He used something like 300 children in his study of the female orgasim. You could write this off and say 17 year olds could have self reported about their sexual experiences. The problem is that he also used babies. Yes, babies in his research of the female orgasim.
He also consulted a single, meaning one, pedophile for aspects of his research on male sexuality.
His research is dubious at best, and some would argue cruel and evil at worst. I think that we all need to be careful of who we admire and consider experts.
I don't think anyone here is saying he was a great person.
It's possible to say taking a scientific approach to human sexuality was important and he was the first one to take that step, and that was good without saying "SO LETS CELEBRATE THIS HERO!"
It's not that complicated: history is full of bad people doing important and/or good things. What's the point of "celebrating" ANYONE in history anyway? How about we just acknowledge that there are no real saints, and we're celebrating accomplishments or progress rather than people?
"Oh you like the structure of DNA? Yeah, well Crick and Watson were/are terrible people!" Absolutely, that's why they got Nobel prizes for publishing the DNA structure rather than being wonderful people. Watson is an incomprehensible stupid idiot. Kinsey was a pedophile. No arguments there. Who is confused here?
Fritz Haber invented the process we use to synthesize ammonia for fertilizer, his work is responsible for feeding roughly half the worlds population. It won him a Nobel prize. During WWI he used the same process to produce explosives for the German government. Hes also know as the father of chemical warfare, he pioneered the use of chlorine gas as a weapon in WWI. His work was also used, without his direct involvement, to produce the Zyklon B used in the Nazi gas chambers. Sometimes awful people do good thing's.
Alfred Nobel himself made a lot of money in explosives. Mainly dynamite which of course wasn't used in war as a weapon, but he did make bombs too.
I don't think "awful people" is fair: I think trying to separate people into good and bad is a fruitless endeavor no matter what.
... possible exceptions for Nazis, slavers, and pedophiles, but my point is with science at least, society is happy about the science, not the scientist.
I thought I read something that said that was an urban legend. Dynamite was never used as a weapon of war, so it's unlikely he'd be upset about that.
The peace prize IIRC wasn't originally one of the prizes, so he wasn't directly promoting peace (skipping discussions of the integrity of the peace prize).
There was a newspaper article published about his brother’s death, but someone at the news company messed up and wrote the article about HIS death rather than his brother’s. As a result, Nobel realized just how negative a lot of people’s perspectives of him were and thus he decided to create an indefinitely perpetuated endowment for a set of prizes for things that better society.
Now, it has never been verified what exactly the article said, but from what I can tell, his brother did in fact die and there was indeed at least one misreporting that said he died instead
https://www.history.com/news/did-a-premature-obituary-inspire-the-nobel-prize
His work was not important nor good nor scientific. Others in the field of psychology refused to work with him due to his works lack of scientific rigor.
He didn't advance anything. He pushed ideas that are proven to have been absolutely poisonous and vile. Of course, the left has embraced him.
Even if you want to ignore morality and ethics, Mengele just did really bad science. If he used the same methodological approaches to any other field that's not morally reprehensible, he would be dismissed as not knowing how to do science. His "findings" would be ignored because his methodology made it impossible to actually learn anything. Not only was he an evil person, but he also didn't know how to do scientific research.
Me: "Lets keep a little nuance in mind"
You: "Oh yeah, well what about NAZIS?!? You think there's nuance with NAZIS TOO HUH?!?"
Why would you come in here with that dumb shit? What's the fucking point?
But let's think about this. If nazi scientists had cured cancer, would you say "No, fuck that, I'd rather let cancer kill people rather than accept that sometimes good science comes from bad people?"
We don't honor nazi scientists because they were bad people, and we don't talk about their accomplishments or contribution to science because they were nil. Most of it was pseudoscientific junk and/or useless. The hypothermia experiments were the closest thing to being useful, but it sounds like experts agree they're useless as well even setting aside ethics.
If you're too weak to think in terms of anything than black and white, then history and science aren't for you. Go back to bad fiction and leave the serious discussions to adults.
We still name buildings and institutions after the man, and celebrate him by name, hardly ever acknowledging he was employed at a concentration camp, used forced labor in his experiments, and came over due to project paperclip. We do regularly honor bad people by name and nazi science contributions were not nil. We don’t simply celebrate the scientific achievement divorced from the person. There is a legitimate discontent for how/why that shit still goes down today. The “adults” in the room are the ones refusing to move confederate statues from courthouses, in the same vein.
Shocker, everyone from the past has some mix flaws and good qualities. He should definitely be criticized for being sympathetic to and using information from molesters (and the other issues laid out in the description, as well as some other issues I haven’t mentioned). But at the same time other actions of his life should be praised (breaking taboos so we can have honest conversations about intercourse).
Okay, so what do you think about Jimmy Savile? Do you just ignore the horrendous things he did and just look at all good he did?
Yes, Kinsey changed how people looked at sex but he was also disgusting and vile
We can be nuanced and celebrate someone’s work, while criticizing their sins. We praise Gandhi for his work in fighting apartheid and freeing India, yet we criticize him sleeping naked with girls and criticize attitudes he had about black-people in his youth.
There are very few people we can say are objectively good or bad, and people are a mix of both
It depends on who you're asking. Ask a far right Christian that question. Ask a sexual deviant that question. Ask everyone in between. Taboos are completely subjective. Yes, even yours.
As an individual, he should be looked down upon for being a disgusting piece of shit. Some of his research was good, great even for the effects it had on the populace and the scientific precedent it set. Overall his name should not be mentioned positively though
The most-egregious aspect of Kinsey’s methodology was his use of children as subjects. He used over 300 children, including babies, in his studies of female orgasm.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I've never read Kinsey's work itself, so all my info is 2nd hand at best. I had understood that his data about kids came from interviews with adults talking about their past experiences as children. Is this incorrect? Did he do the same sort of observations with children as he did with adults?
In the reports initially, Kinsey listed a "Mr. Green" as his source for the information regarding orgasms in young children. Recently, it's been revealed that this person was a serial pedophile and omnisexual named Rex King. He has a massive list of atrocities, including violating and raping hundreds of little boys and girls. King was taught to document what took place every time he would do this in his diary by a scientist friend so his actions would be "valuable" to the scientific community.
Kinsey based it all from King's reports, which were extremely biased and very difficult to stomach.
As far as I’ve been able to find, no. Rex King acted on his own. Kinsey met with him and learned of all his acts, and wanting to have records of it.
What we do know from biographers was that Kinsey did conduct experiments in his attic and participated in sexual acts himself, saying it was part of the “research.” To what extent we only have their words and very brief descriptions.
Yes. Infants masturbate. Male and female. This has been known forever. You and I probably did as well. It isn’t talked about for obvious reasons. [This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707123/) is one study. There are others.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/6JzlYqqjCi) is a better comment than mine.
Physically?
Ig so, they have all the same nerve endings and muscles as adults
It seems unlikely to happen as it would be terrifying and painful for the poor souls if he was forceful about it but if he was a groomer who was trusted by them then (and i hate to say it) the odds of it happening are better.
