The New York Times questioned his character extensively: "If the field of sex studies owes its existence to Kinsey, the field of Kinsey studies owes its existence to James H. He was consumed by a grotesque, debilitating obsession with a wide range of abnormal behaviors-I’ll spare you the details, but I doubt very much that in all the 62 years of Kinsey’s miserable life he knew even one day of what we would consider healthy sexuality." He was a depraved human being, and his emotional illness expressed itself through his sexuality. I am not easily shocked.īut when I began to read Kinsey’s official biography…what can I tell you? He was-please excuse the technical jargon-a real mental case. I’ve been a psychiatrist for thirty years, and trust me, I’ve met some very strange people. Despite being a controversial character herself, the evidence form Reisman's investigations are startling.ĭr Miriam Grossman puts it this way: "When I say that Kinsey was a deeply disturbed individual, it fails to capture the level of his psychopathology. We know now thanks to what you might call the outright harassment of him by a fundamentalist Christian campaigner Dr. What's most disturbing is who this man was and what his intentions were. He argued specifically for granting immediate paroles to suspected child molesters, and warned that societal “hysteria” does more harm to children than the actual molestation: " It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts." In 1949, he testified before the California General Assembly’s Subcommittee on Sex Crimes, urging them to liberalise sex offense statutes. His "Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating Scale" ran from 1-6 (1 hetero, 6 homo) with an additional classification of X (asexual). Kinsey's work is cited as authoritative "evidence" on human sexuality, and popularised the contemporary belief people aren't necessarily born heterosexual, but vary in their disposition. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).The first was composed of interview with 5,300 "men" (ahem) and the other, around 8,000 "women" (ahem). Kinsey & Table 34: The "Spectrum" of Sexualityīetween 19, Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist at Indiana University, published two "reports" which are cited as "evidence" human sexuality is "fluid" and exists on a continuum scale. Their ideas are celebrated and constituted as Western "sex education" we take for granted as part of the topic list for schoolchildren.Īs with all the social sciences, the corruption follows a similar modus operandi: these politicised "academics" started with the conclusion they wanted to reach, and made sure the methodology and evidence "proved" it. Money's notions of "gender roles" are accepted as gospel, as is Kinsey's "scale", due to political groups leveraging them as "evidence" for moral claims which become laws and curricula. Our modern, contemporary attitudes to sexuality and gender are based on the social sciences' academic laundering of these individual's so-called "groundbreaking" material. These men are to sexuality what Josef Mengele was to genetics. The very idea the state or the education system should provide lessons on sexuality is the result of these people's ideas. John Money's literature provided the foundation of revolutionary thinking on "sex change" and "gender identity". The first lessons on sexuality were devised in 1919 communist Hungary by Georg Lukacs, Deputy Commissar for Culture in the provisional Bolshevik Bela Kun government, whose publicly-stated mission was to remove the "roadblock" of religious morality.Īlfred Kinsey's bestselling hooks provided the foundation of the claims made for the "Sexual Revolution" and gay rights movements. Sex itself was somewhat private and taboo, mostly for understandable reasons further than Victorian prudence: venereal disease and unexpected pregnancy were lethal. Why Are These Men Important?īefore the 1950s, "sex education" was extremely controversial. Many of these men - such as paedophile rapist Michel Foucault - seemed to have been hellbent on using academic theory to justify their horrifying sociopathy and its ghastly sexual expression. However, if you take a look at the men behind the ideas, what you find is so repulsive it would damage any reasonable person's adoption of them as orthodoxy. These "fathers of the Sexual Revolution" form the intellectual and supposedly moral basis of modern thinking around gender and sexuality. You'd be forgiven for not knowing who these two people were, and there's a reason you don't.
0 kommentar(er)
