:p

CsG

Okay, who are the non-religious people that are calling him a pervert? The last site you gave me was a protestant christian site

:roll: if you would have READ what I said - it wasn't the site that did the Report. The report doesn't rely on you being a "religious extremist" to understand that kinsey's "research" was flawed. Also, since you seem to be all caught up about the "site" - why not try my second link. Oh wait....that would mean you couldn't continue your anti-"religious" chant.

Now try reading for once before you start spouting.

CsG


How many chances do you think you get? If you're capable of giving religious answers to scientific questions once it taints you. Plus, it sounds like bowfinger wasn't impressed with your other link.

And of course... I gave you a second shot and followed the other link and I don't see anything about Kinsey...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Do religious extremists attack anyone who studies sexuality? It seems like Kinsey is a target because he's the main authority.

No, what gets "attacked" is the tripe junk scientists like kinsey spew, and it isn't just the "religious extremists" that know kinsey's "science" was bunk.
Oh, and calling him "the main authority" is hilarious.:p

CsG

Okay, who are the non-religious people that are calling him a pervert? The last site you gave me was a protestant christian site

:roll: if you would have READ what I said - it wasn't the site that did the Report. The report doesn't rely on you being a "religious extremist" to understand that kinsey's "research" was flawed. Also, since you seem to be all caught up about the "site" - why not try my second link. Oh wait....that would mean you couldn't continue your anti-"religious" chant.

Now try reading for once before you start spouting.

CsG


How many chances do you think you get? If you're capable of giving religious answers to scientific questions once it taints you. Plus, it sounds like bowfinger wasn't impressed with your other link.

And of course... I gave you a second shot and followed the other link and I don't see anything about Kinsey...

The question is how many times will you continue to ignore the evidence. Bowfinger admitted he had not read the links - so how exactly does what Bowfinger have to say matter? That's right...it doesn't.

Now if you would have actually looked you would have seen the repot about kinsey in that second link. direct link The reason I linked the main site is so you could see what the site was(so you couldn't dismiss it as religious) yet have easy access to the kinsey report( note 2.2 ;) )

But hey - go ahead and continue your ignorance...

CsG
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Errmm... the material is still clearly partisan. It tells you to get more information from first principles press which seeks to affirm god's role in the us government. ALEC is a right-wing policy group. If you really want to talk about science, get something from scientific journals and not from partisan sources.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Errmm... the material is still clearly partisan. It tells you to get more information from first principles press which seeks to affirm god's role in the us government. ALEC is a right-wing policy group. If you really want to talk about science, get something from scientific journals and not from partisan sources.

Nice try but it looks like chose to go ahead and continue your ignorance...

CsG
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I looked at your links despite my inkling that it would be partisan, I researched the sources and found them to be biased and not even scientific organizations. My determination is that it is right-wing religious FUD.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
CW: Sounds like your internal compass assigns credibility to anyone that agrees with your existing point of view. Mine tells me that there are people much smarter than myself, and that if someone at one of the top five schools in the country has no reason to risk his reputation debunking someone from IU. I have a brother at IU in their cognitive science department (a spinoff of their psych department of which Kinsey was a member) and even they have disregarded his work.

M: I have no dog in the Kinsey race.
-------------------

M: Back to the point, the claim of 0 to 15% is simply preposterous. I am not saying that the data is false but that it means nothing at all. You need to remember that you are biased toward homosexuality and that bias influences how you interpret what you see. A spider on the arm makes one person flip out and the calm and curious take a closer look. There are facts and the science of facts and reaction and the science of reaction and without both there is no approach to objective evaluation. You are incapable of an objective understanding of sex because you want to take it somewhere to your liking. You had a program that came before your science.

CW: I wrote that program myself based on my own personal observations. Simply because I did so, does that mean that I cannot supply evidence that the findings of this man's studies are based on fabrications? He attempted to write a program for everyone else regarding sex based on lies and deceptions. For the most part, people have accepted his program without knowing who he is or why he did what he did.

M: I have no dog in the Kinsey debate. You can supply all the evidence you want. It may even be good evidence. 0 to 15% does not correspond to any relevant reality I know. For reasons I've already suggested, I find the notion that this is meaningful data extremely remote. It smells like rat.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I looked at your links despite my inkling that it would be partisan, I researched the sources and found them to be biased and not even scientific organizations. My determination is that it is right-wing religious FUD.