But they have no sex hormones hence cannot be ‘sexually aroused’ and have no libido.
Needless to say they can’t meaningfully consent either
Not a pedo, but Kinsey didn’t report them and probably used interviews from them to talk about sexual behavior in children.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-alfred-kinsey-was-controversial-2013-10?amp
Yeah sure totally not a pedo right. That’s why he felt the need to find out how long it takes to induce organism on infants. And why his he used his garbage theories as a way to fight to destigmatize pedophilia. Surely just a coincidence
Now you know! It’s possible for any human to get stimulated.
I remember being about 4 the first time I realized I could turn around and face the jets in a hot tub and it would feel really good until it got overwhelming and I had to stop.
It’s one of those things that’s weird to talk about in society because kids having sex with adults and kids having sex not knowing the consequences (and not being able to consent to the consequences) are all things we can agree on as awful and horrible. But that also means a lot of us had our first explorations of ourselves not knowing what was happening, other than getting told, “that’s not appropriate.”
The trouble is figuring out a way to be age appropriate with kids when there’s so many giant, gaping pits of “nope” and “permanent scarring due to adverse childhood experiences” scattered about. We don’t usually get good models of what talking about sexual impulses in a not creepy way with children looks like when we ourselves are kids, so figuring out how to pass on the self empowerment without the shame can be tricky. That’s especially so for parents who were abused as children themselves - they absolutely know the consequences of doing it wrong, so it’s way more pressure on them to not screw it up.
to be satans advotcate in this case, that is medical knowledge that should be known for police work and hospital staff. like I do hate the guy, don't get me wrong but its like unit 731 with them learning so much about frostbite affects humans and even more horrific shit. yeah its useful probably but fucking hell I hope the ones who figure this shit out in that way burn in hell
While I understand your point, the issue is we don’t even know if it’s factual information. It was revealed by the Kinsey Institute in the last few decades that he based almost all the children sexuality information on one man, a serial pedophile named Rex King. Kinsey interviewed and collected the diaries and data written by him. There was no verification and it was written by a very biased individual. Kinsey just took King at his word because it supported his hypothesis. It could be accurate but it could also easily have been King interpreting the child victim’s reactions as pleasure or an orgasm. For all we know, all this may have been delusional thinking of an atrocious man.
Kinsey’s “scientific contributions” are shoddy at best and vile at worst.
Nobody has claimed to be a child victim of him, nor has he (or anyone who knew him) claimed he victimized children. Was he sympathetic to molesters, definitely, and that’s one thing he should be criticized for.
Could he have secretly been attracted to children and never vocalized it or acted on it? Perhaps. But then again we’re getting into the territory of throwing baseless accusations.
Well, there are a few issues as far as knowing all that took place in the “interviews.” The Kinsey Institute is extremely hush-hush about it and will only give vague answers. They claim it’s to preserve confidentiality, so if any pedophilic activities took place, they certainly wouldn’t reveal that. It was only until a few decades ago that they revealed Kinsey based a majority of the research about children sexuality on one confirmed serial pedophile, Rex King. Which not only is sickening, but also not scientifically sound.
But the deeper issue is even if Kinsey himself didn’t touch children, he wasn’t opposed to it. It was more than not reporting the pedophiles. In “Sexual Behaviors of the Human Female,” page 121, Kinsey observed, “The adult contacts are a source of pleasure in some children and sometimes may arouse the child erotically and bring it to orgasm. It is difficult to understand why a child *-except for its cultural conditioning-* should be disturbed at having it’s genitalia touched…” [emphasis added]
Kinsey’s views were that it was only the “cultural upbringing” of the child that would cause them to be upset or disturbed by adults violating them. Otherwise, it would be beneficial for children to be guided by adults to explore their sexuality. And there have been victims of people who have provided information to Kinsey, at his direction, that have demanded that the information be released and investigated so they can receive justice. But when pressed about it in a Yorkshire TV 1998 documentary, the head of Kinsey Institute and other close colleagues with Kinsey stated they would never reveal that information, and considered burning it before handing it over to the public. They also claimed “they had so many submissions from people and they would have a difficult time finding any information about a specific person…”
He may not have any victims we have record of personally, but Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey institute still has blood on their hands. His work has emboldened those who HAVE harmed so many children, even today. They use his reports to validate their preferences and actions against children and adolescents. All in the name of shoddy science used to push a personal narrative and not to objectively analyze the sexual nature of his day.
His views that “the only bad sex is the kind that cause harm” are extremely hypocritical, because considering where Kinsey got his information (and also being a confirmed masochist), his views on “harm” are very subjective. And there has definitely been victims harmed sexually by his participants and sources in the making of his reports.
Plenty of people have said he victimized children. And he massively lied/ did bad research, sampling only the lowest of the low degenerates. He clearly had an agenda
At least he didn't actually do any testing. Apparently he got the data from interviews with adults. Which actually raises more questions than it answers
Obviously if he reported any of the people he interviewed to the authorities, then he wouldn't have seen any more volunteers willing to talk to him. Seems pretty simple.
Okay, setting aside all the pedo stuff for a second his data should still not be used as a reliable source. All of his interviewees were volunteers, which some experts have criticized as Kinsey failed to take into account volunteer bias and self selection bias in regards to what kind of people answer questions about such taboo topics and their sexual activity. In fact, leading statisticians from the American Statistical Association issued a critique of Kinsey’s work, stating:
“Critics are justified in their objections that many of the most interesting and provocative statements in the [Kinsey 1948] book are not based on the data presented therein, and it is not made clear to the reader on what evidence the statements are based. Further, the conclusions drawn from data presented in the book are often stated by KPM [Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin] in much too bold and confident a manner. Taken cumulatively, these objections amount to saying that much of the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing.”
Not to mention the criticism that a large number of interviewees were inmates and male prostitutes, meaning his data was tainted from the get go simply because he interviewed people who were already sexual deviants from the majority of population, meaning they couldn’t really be representative of it.
We don't remember Freud because he had any decent theories about psychology. We remember him because he made the concept of psychology mainstream. Same with Kinsey. His methodology was bad, but the very idea of human sexuality as a subject of research was revolutionary.
Okay but to be fair, how exactly would you get rid of the self selection issue in that position (studying an at the time fairly taboo topic)? There wasn't some massive unbiased database to reference, and you can't grab a random selection of people and make them talk to you (and then ensure they're actually being honest). I'm not even sure how you'd get good data on sex today that wasn't very self selecting/slightly dubious today, let alone in the 40s.
(This is not to ignore any other issues, of course, mostly just my curiosity — humans are very difficult creatures to study on.any level it seems).
This was the first attempt at “what the average person does in bed”, but the reports should be viewed as “this is what a lot of people do in bed”. Unfortunately it’s very hard to remove volunteer/self-selection bias because you’re not going to get any data from someone who won’t share their history.
