Alfred Kinsey - Father of the Sexual Revolution [Historical Perspective]

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
I have not been able to find any non-kinsey institute study that shows this. Kinsey and a number of their studies use prison populations to get there; you can't look at a man that's been raped in prison and say that because he's engaged in homosexual behaviour he is gay or bi.

It feels believable because you see plenty of gays in media and the arts. It isn't that common when you really dive into the data.

Btw, I still operate from the presumption of "born that way" in regards to homosexuality, which means engaging in homosexual behaviour once isn't indicative of homosexuality as much as it is of experimentation. It's only repeated engagement that indicates homosexuality to me.




I'm talking about behavior, not sexual identity. I am not saying that if a man engages in homosexuality that he's a homosexual or bi. I'm taking about how many people engaged in homosexual acts. I mean people engaged in all types of behavior for a variety of reasons. For example, gay for pay porn or drug-addicts that engage in homosexuality for the reason of money.

I know and acknowledged that self=identified homosexuals make up about 2% of the population. It's believable to me because people will do anything to achieve their motives.

ETA: I don't think that sexuality is as fixed people like to believe. There have been studies how sexuality shifts during one's time.
 
Last edited:

EyelessMC

kiwifarms.net
What about Freud, Krafft-Ebing, and Hirschfeld? You're acting like Alfred Kinsey was the one that singly handily overturn sexual morality. The rise of psychology as a political and social institution led to the weakening the church and local communities in enforcing social morality. Capitalism and Urbanization also helped in weakening local communities and sexual morality. Was Kinsey responsible for Colette, D.H. Lawrence, EM Forster, and other writers? No Freud, globalization, industrialization, and capitalism were.
First off you gotta drop the "capitalism" blaming. That's a Socialist tactic taught to us through public education (though expounding on that is for a different thread). Secondly, you make a great point but that's why I made the point of crossover agendas and different major forces at work. However when it comes to sexuality and all that would spring forth culturally and snowball for generations thereafter it really is chiefly his doing.

Everything has a singular starting point, and for the Sexual Revolution with all its myriad consequences cultural, academic, medical and legal--that starting point is Alfred Kinsey (with his cohorts and bank rollers). Otherwise we might as well go further back to the French Revolution and the "Age of Enlightenment". The roots of this stuff travels far, far back but at some point we need a reasonable pivoting point, and that's Kinsey in America.
You make great points. But I don't think that the United States as much as conservatives would like to believe had a wholesome sexual culture.
It didn't have a sexual culture to begin with, it seems. Again we can't really know but from what we can tell it seems they had romance, basic courtship and marriage. There wasn't anything more than these and everything sexual was kept to private and intimate discussion.
Due to an influx of outside members--immigrants carrying their own social mores and norms--the cities were more diverse in this, sure, but let's not forget that the cities like New York is where a lot of the Weimar types fled to and found work among their kind doing what they had done elsewhere. The Frankfurt School was established in New York apparently.

I don't know of much reliable evidence that American society was broadly as sexually complicated prior to these factors. You bring up the 1920's so maybe they were, but the fact that it stemmed from the cities even then rather supports the notion it was from outside-in, not that it was always so across the country. So if there is to be found a great disparity (or diversity) of sexual norms between the major cities and the rest of the country it's to be found in the foreigners bringing in foreign concepts rather than assimilating to the norms of the new country they now belonged to. If nothing else, whatever disparity had once been natural in America was exacerbated to irrevocable degrees at the turn of the 30's to 40's and only spiraled from there.

They were smokers taking up residence in someone's house but still continuing to smoke despite the owner's distaste for it, and eventually the smoke permeated the air and made everything reek of it. It's just that some of the smokers were purposefully blowing smoke directly into the air vents.
It could be that it's more of a culture war between two or more groups. I don't want to say two, because different groups have different values. People like to say that Blacks and Latinos are culturally conservative, but that type of conservatism is different from WASP conservatism.
It seems American Blacks didn't used to be that different in anything other than race if you go back far enough, in that they had nuclear families and went to church regularly, too. The advent of Critical Theory and the Sexual Revolution seems to have utterly destroyed the entire race the hardest via spiraling self-destruction, just disintigrating their homes and neighborhoods even worse than was already being present due to racial impositions, but again that's for a different thread.

Again, that's why I said it's a crisscross or intersection of disparate agendas from different groups. I doubt the Rockefellers were Marxists like the Frankfurt School but both had designs to alter society for generations to come, whether for their own benefit or for their ideological cult's supremacy (Cultural Subversion's chief aim is to destroy and confuse an enemy nation until it can be conquered with welcoming arms).

However, Alfred Kinsey was not simply one of many bricks laying a foundation of things to come. Everything about his success, his connections and particularly his research bears the fingerprints of not merely a tool of greater powers but a man, a person with personal deviant sensibilities who utilized any and all means to spread his own "smoke" as it were.