Ah, so you opinion negates those that have actually looked at the junk science of kinsey and have shown it is fraudulent? You dismiss the evidence they supply because you claim they are biased? Interesting.

Continue your quest for ignorance if you must...

CsG
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
M: I have no dog in the Kinsey race.

CW: If you live in society, then you have an interest in how society perceives reality. You would certainly be concerned if society as a whole thought that the world was flat because some poseur conducted one experiment by interviewing ten people on what they thought, then reported only the data from the three people that agreed with him that the world is, indeed, flat. This is directly analagous to Kinsey's reports. I have no interest in defaming Kinsey (pretty sure he's dead), but I do have an interest in society being well and truthfully informed.

M: I have no dog in the Kinsey debate. You can supply all the evidence you want. It may even be good evidence. 0 to 15% does not correspond to any relevant reality I know. For reasons I've already suggested, I find the notion that this is meaningful data extremely remote. It smells like rat.

CW: So you're essentially suggesting that the Journal of Social Psychology has a dog in the fight? My entire point is that Kinsey knew the results he wanted and directly manipulated his data collection and reporting methodology to fit those results. His results have since been extended through law to encompass many sex-related laws. This is why I'm concerned.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
John Leo has a good column on Kinsey:

A look at Kinsey

A biographical note here: Years ago, I covered the world of sex research as part of my social-science beat at Time magazine. I quickly figured out that a lot of people in this world seemed to have entered it because of their unusual sexual tastes, opinions, or problems. I think this was certainly true earlier of Kinsey as well. He was an exhibitionist, a voyeur, and a masochist. (This is handled in the movie by Kinsey?s wife?s discovering he has sliced his foreskin. But Kinsey did more grotesque things to his genitals than you want to read about here.) One biographer, James H. Jones, argues that Kinsey was gay from the beginning and riven with guilt about it, but he married and thought of himself as bisexual. The obvious question here is this: What are the odds that a researcher with this set of orientations and attitudes would be drawn to the conclusion that all sexual behavior is equal and that orgasms (and nothing else) count, certainly not how you achieve them or with whom? I would say the odds are very, very good.

The movie stresses how relentlessly nonjudgmental Kinsey was. But as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, Kinsey?s absence of judgment was itself a form of judgment. Kinsey wrote: ?What is right for one individual may be wrong for the next; and what is sin and abomination to one may be a worthwhile part of the next individual?s life.? That certainly defined Kinsey?s own sexual demons out of existence, but it left the field of sexology with a taboo-breaking, anything-goes legacy. It also left one huge open area that has stained sexology ever since: adult-child sex.



Outraged critics of Kinsey often focus on Table 34 of the male book. It lists the sexual responses of children acquired from one of Kinsey?s sources, a pedophile who kept detailed records of his child rapes, including those of a baby of 5 months and a 4-year-old he sexually manipulated for 24 hours. As a nonjudgmental person, Kinsey of course did not bother turning the pedophile over to the law. His critics accuse Kinsey of ?Mengele medicine,? meaning that he presided over Nazi-like experiments. Not so. We have no evidence that Kinsey and his team conducted or approved of any child rapes. He just used the records of pedophiles, coldly described in the first Kinsey report as males who ?with their adult backgrounds are able to recognize and interpret the boys? experiences.? Table 34 was a moral horror, and neither Kinsey nor his patron, the Rockefeller Foundation, seemed to think that anything was amiss.

Table 34 set the stage for what has become dogma in the sex world: All humans are sexual from birth, and since children are sexual, they should be expected to behave sexually. Does this mean that children should be able to have sex with adults? Kinsey didn?t say, but he wrote that the psychic damage to children who have sex with adults comes from the horrified reaction of adults, not from the sex itself. That opinion, a very large bone tossed to advocates of adult-child sex, has become a mantra in the sex world. Some who promote the mantra are sincere?a show of horror by parents of an abused child may indeed make matters worse. But many are advocates of adult-child sex hiding behind a pro-child argument. In my Time days, the air was so thick with sex-world arguments in favor of incest and adult-child sex that I threw a lot of them together in a one-page report. The list included a defense of incest by Wardell Pomeroy, a coauthor of the Kinsey reports. Now that people are once again chattering about Kinsey?s legacy, I hope across-the-board nonjudgmentalism and adult-child sex come up for discussion.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126

M: I have no dog in the Kinsey race.