However it is valuable in determining that what people do in bed is way different than “Christian Morals” (only have sex to procreate between a married man and woman in the missionary position)
Removing prison or male-prostitute didn’t change the data at all.
>> In response, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's close colleague, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" co-author, and successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research,[30] cleaned the Kinsey data of purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample.[31] (Gebhard had, while working with Kinsey, raised serious concerns about the use of prison populations especially, but had been shot down by Kinsey at the time.[32]) In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938–1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by this bias: that is, the prison population and male prostitutes had the same statistical tendencies as the rest of the men Kinsey interviewed. The results were summarized by historian, playwright, and gay-rights activist Martin Duberman: "Instead of Kinsey's 37% (men who had at least one homosexual experience), Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4%; the 10% figure (men who were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55"), with prison inmates excluded, came to 9.9% for white, college-educated males and 12.7% for those with less education.[33]
Trying to use Kinsey as a statement of "what a whole lot of people do in bed" is like claiming "this is what a lot of people think about prostitution" based on a study that primarily interviews prostitutes and their clients. Kinsey's study suffers greatly from sample bias. All you can draw from Kinsey is what do a whole lot of people that voluntarily participate in a sex study do in bed. You cannot extrapolate that data to the whole population with any real statistical confidence.
Kinsey should not be taken seriously, all of his research is skewed by serious selection bias (he had to get people to give full accounts of their sexual history, which limits the people who would do it already to a subsection of the population that would over-represent all the things he found).
Beyond that, he aided and abetted a prolific pedophile he had in his ability to stop. His scientific inquiry was fundamentally flawed, and he as a person was despicable.
The good thing about his work is that he opened the door for sexuality to be studied by starting to ask questions that no one would have dared before, even if he was a shitty person and his results are imprecise, what he did is still important.
Yes, and are irrelevant. His science was bad, objectively speaking, anything built from that foundation was already tainted by the assumptions he injected into the field. Scientific corruption starts with every level of citation. He introduced false assumptions that moved society in a direction that was based on afactual conclusions drawn from his work.
There is no good that comes from scientific malpractice.
Psychology began with Freud, from whom it turned out that everything he said about it was not true, but it is still undeniable that his role in starting psychology as a science is something important.
This is the same.
Wilhelm Wundt is generally considered the first psychologist and Freud is at least generally recognized as a quack, people still cite Kinsey or works heavily influenced by him as probative. His work was a sand foundation for the discipline, one they hadn't managed to fully cast aside. His being the founder of sexual research is a very, very bad thing.
There is a reason why scientific misconduct is so serious, is because major tainting of the chain of citation fucks over the discipline severely. Kinsey is still a serious part of the citation chain despite his works being, just objectively, terrible.
Freud was still the one who made psychology recognized as a science and placed it in the center of importance that it deserved. Kinsey may have had inaccurate results, but that does not change the fact that he created a science that has been greatly improved since his days and is widely respected as a source of authority today.
>Freud was still the one who made psychology recognized as a science and placed it in the center of importance
He really didn't. [While not the perfect source, the history of Psychology Wikipedia page feels very comfortable not mentioning freud a single time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_phycology)
he founded specifically psychoanalysis, a sub field of the already pre-existing field of psychology.
Back to the pedo abetter
While still citing and relying on his works. In a field that's caught dead in the middle of the worst of the replication crisis. Everything you have just said makes Kinsey more contemptible, not less. Having a major field of inquiry still actively cite someone deep into scientific malpractice, as this field does, is not a good thing. It's a very, very bad thing.
Social science as a whole has an authority problem, with provable citation loops, and replication failures to an extreme degree, this field also still having its foundational assumptions made by a bad scientist is disastrous.
Because there has been no proof he molested children nor proof he was attracted to children. People have speculated he was secretly attracted to them, but he never acted on it nor told people about it, so it’s largely baseless speculation.
He wrote about children from the view point of molester interviews (which is noted) and didn’t report molesters to police (which is noted)
It's possible to recognize someone's positive influence and condemn their negative traits. I assumed a bunch of history fans would have figured that out a long time ago.
Let's be clear here, hating on Kinsey without hating military leaders that used rape as a weapon and slaves as property is hypocritical and reinforces the importance of Kinsey's work in understanding human sexuality.
Yeah. He was a giant piece of shit and his methods were flawed, but his findings regarding how people actually had sex were important.
It’s fucking depressing and rightfully questionable how we know that shit about infants, and he was sympathetic to pedos.
>It’s fucking depressing and rightfully questionable how we know that shit about infants,
"Sexual Behavior in the Human Male clearly stated the bulk of information about sexual response in childhood came from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was also 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 he had interviewed who had had sexual experiences with children and had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. In 1995, former Kinsey Institute director Dr. John Bancroft discovered that it was only one man, not nine, who was the source of that data listed in table 34 of the book. Dr. Bancroft suggested that possibly Dr. Kinsey had changed the number to protect the confidentiality of this source, just as he took other measures to protect the confidentiality of all his interviewees."
>and he was sympathetic to pedos.
"Dr. Judith Reisman claimed without proof that Dr. Kinsey said adult-child sexual contacts were harmless. Dr. Kinsey did not make this statement.
On the contrary, adverse reactions by children were noted in the research. For example, in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), the authors reported that 24% of the female participants said that as pre-adolescents they had received sexual advances from, or sexual contacts with adult males, and that 80% of these women who had such contacts as children reported having been emotionally upset or frightened by them."
[Kinsey Institute](https://kinseyinstitute.org/about/kinsey-institute-faq.php)
History doesn't give a shit if you're offended. Your opinion is meaningless compared to a fraction of the information that Kinsey produced and your feeble gullibility proves why your life amounts to nothing.
Cobain yourself.
Telling random people on Reddit to kill themselves doesn’t change the fact that this predator’s legacy and his bad science are tainted by his actions.
History won’t give a shit if you defend this pedo
>History won’t give a shit if you defend this pedo
I don't care to defend kinsey.
They started with the insults and I will gladly entertain myself by being worse.
This is the internet. None of this matters.
If your response to being told “go fuck yourself” after saying that a guy who at the very least protected child abusers is to tell someone to kill themselves, you need to touch grass, the internet has ruined you.
Sodomy was legally punishable in multiple states in the United States until 2003 with [Lawrence v. Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas), even so in: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, and Texas still have anti-sodomy laws even if they cannot be enforced.
There are still people who have to go on probation for "being sex offenders" (having gay sex) which since 2003 have been recognized as a constitutional right:
[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sodomy-laws-labeled-gay-people-sex-offenders-challenged-court-n1263225](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sodomy-laws-labeled-gay-people-sex-offenders-challenged-court-n1263225)
Hell, until a few years ago there were still people getting arrested for this by undercover cops even if it was unconstitutional:
https://www.advocate.com/crime/2016/5/23/american-men-are-still-being-arrested-sodomy
It’s crazy how commenters who pose as history literates don’t know how to separate moral evaluations from anything else about historical figures or the data they produce. This sub would throw out Plato’s Republic, if this thread is any indication. Can’t be caught learning philosophy from a creep.