Fraud was debated and argued. The philosophers had various opposing points, but Kinsey seemed to spring forward and only be held back why those ridiculed as "Puritanical" and "unscientific". The man was not a one-man Illuminati like George Soros but he was truly the cornerstone upon which was built the entirety of academia and legislature relating to sexual behaviors in human beings. He can't simply be tossed into a pot like Freud or Jung or Sarte. He wasn't merely a psychologist or philosopher. The man was an all-out icon of the Sexual Revolution with influence spanning far further than any of the men you or I have mentioned. We literally would not have the society today if not for the "grounded, scientific research" of the man Kinsey.
Spoilering this so we don't have essay long posts, at least not from me. lol
Aren't English public schools known for their situational homosexuality?
This notion of "situational homosexuality", as opposed to simple "sexual confusion", stems back to Kinsey and the Kinsey Scale. See? The man's work even influences our vernacular and understanding to this very day. It's permeated every corner of the house.
 

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
First off you gotta drop the "capitalism" blaming. That's a Socialist tactic taught to us through public education (though expounding on that is for a different thread). Secondly, you make a great point but that's why I made the point of crossover agendas and different major forces at work. However when it comes to sexuality and all that would spring forth culturally and snowball for generations thereafter it really is chiefly his doing.

Everything has a singular starting point, and for the Sexual Revolution with all its myriad consequences cultural, academic, medical and legal--that starting point is Alfred Kinsey (with his cohorts and bank rollers). Otherwise we might as well go further back to the French Revolution and the "Age of Enlightenment". The roots of this stuff travels far, far back but at some point we need a reasonable pivoting point, and that's Kinsey in America.
It didn't have a sexual culture to begi but from what we can tell it seems they had romance, basic courtship and marriage. There wasn't anything more than these and everything sexual was kept to private and intimate discussion.
Due to an influx of outside members--immigrants carrying their own social mores and norms--the cities were more diverse in this, sure, but let's not forget that the cities like New York is where a lot of the Weimar types fled to and found work among their kind doing what they had done elsewhere. The Frankfurt School was established in New York apparently.

I don't know of much reliable evidence that American society was broadly as sexually complicated prior to these factors. You bring up the 1920's so maybe they were, but the fact that it stemmed from the cities even then rather supports the notion it was from outside-in, not that it was always so across the country. So if there is to be found a great disparity (or diversity) of sexual norms between the major cities and the rest of the country it's to be found in the foreigners bringing in foreign concepts rather than assimilating to the norms of the new country they now belonged to. If nothing else, whatever disparity had once been natural in America was exacerbated to irrevocable degrees at the turn of the 30's to 40's and only spiraled from there.

They were smokers taking up residence in someone's house but still continuing to smoke despite the owner's distaste for it, and eventually the smoke permeated the air and made everything reek of it. It's just that some of the smokers were purposefully blowing smoke directly into the air vents.

It seems American Blacks didn't used to be that different in anything other than race if you go back far enough, in that they had nuclear families and went to church regularly, too. The advent of Critical Theory and the Sexual Revolution seems to have utterly destroyed the entire race the hardest via spiraling self-destruction, just disintigrating their homes and neighborhoods even worse than was already being present due to racial impositions, but again that's for a different thread.

Again, that's why I said it's a crisscross or intersection of disparate agendas from different groups. I doubt the Rockefellers were Marxists like the Frankfurt School but both had designs to alter society for generations to come, whether for their own benefit or for their ideological cult's supremacy (Cultural Subversion's chief aim is to destroy and confuse an enemy nation until it can be conquered with welcoming arms).

However, Alfred Kinsey was not simply one of many bricks laying a foundation of things to come. Everything about his success, his connections and particularly his research bears the fingerprints of not merely a tool of greater powers but a man, a person with personal deviant sensibilities who utilized any and all means to spread his own "smoke" as it were.

Fraud was debated and argued. The philosophers had various opposing points, but Kinsey seemed to spring forward and only be held back why those ridiculed as "Puritanical" and "unscientific". The man was not a one-man Illuminati like George Soros but he was truly the cornerstone upon which was built the entirety of academia and legislature relating to sexual behaviors in human beings. He can't simply be tossed into a pot like Freud or Jung or Sarte. He wasn't merely a psychologist or philosopher. The man was an all-out icon of the Sexual Revolution with influence spanning far further than any of the men you or I have mentioned. We literally would not have the society today if not for the "grounded, scientific research" of the man Kinsey.
Spoilering this so we don't have essay long posts, at least not from me. lol

This notion of "situational homosexuality", as opposed to simple "sexual confusion", stems back to Kinsey and the Kinsey Scale. See? The man's work even influences our vernacular and understanding to this very day. It's permeated every corner of the house.


I'm trying to make my arguments from amoral standpoint. So I'm not saying that capitalism is horrible. But capitalism has a liberating effect. It started the Industrial revolution and Second Agricultural revolution which freed people from their families and having to do with household tasks.

Second of all, I want to argue that most of it was home grown. Though, I will concede that there foreign elements. But those foreign elements were more of a fertilizer, then the seeds itself. There is a great book on this subject called "Renegade History of the United State". It argued that from the very beginning that there were elements of sexual libertinism in the United States. Though, it was mostly the underclasses that were sexually loose.