CW: If you live in society, then you have an interest in how society perceives reality. You would certainly be concerned if society as a whole thought that the world was flat because some poseur conducted one experiment by interviewing ten people on what they thought, then reported only the data from the three people that agreed with him that the world is, indeed, flat. This is directly analagous to Kinsey's reports. I have no interest in defaming Kinsey (pretty sure he's dead), but I do have an interest in society being well and truthfully informed.

M: Desire does not equate to capacity. How to teach is also a science.
------------

M: I have no dog in the Kinsey debate. You can supply all the evidence you want. It may even be good evidence. 0 to 15% does not correspond to any relevant reality I know. For reasons I've already suggested, I find the notion that this is meaningful data extremely remote. It smells like rat.

CW: So you're essentially suggesting that the Journal of Social Psychology has a dog in the fight?

M: I dodn't know that. It wasn't my intention. I don't even know what this means.

CW: My entire point is that Kinsey knew the results he wanted and directly manipulated his data collection and reporting methodology to fit those results. His results have since been extended through law to encompass many sex-related laws. This is why I'm concerned.

M: That wouldn't be good and you aren't just concerned about the false but that you see sexual promiscuity as something essentially evil. It's more than true and false for you, and more about good and evil. So it seems to me.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
M: That wouldn't be good and you aren't just concerned about the false but that you see sexual promiscuity as something essentially evil. It's more than true and false for you, and more about good and evil. So it seems to me.

CW: I see lots of things as evil. I fully understand why 99% (or however many) of Americans are promiscuous. I fully understand why I think promiscuity is wrong (and I can explain, though it's pretty involved and I'm really, really tired tonight :x). I guess my point is that I would vastly prefer that people actually be fed real knowledge to use to form their decisions rather than fed some line by someone with an agenda. You can claim that I have an agenda, but I set that agenda through reason rather than aligning my reason with my agenda. That is the key difference.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
M: That wouldn't be good and you aren't just concerned about the false but that you see sexual promiscuity as something essentially evil. It's more than true and false for you, and more about good and evil. So it seems to me.

CW: I see lots of things as evil. I fully understand why 99% (or however many) of Americans are promiscuous. I fully understand why I think promiscuity is wrong (and I can explain, though it's pretty involved and I'm really, really tired tonight :x). I guess my point is that I would vastly prefer that people actually be fed real knowledge to use to form their decisions rather than fed some line by someone with an agenda. You can claim that I have an agenda, but I set that agenda through reason rather than aligning my reason with my agenda. That is the key difference.

Hope you are well rested. What I am telling you is that you are impelled to reason by emotional forces you do not understand. That includes the false assumption that reason is your guide. The problem is that what is reasonable to you is what accords with the unconscious emotional needs that you are experiencing. I presume to see things this way because I used to do exactly the same thing. For whatever reason my reasons were demolished by my own self critic one by one inexorably until I finally died from a broken heart in utter hopelessness. In the ash of incinerated hope appeared my hearts desire.

Personally I believe that morality is not a code of ethics but a state of being. He who loves himself, the self that is not the ego, will automatically treat others as he wishes others to treat that self, but he who loves his ego will seek self destruction and the destruction of all since the ego treats itself like sh!t, arising as it does out of true-self hate.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'd like to thank Sir Cad and Cycowizard for bringing to my attention the religious zealot hate campaign against Kinsey. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I didn't really know much about Kinsey, nor did I have an opinion about his work. (Predictably, the black and white crowd interpreted my shredding of Cad's lame example as an endorsement of everything Kinsey. Logic is not their strong suit.)

In any case, their foaming, unreasoned attacks caused me to do a little research. What had Kinsey done to threaten them so? I found the answer. He punctured some of their myths. He exposed their hypocritical disinformation, and they hate him for it.