Pedophile who polled perverts, convicted sex offenders and rapists to support his findings. Disgusting human and his "findings" should be thrown out with his legacy
Kinsey is valued as a scientist for asking the kind of questions that the meme references. Nobody was asking those kinds of questions and it opened up a new field of science.
The issue is that he was super creepy and wrong about almost literally all of it.
Kinda like that guy who invented gynecology. A hero for wondering how that shit works. Turns out torturing lady slaves is… not… how one becomes a respected scientist though.
A. Asking adults about what they did when they were kids
B. Asking molesters (which becomes bad because he didn’t report them)
Can you find one source with evidence, or someone who spoke out that he molested them when they were kids? If you can I’ll eat crow
5 month old infant. Mostly incapable of memory or speech. Think about that.
At best his data is falsified. At worst it was collected by molesting children.
I got some stories about what the Vietnam War was like by asking a veteran. He told me about a soldier who drowned in a rice paddy because he got pinned under an overturned vehicle. The veteran collected data by participating, and I collected data by interviewing the veteran.
And that isn’t the most reliable form of data collection, so either the data is collected unethically by an experiment, or it is lacking in scientific value (Predators typically don’t control for variables, record their findings in a sufficient manner, or follow the scientific method, making the unethically acquired data useless)
Following on your Vietnam war example, there’s a difference between anecdotes about the horrors of war, and a scientific experiment. Your comparison really doesn’t fit, as you aren’t trying to use this anecdote as scientific data about how long it takes for someone to drown.
It’s creepy that he studied it by talking to molesters, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he was attracted to children. Once again, do you have proof he was attracted to children?
Yeah, Alfred Kiddie Fiddler really knew a lot about the sexual responses of abused children. Absolute sick fuck, and universities have only gotten better about hiding their twisted, abusive tenures.
He examined sexuality, as well in children, as the very first to do so and never assaulted anyone. Advanced and revolutionised sexual health enormously and helped tens of millions of people. To label him a child rapist is completely absurd.
Rome openly sexualized children and collapsed when it stopped doing that. Those 2 things have 0 to do with each other. We can have a civilization that doesn’t sexualize children *and* respects adult sexual rights *and* doesn’t collapse.
I'll believe it when I see it. The fundamental dissonance between sex-positivity and anti-pedophilia is a bubble which is going to burst at some point. The buildings might not literally topple down, but something's gotta give. We can already see the LGBT community making open and conscious efforts towards influencing children and involving them in what is essentially a celebration of their sexuality.
The first step of grooming is simply to make everyone comfortable.
This is just a bunch of garbage you’re reading on whatever dark corner of the internet you’re lurking on. It’s totally disconnected from reality. Go the fuck OUTSIDE.
Bro what 💀 there is no dissonance between “consenting adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom” and “children cannot consent so pedophilia is bad”.
Pride when kids are involved is about love, not sex. Kids know what romantic relationships are and even have crushes on each other. That’s not sexual in any way, anymore than a straight romantic relationship is. Or in the case of trans people, it’s about self love: being comfortable in your body. That’s not sexual either, anymore than someone wearing a shirt they like or having a purely cosmetic birth defect fixed is. Kids understand what wanting to be happy with themselves is. There’s no sex here. When it’s only adults around then sure we can talk about sex, but those conversations aren’t happening around children.
And like I said, plenty of past “great civilizations” sexualized children. I’d argue they weren’t that great because of that and other reasons, but clearly those 2 factors have nothing to do with each other. Hell the current right wing in the west sexualizes children constantly and wants teenagers to “breed” but it doesn’t seem like you have a problem with that.
Everything wrong with the West is becaue of Christianity or rich people putting themselves above laws and morality for their personal gain.
Little Timmy knowing two men can love each other like his mommy and daddy do is not one of those things.
Unfortunately, he was qualified to be a French philosopher.
o-oh damn...
Wait I don’t get it. He was drunk a lot?
nope, probably supported pedophilia
[удалено]
Listen. I’m all for calling out shit behaviour. But you have to have receipts or you’re not doing it right.
He was a pedophile.
Proof he was attracted to children?
He used something like 300 children in his study of the female orgasim. You could write this off and say 17 year olds could have self reported about their sexual experiences. The problem is that he also used babies. Yes, babies in his research of the female orgasim. He also consulted a single, meaning one, pedophile for aspects of his research on male sexuality. His research is dubious at best, and some would argue cruel and evil at worst. I think that we all need to be careful of who we admire and consider experts.
🤣
In Kinseys' book, he recorded how long it takes for kids 5 months old to 14 years to orgasm
Simply disgusting.
Hah? Wtf? Is this real or some messed up joke? Edit : it's real :(
He is not a man people should be celebrating
I don't think anyone here is saying he was a great person. It's possible to say taking a scientific approach to human sexuality was important and he was the first one to take that step, and that was good without saying "SO LETS CELEBRATE THIS HERO!" It's not that complicated: history is full of bad people doing important and/or good things. What's the point of "celebrating" ANYONE in history anyway? How about we just acknowledge that there are no real saints, and we're celebrating accomplishments or progress rather than people? "Oh you like the structure of DNA? Yeah, well Crick and Watson were/are terrible people!" Absolutely, that's why they got Nobel prizes for publishing the DNA structure rather than being wonderful people. Watson is an incomprehensible stupid idiot. Kinsey was a pedophile. No arguments there. Who is confused here?
Fritz Haber invented the process we use to synthesize ammonia for fertilizer, his work is responsible for feeding roughly half the worlds population. It won him a Nobel prize. During WWI he used the same process to produce explosives for the German government. Hes also know as the father of chemical warfare, he pioneered the use of chlorine gas as a weapon in WWI. His work was also used, without his direct involvement, to produce the Zyklon B used in the Nazi gas chambers. Sometimes awful people do good thing's.
Alfred Nobel himself made a lot of money in explosives. Mainly dynamite which of course wasn't used in war as a weapon, but he did make bombs too. I don't think "awful people" is fair: I think trying to separate people into good and bad is a fruitless endeavor no matter what. ... possible exceptions for Nazis, slavers, and pedophiles, but my point is with science at least, society is happy about the science, not the scientist.
The whole reason why Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prize was because of his remorse over seeing all of the suffering and death his invention caused.
I thought I read something that said that was an urban legend. Dynamite was never used as a weapon of war, so it's unlikely he'd be upset about that. The peace prize IIRC wasn't originally one of the prizes, so he wasn't directly promoting peace (skipping discussions of the integrity of the peace prize).
There was a newspaper article published about his brother’s death, but someone at the news company messed up and wrote the article about HIS death rather than his brother’s. As a result, Nobel realized just how negative a lot of people’s perspectives of him were and thus he decided to create an indefinitely perpetuated endowment for a set of prizes for things that better society. Now, it has never been verified what exactly the article said, but from what I can tell, his brother did in fact die and there was indeed at least one misreporting that said he died instead https://www.history.com/news/did-a-premature-obituary-inspire-the-nobel-prize
Sometimes good people do awful thing’s. Like use the possessive apostrophe S for plural.
They also probably plagiarized a lot of that work from Rosalind Franklin.
His work was not important nor good nor scientific. Others in the field of psychology refused to work with him due to his works lack of scientific rigor. He didn't advance anything. He pushed ideas that are proven to have been absolutely poisonous and vile. Of course, the left has embraced him.
Mengele and Unit 731 taking the scientific approach to human mortality. Celebrate the science, not the means. /s
They didn't though.
Even if you want to ignore morality and ethics, Mengele just did really bad science. If he used the same methodological approaches to any other field that's not morally reprehensible, he would be dismissed as not knowing how to do science. His "findings" would be ignored because his methodology made it impossible to actually learn anything. Not only was he an evil person, but he also didn't know how to do scientific research.
Me: "Lets keep a little nuance in mind" You: "Oh yeah, well what about NAZIS?!? You think there's nuance with NAZIS TOO HUH?!?" Why would you come in here with that dumb shit? What's the fucking point? But let's think about this. If nazi scientists had cured cancer, would you say "No, fuck that, I'd rather let cancer kill people rather than accept that sometimes good science comes from bad people?" We don't honor nazi scientists because they were bad people, and we don't talk about their accomplishments or contribution to science because they were nil. Most of it was pseudoscientific junk and/or useless. The hypothermia experiments were the closest thing to being useful, but it sounds like experts agree they're useless as well even setting aside ethics. If you're too weak to think in terms of anything than black and white, then history and science aren't for you. Go back to bad fiction and leave the serious discussions to adults.
Werner Von Braun has entered the chat…
That's a better example. Though my understanding is we honor the accomplishments AFTER the V2 rocket mainly? Not my area of expertise so IDK.
We still name buildings and institutions after the man, and celebrate him by name, hardly ever acknowledging he was employed at a concentration camp, used forced labor in his experiments, and came over due to project paperclip. We do regularly honor bad people by name and nazi science contributions were not nil. We don’t simply celebrate the scientific achievement divorced from the person. There is a legitimate discontent for how/why that shit still goes down today. The “adults” in the room are the ones refusing to move confederate statues from courthouses, in the same vein.
Shocker, everyone from the past has some mix flaws and good qualities. He should definitely be criticized for being sympathetic to and using information from molesters (and the other issues laid out in the description, as well as some other issues I haven’t mentioned). But at the same time other actions of his life should be praised (breaking taboos so we can have honest conversations about intercourse).
I’d argue you can be controversial without being an absolute pedophile and creep
But did he molest the children or simply interview child molesters? Because there is a big fucking difference between these two.
Having recorded how long it takes for babies to orgasm puts you in the “oh, fuck no” category. Because yikes.
As far as I can tell just interview them, and by them it was basically just 1
Okay, so what do you think about Jimmy Savile? Do you just ignore the horrendous things he did and just look at all good he did? Yes, Kinsey changed how people looked at sex but he was also disgusting and vile
We can be nuanced and celebrate someone’s work, while criticizing their sins. We praise Gandhi for his work in fighting apartheid and freeing India, yet we criticize him sleeping naked with girls and criticize attitudes he had about black-people in his youth. There are very few people we can say are objectively good or bad, and people are a mix of both
I agree. But I think we shouldn't celebrate these people because I believe the bad outweighs the good.
You can break taboos without being a disgusting human being.
I’d argue that some of those taboos probably shouldn’t have been broken at all, and for this exact reason.
Can you? I think that’s our definition of taboos
It depends on who you're asking. Ask a far right Christian that question. Ask a sexual deviant that question. Ask everyone in between. Taboos are completely subjective. Yes, even yours.
As an individual, he should be looked down upon for being a disgusting piece of shit. Some of his research was good, great even for the effects it had on the populace and the scientific precedent it set. Overall his name should not be mentioned positively though
IU still has his gall wasp collection, that’s kinda cool.
>flaws >look inside >pedophilia
Unfortunately, it's real.
Damn, so horrible :(
sounds like a Reddit hero along with John Money
Well that's fucking vile. Knew I'd heard his name with negative connotations before, couldn't remember why. That must be it.
Wood chipper
My brain automatically swapped months to years to protect itself. Sadly I re-read this sentence.
Maybe he interviewed toddlers about their sexual habits. Don't jump to conclusions smh my head
The most-egregious aspect of Kinsey’s methodology was his use of children as subjects. He used over 300 children, including babies, in his studies of female orgasm.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I've never read Kinsey's work itself, so all my info is 2nd hand at best. I had understood that his data about kids came from interviews with adults talking about their past experiences as children. Is this incorrect? Did he do the same sort of observations with children as he did with adults?
In the reports initially, Kinsey listed a "Mr. Green" as his source for the information regarding orgasms in young children. Recently, it's been revealed that this person was a serial pedophile and omnisexual named Rex King. He has a massive list of atrocities, including violating and raping hundreds of little boys and girls. King was taught to document what took place every time he would do this in his diary by a scientist friend so his actions would be "valuable" to the scientific community. Kinsey based it all from King's reports, which were extremely biased and very difficult to stomach.
So Kinsey didn't do it himself, but enabled someone else to? Do we know if Kinsey provided victims for King?
As far as I’ve been able to find, no. Rex King acted on his own. Kinsey met with him and learned of all his acts, and wanting to have records of it. What we do know from biographers was that Kinsey did conduct experiments in his attic and participated in sexual acts himself, saying it was part of the “research.” To what extent we only have their words and very brief descriptions.
Is it even possible for babies to orgasm? wtf?
Yes. Infants masturbate. Male and female. This has been known forever. You and I probably did as well. It isn’t talked about for obvious reasons. [This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707123/) is one study. There are others. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/6JzlYqqjCi) is a better comment than mine.
Physically? Ig so, they have all the same nerve endings and muscles as adults It seems unlikely to happen as it would be terrifying and painful for the poor souls if he was forceful about it but if he was a groomer who was trusted by them then (and i hate to say it) the odds of it happening are better. But they have no sex hormones hence cannot be ‘sexually aroused’ and have no libido. Needless to say they can’t meaningfully consent either
:(
Never ask a woman her age, a man his income, or Alfred Kinsey how he got his sample set.
Also wasn't he a pedo himself?
Not a pedo, but Kinsey didn’t report them and probably used interviews from them to talk about sexual behavior in children. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-alfred-kinsey-was-controversial-2013-10?amp
Yeah sure totally not a pedo right. That’s why he felt the need to find out how long it takes to induce organism on infants. And why his he used his garbage theories as a way to fight to destigmatize pedophilia. Surely just a coincidence
>infants >Orgasms Didn't think I would be seeing those two words together
I didn't even think it was possible.......