Kinsey was not perfect by any means, but he had the courage and conviction to go where no American had gone before. Until Sir Cad and Cyco started shrieking, I had no idea Kinsey played such a significant role in pulling this country out of centuries of puritan ignorance about human sexuality. Kinsey started our journey out of the sexual dark ages. All thoughtful Americans owe Kinsey a debt of gratitude for opening the door to intelligent, informed, scientific examination of one of the most powerful driving forces of humanity.

As far as the various anti-Kinsey slurs and slanders are concerned, I'll follow this with a couple of articles that address them. As expected, it's the typical lies, distortions, and twisting bits of comments taken out of context. I wonder if our career researcher could point me to the part of the Bible where Christ instructs his extremists to attack and lie about others with whom they disagree.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Here is a link to the Kinsey Institute's response to the allegations. In particular, the Allegations about Childhood data of 1948 link refutes the lies about Kinsey supporting pedophiles:
Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children's sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Judith Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman's lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).

Below is a reiteration of these accusations, recently reported, and the Institute's response.

The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of "science" offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends. (from Dr. Laura's (Schlesinger) website)
  • This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and there is absolutely no evidence that his research "opened flood gates for the sexual abuse of children." Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, and some of the behaviors that they disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those between married adults, were illegal in the 1940's and 1950's. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.

Where did Kinsey's information about children's sexual responses come from?
  • Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children's sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book.

In a British documentary, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires.
  • We have no reason to doubt that this woman was sexually abused. However, Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires. It is conceivable that this woman's father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people have done. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey's correspondence and could not find any that would match this story. We do know that there have been people who have used Kinsey's name to justify what they do sexually, even recently.

Kinsey used a Nazi SS officer from Germany as one of his key contributors
  • In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey invited people to write to him about their sex lives. In 1955, a German wrote to him and told him about his sexual experiences with children. Kinsey, in his reply, was non-judgmental, as usual. He did however point out how strongly society condemned such behavior. Kinsey never made use of the information from this man. He also had no idea that this man had been a Nazi ten years earlier.... To suggest that Kinsey had something to do with Nazi torture of children is a bizarre fabrication.


Allegations and Controversy, 1995-1998

More Controversy about Childhood data

Soon after John Bancroft, M.D., assumed the directorship of The Kinsey Institute in 1995, he was called upon to respond to an allegation by the Family Research Council (FRC) about data on pre-adolescent orgasm that the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey had included 50 years ago in Chapter 5, "Early Sexual Growth and Activity," of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (W.B. Saunders, 1948).

In the fall of 1995, Rep. Steve Stockman, Galveston, Texas, took up the FRC allegation, circulating a letter on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he asked for support for a bill he had introduced to investigate Dr. Kinsey's research. Stockman alleged that this data was derived from federally funded sexual molestation of children (the so-called "Children of Table 34"). Although Stockman's staff were invited to put any questions to The Kinsey Institute and Indiana University, they declined. Stockman held a press conference December 7, 1995, calling for a congressional hearing. No hearing was held and the bill died. Stockman was defeated in the 1996 election.

In 1997, Concerned Women for America referred to this allegation in a press release with a renewed call for a Congressional investigation. In January 1998, Indiana State Representative Woody Burton submitted a House Concurrent Resolution to the Indiana General Assembly regarding Kinsey. In August 1998, a British television station produced a program based heavily on these allegations.

Other public statements on Alfred Kinsey and controversy issued by The Kinsey Institute and Indiana University
  • _______________________________

The development and publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female: "The Kinsey Reports" of 1948 and 1953

Alfred C. Kinsey and his staff
Releasing the Female volume in 1953


When Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey arrived in Bloomington in 1920, he had no idea that he would become a world-famous authority on human sexual behavior. As a professor at Indiana University, Kinsey taught biology courses and collected specimens for his study of a small insect called the gall wasp.
In 1938, he was asked to coordinate a course on marriage-it was taught by a half-dozen members of the IU faculty, but Kinsey's lectures on the biological aspects of married life were by far the most popular with the students. When students asked Dr. Kinsey for further information about sexual behavior, he realized that there was "a gap in our knowledge" of this most basic human activity. Convinced that sex research was an important and long neglected field of study, Kinsey began to collect research data through sexual history interviews.