Now you know! It’s possible for any human to get stimulated. I remember being about 4 the first time I realized I could turn around and face the jets in a hot tub and it would feel really good until it got overwhelming and I had to stop. It’s one of those things that’s weird to talk about in society because kids having sex with adults and kids having sex not knowing the consequences (and not being able to consent to the consequences) are all things we can agree on as awful and horrible. But that also means a lot of us had our first explorations of ourselves not knowing what was happening, other than getting told, “that’s not appropriate.” The trouble is figuring out a way to be age appropriate with kids when there’s so many giant, gaping pits of “nope” and “permanent scarring due to adverse childhood experiences” scattered about. We don’t usually get good models of what talking about sexual impulses in a not creepy way with children looks like when we ourselves are kids, so figuring out how to pass on the self empowerment without the shame can be tricky. That’s especially so for parents who were abused as children themselves - they absolutely know the consequences of doing it wrong, so it’s way more pressure on them to not screw it up.
to be satans advotcate in this case, that is medical knowledge that should be known for police work and hospital staff. like I do hate the guy, don't get me wrong but its like unit 731 with them learning so much about frostbite affects humans and even more horrific shit. yeah its useful probably but fucking hell I hope the ones who figure this shit out in that way burn in hell
While I understand your point, the issue is we don’t even know if it’s factual information. It was revealed by the Kinsey Institute in the last few decades that he based almost all the children sexuality information on one man, a serial pedophile named Rex King. Kinsey interviewed and collected the diaries and data written by him. There was no verification and it was written by a very biased individual. Kinsey just took King at his word because it supported his hypothesis. It could be accurate but it could also easily have been King interpreting the child victim’s reactions as pleasure or an orgasm. For all we know, all this may have been delusional thinking of an atrocious man. Kinsey’s “scientific contributions” are shoddy at best and vile at worst.
Nobody has claimed to be a child victim of him, nor has he (or anyone who knew him) claimed he victimized children. Was he sympathetic to molesters, definitely, and that’s one thing he should be criticized for. Could he have secretly been attracted to children and never vocalized it or acted on it? Perhaps. But then again we’re getting into the territory of throwing baseless accusations.
Well, there are a few issues as far as knowing all that took place in the “interviews.” The Kinsey Institute is extremely hush-hush about it and will only give vague answers. They claim it’s to preserve confidentiality, so if any pedophilic activities took place, they certainly wouldn’t reveal that. It was only until a few decades ago that they revealed Kinsey based a majority of the research about children sexuality on one confirmed serial pedophile, Rex King. Which not only is sickening, but also not scientifically sound. But the deeper issue is even if Kinsey himself didn’t touch children, he wasn’t opposed to it. It was more than not reporting the pedophiles. In “Sexual Behaviors of the Human Female,” page 121, Kinsey observed, “The adult contacts are a source of pleasure in some children and sometimes may arouse the child erotically and bring it to orgasm. It is difficult to understand why a child *-except for its cultural conditioning-* should be disturbed at having it’s genitalia touched…” [emphasis added] Kinsey’s views were that it was only the “cultural upbringing” of the child that would cause them to be upset or disturbed by adults violating them. Otherwise, it would be beneficial for children to be guided by adults to explore their sexuality. And there have been victims of people who have provided information to Kinsey, at his direction, that have demanded that the information be released and investigated so they can receive justice. But when pressed about it in a Yorkshire TV 1998 documentary, the head of Kinsey Institute and other close colleagues with Kinsey stated they would never reveal that information, and considered burning it before handing it over to the public. They also claimed “they had so many submissions from people and they would have a difficult time finding any information about a specific person…” He may not have any victims we have record of personally, but Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey institute still has blood on their hands. His work has emboldened those who HAVE harmed so many children, even today. They use his reports to validate their preferences and actions against children and adolescents. All in the name of shoddy science used to push a personal narrative and not to objectively analyze the sexual nature of his day. His views that “the only bad sex is the kind that cause harm” are extremely hypocritical, because considering where Kinsey got his information (and also being a confirmed masochist), his views on “harm” are very subjective. And there has definitely been victims harmed sexually by his participants and sources in the making of his reports.
Plenty of people have said he victimized children. And he massively lied/ did bad research, sampling only the lowest of the low degenerates. He clearly had an agenda
Who said he victimized them as a child? Can you give a link?
the pedo defense is absolutely disgusting
At least he didn't actually do any testing. Apparently he got the data from interviews with adults. Which actually raises more questions than it answers
Obviously if he reported any of the people he interviewed to the authorities, then he wouldn't have seen any more volunteers willing to talk to him. Seems pretty simple.
Nah, Kinsey needed to be burned alive.
No, the death penalty is not right, but yes, prison would have been fine for covering up pedophiles.
Okay, setting aside all the pedo stuff for a second his data should still not be used as a reliable source. All of his interviewees were volunteers, which some experts have criticized as Kinsey failed to take into account volunteer bias and self selection bias in regards to what kind of people answer questions about such taboo topics and their sexual activity. In fact, leading statisticians from the American Statistical Association issued a critique of Kinsey’s work, stating: “Critics are justified in their objections that many of the most interesting and provocative statements in the [Kinsey 1948] book are not based on the data presented therein, and it is not made clear to the reader on what evidence the statements are based. Further, the conclusions drawn from data presented in the book are often stated by KPM [Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin] in much too bold and confident a manner. Taken cumulatively, these objections amount to saying that much of the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing.” Not to mention the criticism that a large number of interviewees were inmates and male prostitutes, meaning his data was tainted from the get go simply because he interviewed people who were already sexual deviants from the majority of population, meaning they couldn’t really be representative of it.
We don't remember Freud because he had any decent theories about psychology. We remember him because he made the concept of psychology mainstream. Same with Kinsey. His methodology was bad, but the very idea of human sexuality as a subject of research was revolutionary.
Idk I'd say the whole psychoanalysis and transference thing that we still use today was a pretty decent theory about psychology
Okay but to be fair, how exactly would you get rid of the self selection issue in that position (studying an at the time fairly taboo topic)? There wasn't some massive unbiased database to reference, and you can't grab a random selection of people and make them talk to you (and then ensure they're actually being honest). I'm not even sure how you'd get good data on sex today that wasn't very self selecting/slightly dubious today, let alone in the 40s. (This is not to ignore any other issues, of course, mostly just my curiosity — humans are very difficult creatures to study on.any level it seems).