The first publication to feature the results of Kinsey's research was Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which appeared in January 1948. Kinsey and IU President Herman B Wells had agreed the previous year to create the Institute for Sex Research as a private institution affiliated with Indiana University (the institute was renamed The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction in 1982). The male volume surprised everyone when it quickly became a bestseller, and Dr. Kinsey's name suddenly became synonymous with sex in the minds of many Americans.

Alfred Kinsey began his research on human sexuality alone, but he soon realized that the project was too immense for one person to handle. By 1942, Kinsey had set a goal to collect 100,000 interviews, and as each session lasted at least an hour, he clearly could not do it all himself. However, only a few other people would ever be trained to conduct interviews, partly because of the months of work required to learn Kinsey's method of interviewing. Clyde Martin, Wardell Pomeroy, and Paul Gebhard were the primary researchers hired by Kinsey to assist with the project.

Martin's first job with Dr. Kinsey was tending his garden, but by 1940 the Indiana University undergrad had become the professor's research assistant. He was responsible for computing and statistical analysis of the data produced by the sexual history interviews.

Pomeroy was an Indiana University graduate who was working as a clinical psychologist in South Bend when Kinsey asked him to join the research team in 1943. He was the first person trained by Kinsey to conduct sexual history interviews. Following Kinsey's death in 1956, Pomeroy served as director of field research until 1963.

Gebhard joined the research staff in 1946. A Harvard-trained anthropologist, he conducted interviews and also devised the classification scheme for the Institute's extensive collection of photographs. After Kinsey's death, Gebhard became executive director of the Institute, a position he held until 1982.

Although the primary authors of the books were men, several women on the Institute staff contributed to the book. Jean Brown, Cornelia Christenson, Dorothy Collins, Hedwig Leser, and Eleanor Roehr were all acknowledged as research assistants on the book's title page. Alice Field was a sex researcher, criminologist, and social scientist in New York; as a research associate for the female volume she provided assistance with legal questions


K-Day: A Media Event

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male sold more than 200,000 copies when it was published in 1948. Kinsey and his publisher knew the new book on women would likely create a sensation as well. Journalists frequently asked Kinsey when his findings about American women would be revealed. It was clear that the publication of this book would be widely covered in the press, and Kinsey was concerned that misinformation about the research would appear in print before the book was ready.

In the summer of 1953, several months before the release of the book, Kinsey invited selected journalists to come to Bloomington for a preview of the contents of the female volume. He decided that this would be the best way to control the expected onslaught of media attention directed at this scientific report on women's sexual behavior. Several four-day sessions were held for about 60 magazine writers and newspaper reporters from the United States, England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Australia.

Participants were required to sign a contract in which they agreed to write stories no longer than 5,000 words that would be submitted to Kinsey prior to publication to be checked for factual errors. They also had to agree that their stories would not appear in print until August 20, 1953, a day that became known as "K-Day." No photographs could be taken during the press briefings. Instead, the reporters could purchase staff photographer Bill Dellenback's portraits of Kinsey and his Institute colleagues to illustrate their articles.


Female volume publication

When K-Day finally arrived on August 20, 1953, many people rushed to their newsstands to find out what Dr. Kinsey and his colleagues had discovered about the sexual activities of American women. It was undoubtedly a popular topic of discussion at the workplace and at home-although many agreed with Kinsey's scientific findings, there were also plenty of people who argued that the statistics couldn't be accurate because "good" women would not have engaged in such activities, and if they had, they would not have revealed their experiences to Dr. Kinsey.

Five national magazines hit the stands on K-Day-Collier's, Time, Life, Woman's Home Companion, and Newsweek. Redbook and McCall's appeared the following day. Articles about the book as well as the media frenzy it was creating were published in newspapers around the country and the world, from the Bloomington Herald-Telephone, the Indiana Daily Student, and the Indianapolis Star to the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the London Sunday Dispatch.

On September 14, 1953 the wait was over, as copies of Sexual Behavior in the Human Female went on sale at bookstores around the country. Published by W.B. Saunders, a Philadelphia company that specialized in medical texts, the hardcover book sold for $8.00. This was a high price, but the book quickly made it to the bestseller list.