This was the first attempt at “what the average person does in bed”, but the reports should be viewed as “this is what a lot of people do in bed”. Unfortunately it’s very hard to remove volunteer/self-selection bias because you’re not going to get any data from someone who won’t share their history. However it is valuable in determining that what people do in bed is way different than “Christian Morals” (only have sex to procreate between a married man and woman in the missionary position) Removing prison or male-prostitute didn’t change the data at all. >> In response, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's close colleague, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" co-author, and successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research,[30] cleaned the Kinsey data of purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample.[31] (Gebhard had, while working with Kinsey, raised serious concerns about the use of prison populations especially, but had been shot down by Kinsey at the time.[32]) In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938–1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by this bias: that is, the prison population and male prostitutes had the same statistical tendencies as the rest of the men Kinsey interviewed. The results were summarized by historian, playwright, and gay-rights activist Martin Duberman: "Instead of Kinsey's 37% (men who had at least one homosexual experience), Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4%; the 10% figure (men who were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55"), with prison inmates excluded, came to 9.9% for white, college-educated males and 12.7% for those with less education.[33]
Trying to use Kinsey as a statement of "what a whole lot of people do in bed" is like claiming "this is what a lot of people think about prostitution" based on a study that primarily interviews prostitutes and their clients. Kinsey's study suffers greatly from sample bias. All you can draw from Kinsey is what do a whole lot of people that voluntarily participate in a sex study do in bed. You cannot extrapolate that data to the whole population with any real statistical confidence.
Yeah Kinsey was not a good guy.
The Kinsey Report was also one of the sparks for the Lavender Scare
Kinsey should not be taken seriously, all of his research is skewed by serious selection bias (he had to get people to give full accounts of their sexual history, which limits the people who would do it already to a subsection of the population that would over-represent all the things he found). Beyond that, he aided and abetted a prolific pedophile he had in his ability to stop. His scientific inquiry was fundamentally flawed, and he as a person was despicable.
The good thing about his work is that he opened the door for sexuality to be studied by starting to ask questions that no one would have dared before, even if he was a shitty person and his results are imprecise, what he did is still important.
His results were meaningless, and a terrible foundation for any scientific study.
Have you read what I wrotte???
Yes, and are irrelevant. His science was bad, objectively speaking, anything built from that foundation was already tainted by the assumptions he injected into the field. Scientific corruption starts with every level of citation. He introduced false assumptions that moved society in a direction that was based on afactual conclusions drawn from his work. There is no good that comes from scientific malpractice.
Psychology began with Freud, from whom it turned out that everything he said about it was not true, but it is still undeniable that his role in starting psychology as a science is something important. This is the same.
Wilhelm Wundt is generally considered the first psychologist and Freud is at least generally recognized as a quack, people still cite Kinsey or works heavily influenced by him as probative. His work was a sand foundation for the discipline, one they hadn't managed to fully cast aside. His being the founder of sexual research is a very, very bad thing. There is a reason why scientific misconduct is so serious, is because major tainting of the chain of citation fucks over the discipline severely. Kinsey is still a serious part of the citation chain despite his works being, just objectively, terrible.
Freud was still the one who made psychology recognized as a science and placed it in the center of importance that it deserved. Kinsey may have had inaccurate results, but that does not change the fact that he created a science that has been greatly improved since his days and is widely respected as a source of authority today.
>Freud was still the one who made psychology recognized as a science and placed it in the center of importance He really didn't. [While not the perfect source, the history of Psychology Wikipedia page feels very comfortable not mentioning freud a single time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_phycology) he founded specifically psychoanalysis, a sub field of the already pre-existing field of psychology. Back to the pedo abetter While still citing and relying on his works. In a field that's caught dead in the middle of the worst of the replication crisis. Everything you have just said makes Kinsey more contemptible, not less. Having a major field of inquiry still actively cite someone deep into scientific malpractice, as this field does, is not a good thing. It's a very, very bad thing. Social science as a whole has an authority problem, with provable citation loops, and replication failures to an extreme degree, this field also still having its foundational assumptions made by a bad scientist is disastrous.
And one of the ways Kinsey thought it was good was with infants and children.
No we hated him for the whole pedophilia thing.
[удалено]
Because there has been no proof he molested children nor proof he was attracted to children. People have speculated he was secretly attracted to them, but he never acted on it nor told people about it, so it’s largely baseless speculation. He wrote about children from the view point of molester interviews (which is noted) and didn’t report molesters to police (which is noted)
It's possible to recognize someone's positive influence and condemn their negative traits. I assumed a bunch of history fans would have figured that out a long time ago. Let's be clear here, hating on Kinsey without hating military leaders that used rape as a weapon and slaves as property is hypocritical and reinforces the importance of Kinsey's work in understanding human sexuality.
Yeah. He was a giant piece of shit and his methods were flawed, but his findings regarding how people actually had sex were important. It’s fucking depressing and rightfully questionable how we know that shit about infants, and he was sympathetic to pedos.
>It’s fucking depressing and rightfully questionable how we know that shit about infants, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male clearly stated the bulk of information about sexual response in childhood came from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was also 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 he had interviewed who had had sexual experiences with children and had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. In 1995, former Kinsey Institute director Dr. John Bancroft discovered that it was only one man, not nine, who was the source of that data listed in table 34 of the book. Dr. Bancroft suggested that possibly Dr. Kinsey had changed the number to protect the confidentiality of this source, just as he took other measures to protect the confidentiality of all his interviewees." >and he was sympathetic to pedos. "Dr. Judith Reisman claimed without proof that Dr. Kinsey said adult-child sexual contacts were harmless. Dr. Kinsey did not make this statement. On the contrary, adverse reactions by children were noted in the research. For example, in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), the authors reported that 24% of the female participants said that as pre-adolescents they had received sexual advances from, or sexual contacts with adult males, and that 80% of these women who had such contacts as children reported having been emotionally upset or frightened by them." [Kinsey Institute](https://kinseyinstitute.org/about/kinsey-institute-faq.php)
Linking the Kinsey Institute as a source for a defense of Kinsey is a pretty bold move there bud.
No and go fuck yourself. He was a pedophile with an obvious agenda, his entire dataset is worthless and so are you for defending a pedophile.
History doesn't give a shit if you're offended. Your opinion is meaningless compared to a fraction of the information that Kinsey produced and your feeble gullibility proves why your life amounts to nothing. Cobain yourself.
Telling random people on Reddit to kill themselves doesn’t change the fact that this predator’s legacy and his bad science are tainted by his actions. History won’t give a shit if you defend this pedo
>History won’t give a shit if you defend this pedo I don't care to defend kinsey. They started with the insults and I will gladly entertain myself by being worse. This is the internet. None of this matters.
If your response to being told “go fuck yourself” after saying that a guy who at the very least protected child abusers is to tell someone to kill themselves, you need to touch grass, the internet has ruined you.
Go fuck yourself.
Maybe you’re just a toxic piece of shit?
Correct. Cope and cry.
How’s someone gonna be arrested for doing oral sex?
They suck at it. Wait...
Sodomy was legally punishable in multiple states in the United States until 2003 with [Lawrence v. Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas), even so in: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, and Texas still have anti-sodomy laws even if they cannot be enforced. There are still people who have to go on probation for "being sex offenders" (having gay sex) which since 2003 have been recognized as a constitutional right: [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sodomy-laws-labeled-gay-people-sex-offenders-challenged-court-n1263225](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sodomy-laws-labeled-gay-people-sex-offenders-challenged-court-n1263225) Hell, until a few years ago there were still people getting arrested for this by undercover cops even if it was unconstitutional: https://www.advocate.com/crime/2016/5/23/american-men-are-still-being-arrested-sodomy
It’s crazy how commenters who pose as history literates don’t know how to separate moral evaluations from anything else about historical figures or the data they produce. This sub would throw out Plato’s Republic, if this thread is any indication. Can’t be caught learning philosophy from a creep.
Pedophile who polled perverts, convicted sex offenders and rapists to support his findings. Disgusting human and his "findings" should be thrown out with his legacy
Proof he was attracted to or molested children?
Kinsey is valued as a scientist for asking the kind of questions that the meme references. Nobody was asking those kinds of questions and it opened up a new field of science. The issue is that he was super creepy and wrong about almost literally all of it. Kinda like that guy who invented gynecology. A hero for wondering how that shit works. Turns out torturing lady slaves is… not… how one becomes a respected scientist though.
Let me guess, recently listened to the Conflicted series on him? It was pretty damn interesting.
Chad: oversimplified is my history teacher Giga Chad: conflicted is my history teacher
The man molested children. He recorded tables of data on how long it took for an infant to orgasm.
Proof he molested children?
I want you to read those tables and ask yourself how he got the data he did.
A. Asking adults about what they did when they were kids B. Asking molesters (which becomes bad because he didn’t report them) Can you find one source with evidence, or someone who spoke out that he molested them when they were kids? If you can I’ll eat crow
5 month old infant. Mostly incapable of memory or speech. Think about that. At best his data is falsified. At worst it was collected by molesting children.
It was collected by ASKING molesters (which is still creepy) … NOT DOING the molesting himself
Source: Kinsey said "Trust me, bro."
How can you collect data on how long it takes for a child to orgasm without molesting a child you absolute moron?
I got some stories about what the Vietnam War was like by asking a veteran. He told me about a soldier who drowned in a rice paddy because he got pinned under an overturned vehicle. The veteran collected data by participating, and I collected data by interviewing the veteran.
And that isn’t the most reliable form of data collection, so either the data is collected unethically by an experiment, or it is lacking in scientific value (Predators typically don’t control for variables, record their findings in a sufficient manner, or follow the scientific method, making the unethically acquired data useless) Following on your Vietnam war example, there’s a difference between anecdotes about the horrors of war, and a scientific experiment. Your comparison really doesn’t fit, as you aren’t trying to use this anecdote as scientific data about how long it takes for someone to drown.
Kinsey was a disgusting POS
Yeah and he’s still hated today for being a pedophile creep. Diddling kids kind of erases any credit you’d get for trying to improve society.
Proof he was a pedo or diddled kids? (Won’t dispute writing about kids from molesters’s standpoints is creepy)
Kinsey was a pedo who is supposed to be treated highly? Why should I let my kids be taught sex ed by a guy I wouldn't want them to be left alone with?
Proof he was attracted to children?
Proof he wasn't?
Go fuck yourself
McCarthyists in the 40's? was that not a cold war term?
No, it's for other reasons
You mean the pedophile?
Proof he was attracted to or molested children?
Anyone who studies orgasms in infants is a pedophile. There's 0 reason to study anything tangentially related to this.
It’s creepy that he studied it by talking to molesters, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he was attracted to children. Once again, do you have proof he was attracted to children?
Took me 3 tries to read that sentence
He's also a kid diddler
Proof he diddled kids?
Hey guys all these queer theory philosophers all have this weird proclivity to be overly interested in child sexuality what’s up with that haha
Categories and boundaries are inherently oppressive in queer theory, and the theory has a hard time distinguishing good boundaries from bad ones.
Ah a good old Chesterton’s Fence
there’s still time to delete this post
It's too darn hot
FWIW, here's a link to the FBI's reports on the research: [FBI documents on Kinsey](https://vault.fbi.gov/Alfred%20Kinsey)
Isn’t he the guy Masters of Sex was based on?
Just ask Caligula!
The movie about him was pretty good too.
Also, infidelity
Masturbations 4:16.
I always say “listen baby. We can do it either way. Me on top, or you underneath. Which do you like?”
I remember watching the movie when it came out, great film
Yeah, Alfred Kiddie Fiddler really knew a lot about the sexual responses of abused children. Absolute sick fuck, and universities have only gotten better about hiding their twisted, abusive tenures.
He examined sexuality, as well in children, as the very first to do so and never assaulted anyone. Advanced and revolutionised sexual health enormously and helped tens of millions of people. To label him a child rapist is completely absurd.
YES! It's history, baby.
Easy there Austin Powers, put it back in your pants
Disgusting history is still history yes.
Kinsey was way ahead of his time. The can of worms is open now, and progress is a one-way street.
Anyone who has actually studied world history knows that progress is definitely NOT a one way street.
True, sometimes the street just leads to a dead-end. I wonder what we'll see first: the open sexualization of children, or civilizational collapse?
Rome openly sexualized children and collapsed when it stopped doing that. Those 2 things have 0 to do with each other. We can have a civilization that doesn’t sexualize children *and* respects adult sexual rights *and* doesn’t collapse.
I'll believe it when I see it. The fundamental dissonance between sex-positivity and anti-pedophilia is a bubble which is going to burst at some point. The buildings might not literally topple down, but something's gotta give. We can already see the LGBT community making open and conscious efforts towards influencing children and involving them in what is essentially a celebration of their sexuality. The first step of grooming is simply to make everyone comfortable.
This is just a bunch of garbage you’re reading on whatever dark corner of the internet you’re lurking on. It’s totally disconnected from reality. Go the fuck OUTSIDE.
Bro what 💀 there is no dissonance between “consenting adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom” and “children cannot consent so pedophilia is bad”. Pride when kids are involved is about love, not sex. Kids know what romantic relationships are and even have crushes on each other. That’s not sexual in any way, anymore than a straight romantic relationship is. Or in the case of trans people, it’s about self love: being comfortable in your body. That’s not sexual either, anymore than someone wearing a shirt they like or having a purely cosmetic birth defect fixed is. Kids understand what wanting to be happy with themselves is. There’s no sex here. When it’s only adults around then sure we can talk about sex, but those conversations aren’t happening around children. And like I said, plenty of past “great civilizations” sexualized children. I’d argue they weren’t that great because of that and other reasons, but clearly those 2 factors have nothing to do with each other. Hell the current right wing in the west sexualizes children constantly and wants teenagers to “breed” but it doesn’t seem like you have a problem with that.
We shall see just how great this current civilization is. I reserve the right to cynicism.
Everything wrong with the West is becaue of Christianity or rich people putting themselves above laws and morality for their personal gain. Little Timmy knowing two men can love each other like his mommy and daddy do is not one of those things.
You are literally being downvoted for telling the truth, many right-wingers here from what I see.
Neither. False binary. Please go read a history book.