As expected, the public reaction ranged from admiration and gratitude to horror and disgust. Letters to the editor praised and denounced the book-even members of the clergy differed widely in their opinions, some saying that Kinsey's work would benefit humanity because increased knowledge of our sexual natures could only improve people's lives, while others called the research ungodly and amoral. Reverend Billy Graham declared that Dr. Kinsey "certainly could not have interviewed any of the millions of born-again Christian women in this country who put the highest price on virtue, decency and modesty."

Both Kinsey and President Wells received numerous letters from former IU students, parents, and the general public. Many people wrote to thank Kinsey for his work and to commend Wells for supporting the research, while others complained about the validity of the study and pledged to withdraw all support for the university as long as Dr. Kinsey remained on the faculty.


International Media Response

In 1948, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was a bestseller in the U.S. and quickly become an international sensation. The book was translated and published in Germany, Sweden, France and elsewhere. Although both the male and female volumes used data collected from interviews with American men and women, the rest of the world was fascinated by the findings of the Kinsey Reports.

Interest in Kinsey's statistics on female sexual behavior was widespread by 1953. Journalists from Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, and England were among those who visited Bloomington that summer to be briefed on the contents of the upcoming book. Numerous international papers covered the story before and after the publication of the first American edition of Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in September.

A London tabloid called The People conducted its own survey of more than 1,000 women between the ages of 18 and 50 and found "indications that British women are much more moral, more conventional, and more faithful to the marriage bond than the American women of the Kinsey Report." The paper implied that its data, obtained via an anonymous questionnaire given to randomly-selected women, was more reliable than Kinsey's, because the latter's subjects were volunteers and "therefore the type who were likely to boast about their sexual excesses or abnormalities."
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Here is an Op-Ed from ifeminists.com:
Dr. Alfred Kinsey: Just Another Subject For Some Juicy Media Conflict

November 17, 2004
by Marty Klein, Ph.D



The Bible contains no injunctions against cannibalism. That's not because Hebrews and early Christians thought it was morally acceptable -- it's because no one was doing it.

On the other hand, the Bible contains serious warnings against adultery, incest, and same-gender sex. Obviously, that's because there were people doing these things.

A half-century ago, Alfred Kinsey asked 18,000 Americans what they did sexually. He didn't get any cannibalism, but he did get plenty of adultery, incest, and same-gender sex, along with oral sex, prostitution, and masturbation. Like any good scientist, he categorized the behavior according to fundamental demographic variables: by age, gender, race, religion, and so on. Simple.

Simple except for two things: Millions of frightened people relaxed, and millions of frightened people got more frightened. The first group flocked to his classes and made his books bestsellers, while the second group tried to destroy his livelihood and freedom, and banish his work.

The two groups' descendants are still battling. His professional offspring struggle against government, Church, and even academia to educate and heal Americans. Much of the public cherishes scientific knowledge about their own bodies, and the freedom to use sexuality as a form of self-expression.

The descendants of the second group are still trying to destroy Kinsey fifty years after his death, with bizarre stories of his sadomasochistic, incestuous orgies of child abuse. They warn that Kinsey's work is responsible for America's pornography, sex crimes, and abortions (as if there were none before 1948). They even claim that Kinsey's disciples have infiltrated the Catholic Church, and should be sued for giving bad advice about how to handle pedophile priests. Yes, really.

It's in a country that spends $10 billion per year on porn but which is not allowed to see an entertainer's nipple on TV that the biographical film Kinsey arrives this week. Good news: it's a wonderful film, intelligently written, beautifully photographed, gracefully acted. The era from 1900-1950 is lovingly recreated. There's a little bit of sex (quite gentle except for the Kinseys' wedding night, which was awkward and painful for both) and some nice humor (also quite gentle). The film isn't preachy about the storm of fear, hate, and ignorance that desperately attempted to return America to the closet whose door Kinsey opened with his naive faith in science and human beings.

So for entertainment, go see the film. Or see it to support the producer and distributors, who are being threatened with boycotts from thousands of evangelical websites and pulpits around the country. Or see it because it will put your own struggles for sexual identity and self-validation into a comforting context. That, of course, is Kinsey's ultimate legacy.

But enough about Kinsey the man, or Kinsey the film. Using a well-known American approach, let's talk about the people who hate both man and film, how the media covers this hatred, and why we should care. Because that's what today's electronic media are primarily about: sex and hate. Besides, we're all post-modernists: we've learned that no thing is as real as its broadcast image.

Frightened, angry people are using Kinsey to make points -- to their constituents, to the media, to their own repressed eroticism. There's a whole industry keeping the national fear machine going; not even control of the Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court soothes these folks.

They tell us that Satan literally walks among us, that he will literally be seducing us until Judgment Day. With that siege mentality, it's sensible to constantly scan the horizon for evil. And if sexual impulses are inherently evil, well, we will never run out of evil stuff to fear. Like the Aztecs who were waiting for God when Cortez arrived, Alfred Kinsey is the latest devil for which the Christian Right has been waiting.

The media's in bed with these Satan-worshippers, thrilled to broadcast the latest chapter in America's medieval science-versus-fear marathon. And so Fox, CNN, and the rest have set up a bunch of verbal wrestling matches.

They aren't educational, because there's no attempt to get at the facts. They aren't news because they involve the same old organizations (Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, American Family Association, Bob Jones University) spewing the same old hate. They aren't fair or balanced, because non-scientists are critiquing science. Actually, critiquing isn't the right word, as that implies reasoned examination. It's non-scientists screeching about not liking the results of the science.

Kinsey described sexual reality in America, results that are consistent with later surveys by radicals like the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center and Modern Maturity Magazine. Some people hate and fear that reality. And so they're attempting to kill the messenger. The media is complicit in this manslaughter: they're pretending there are two sides to this, and they're giving each "side" time. (They're actually giving the anti-Kinsey people way more time because their bile is more mediagenic than most scientists' straightforward explanations.)

The two "sides" being presented are 1) scientists and educators and 2) moralists and "concerned citizens." What exactly are the latter's credentials to critique science? To draw conclusions about the effects of science? To predict how things would be different with different science? How many moralists know the difference between a cluster sample, snowball sample, and a random sample -- the key methodological question about the Kinsey data they so confidently disparage?

The anti-Kinsey "side" says:
  • Kinsey used pedophiles to abuse kids to get data.
    This is FALSE.
  • Kinsey himself had sex with kids.
    This is FALSE.
  • Kinsey said that all sex is ok.
    This is FALSE.
  • By neutrally collecting information, Kinsey endorsed everything he heard.
    This is FALSE.
  • By neutrally describing various sexual behaviors, he endorsed them.
    This is FALSE.
  • Because his sample wasn't random, Kinsey's data is skewed toward perversion.
    This is FALSE.

These allegations are not matters of opinion -- they are matters of public record. There aren't two sides to these questions; there's only one side--the truth. But in giving viewers the meta-message that there are two sides to this "controversy," the media not only obscures the truth, it undermines the idea that there IS truth about this. Thus, nothing is required from the audience -- no thought, no evaluation, no growth. In fact, people can watch the conflict without actually listening to what's said, because they know which protagonist they believe based on which "side" they're on.

With all the talk shows purporting to "explore" the Kinsey "controversy," there hasn't been one that has challenged the assumptions of those who damn him:
  • Information is dangerous
  • People weren't already doing "those things" before Kinsey reported them
  • Sexual ignorance has no personal or social costs
  • Sexual problems didn't exist before Kinsey did his work
  • Science should not challenge society's status quo
Kinsey accurately noted that Americans enjoyed oral sex, masturbation, and premarital sex. Today, virtually everyone accepts this as factual, and organizations from the American Medical Association to the Unitarian Church accept these behaviors as healthy when done honestly and respectfully. But many people are uncomfortable with, and disown, their own behavior. Our President, who had plenty of premarital sex, insists we spend hundreds of millions of dollars teaching kids not to.

Kinsey and his interviewers asked about both attitudes and behavior, but he felt that behavior spoke more eloquently. "Often," he said, "the expressed attitudes are in striking contradiction to the actual behavior, and then they are significant because they indicate the existence of psychic conflict."

Kinsey: still telling the truth after all these years.
The last line says it all.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Ldir
You make random claims without backing them up. You give irrelevant examples. You think funda-Mental literature is science. You do not know basic concepts like causal relationships and citing sources. But you expect us to believe you know WTF you are talking about? Sure whatever. Your science is a joke and so are you.
Can't attack my point of view or my evidence, attack me instead. Thanks for demonstrating yourself for the crowd. :cookie:

You are the one who made it about you by bragging about being a great scientist and researcher. Now that I have exposed that joke you want to discuss evidence. What evidence? All you offer is your opinions and unscientific religious FUD.

You can have your :cookie: back. It will go good with your whine.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'd like to thank Sir Cad and Cycowizard for bringing to my attention the religious zealot hate campaign against Kinsey. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I didn't really know much about Kinsey, nor did I have an opinion about his work. (Predictably, the black and white crowd interpreted my shredding of Cad's lame example as an endorsement of everything Kinsey. Logic is not their strong suit.)

In any case, their foaming, unreasoned attacks caused me to do a little research. What had Kinsey done to threaten them so? I found the answer. He punctured some of their myths. He exposed their hypocritical disinformation, and they hate him for it.

Kinsey was not perfect by any means, but he had the courage and conviction to go where no American had gone before. Until Sir Cad and Cyco started shrieking, I had no idea Kinsey played such a significant role in pulling this country out of centuries of puritan ignorance about human sexuality. Kinsey started our journey out of the sexual dark ages. All thoughtful Americans owe Kinsey a debt of gratitude for opening the door to intelligent, informed, scientific examination of one of the most powerful driving forces of humanity.

As far as the various anti-Kinsey slurs and slanders are concerned, I'll follow this with a couple of articles that address them. As expected, it's the typical lies, distortions, and twisting bits of comments taken out of context. I wonder if our career researcher could point me to the part of the Bible where Christ instructs his extremists to attack and lie about others with whom they disagree.

:thumbsup:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Kinsey and his interviewers asked about both attitudes and behavior, but he felt that behavior spoke more eloquently. "Often," he said, "the expressed attitudes are in striking contradiction to the actual behavior, and then they are significant because they indicate the existence of psychic conflict."

Psychic conflict? Now imagine that. Is that where our phony ego-constructed, false-self, begins to suspect?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'd like to thank Sir Cad and Cycowizard for bringing to my attention the religious zealot hate campaign against Kinsey. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I didn't really know much about Kinsey, nor did I have an opinion about his work. (Predictably, the black and white crowd interpreted my shredding of Cad's lame example as an endorsement of everything Kinsey. Logic is not their strong suit.)

In any case, their foaming, unreasoned attacks caused me to do a little research. What had Kinsey done to threaten them so? I found the answer. He punctured some of their myths. He exposed their hypocritical disinformation, and they hate him for it.

Kinsey was not perfect by any means, but he had the courage and conviction to go where no American had gone before. Until Sir Cad and Cyco started shrieking, I had no idea Kinsey played such a significant role in pulling this country out of centuries of puritan ignorance about human sexuality. Kinsey started our journey out of the sexual dark ages. All thoughtful Americans owe Kinsey a debt of gratitude for opening the door to intelligent, informed, scientific examination of one of the most powerful driving forces of humanity.

As far as the various anti-Kinsey slurs and slanders are concerned, I'll follow this with a couple of articles that address them. As expected, it's the typical lies, distortions, and twisting bits of comments taken out of context. I wonder if our career researcher could point me to the part of the Bible where Christ instructs his extremists to attack and lie about others with whom they disagree.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I finally saw this movie and it was great. It was sad how so many in society have been victimized by puritanism. I always just thought previous generations were more prude, but in fact they were just had no guidance and certain people just wanted to obfuscate.

It's sad that zealots today are still trying to carry on this battle to denigrate Kinsey. Thank goodness they are mostly marginal types these days.
 

wylecoyote

Member
Nov 14, 2004
141
0
0
I just spent waaaay too much time reading through this post-- I should be working on my senior thesis on Milton's Paradise Lost.

However, a few things struck me.

I'd like to acknowledge the likes of Bowfinger and Infohawk (and others, I'm sure I'm missing some) for producing eloquent, well-written, and brutally effective arguments. Your posts totally and utterly subvert and undermine your oppenents.

Seriously. I'm not being sarcastic. When can I buy you guys a beer? It's been a total blast reading your responses.

Guys, fantastic work. Brilliant.

And CsG, sorry man...

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I watched it. I can see why Concerned Women For America (aka Frigid Nuns for America) would have a problem with it.