I am more familiar with gay culture in the early 20th century and to some extent black American history. For one thing, the oldest known drag queen was William Dorsey Swann, a former black slave. He used to hold drag balls and was imprisoned for it. So that tells us that drag balls or proto-gay culture was around in the 1860s at least. There is also some written records from that period of people who thought of themselves as sodomites or not normal. [2] One such person was John Wing. In addition to records from vice squads and court records that would testify to the fact that major American cities were homes to a growing gay subculture. That why some LGBT historians argue against the notion of the closet. Because there were areas like Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC that had a thriving gay culture. Look up the Pansy Craze or New York "faeries". And how normal Irish and thought that it was okay to sleep with them as long as they were active partner.

I will acknowledged that "American Blacks didn't used to be that different in anything other than race if you go back far enough, in that they had nuclear families and went to church regularly, too." Black America is very much divided by class and regional culture. However, forms of black American popular culture came from the black working class. The black American working class is a very different animal. Zora Neale Hurston's ''Dust Track on the Road' and Weldon Johnson's "The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man" talked about how this class of blacks were anti-white, violent, and sexually loose. So I don't blame the Critical Race Theory or the sexual revolution. Also I think that Critical Race Theory is older than the the 1970s. I think that Du Bois and Alain Locke talked about race that could be similar to Critical Race Theory. But that could be another thread.




[1] https://www.blackenterprise.com/the...story-making-drag-queen-william-dorsey-swann/
[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075THDPL4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1


Race Records that talked about sex in frank terms
 

EyelessMC

kiwifarms.net
I'm trying to make my arguments from amoral standpoint.
There's no such thing as an amoral standpoint even on a purely epistomological level, but I don't want to distract this thread onto philosophy, economics or race so let's refocus. Your citations and some figures you bring up are really interesting, though, and I think you should make a thread on it or at least one of its major figures like Du Bois whose name is everywhere in academia today. Would be helpful to contextualize our modern day. We could use a good Critical Race Theory thread to discern what that even is, let alone its end goal.
Second of all, I want to argue that most of it was home grown.
I don't know about "most" but I get your take. Unlike the Frankfurt School, the Rockefellers weren't exactly imported from another country as I recall. Like I said, there was a coalescence of agendas going on from disparate groups. Also my point was that things like Pride Parades or "sex work" would not have been endorsed in a pre-SexRev American society.
I am more familiar with gay culture in the early 20th century and to some extent black American history. For one thing, the oldest known drag queen was William Dorsey Swann, a former black slave. He used to hold drag balls and was imprisoned for it. So that tells us that drag balls or proto-gay culture was around in the 1860s at least.
I'd believe it considering not just what Weimar ended up looking like but ancient civilizations. Even so, the notion of "gay culture" being accepted, let alone celebrated, was altogether too foreign and repulsive in American society prior to the Sexual Revolution. Gays were broad-brush associated with pedophilia as well back then, which sadly the more prominent leaders and founders of the Gay Rights Movements actually endorsed:
Certain LGBT Icons.png

We also have the bizarre yet intrinsic endorsement of pedophilia with "Queer Theory" (yet another aspect of "Critical Theory" which itself originated--at least in American society--from the Frankfurt School
"Derrick Jensen on Anarchism & Queer Theory, Pedophilia"
Everything you bring up here is very interesting and important for broader context, but with regards to this subject of the SexRev and especially Kinsey (first in America and then exported abroad for generations thereafter) I should make it clear:

I am not saying Kinsey or the SexRev invented or brought into existence so many paraphilias or alternative sexual predilections. We can trace back certain aspects of these long before Kinsey & Friends were even born.

However, the mass normalization of these things--the effective changes in legal code, in education, etc. and the increasing snowball effect it has had in reshaping the social and political landscape--is what can be traced back directly to Kinsey & Friends. No matter how thriving a gay culture or any sexual alternatives may have been, no matter when or who the earliest drag queen was (very interesting though that is), none of it was ever broadly accepted or celebrated throughout the country until these men and their work's deep influence (as financed by Rockefellers and the like).
The fact that these things keep bounding back to pedophilia is what's so alarming to me, particularly with Kinsey's Reports and their influence on the world.
 
Last edited:

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There is a great book on this subject called "Renegade History of the United State". It argued that from the very beginning that there were elements of sexual libertinism in the United States. Though, it was mostly the underclasses that were sexually loose.

Sounds like the "america was always a nation of immigrants" kind of conman bullshitting to give a claim of tradition to something that very much isn't.

There is an undercurrent of all sorts of things in every culture, but by virtue of being an undercurrent they are rare and aberrations.


I looked into the guy a little. What I found:

- he's arguing on Joe Rogan that the category of "man" is meaningless.
- his mormon father met his jewish mother at convention where people idolised leon trotsky
- the book supposedly makes the claim that prior to 1930s jewish stereotype wasn't seen as nerds, but as athletes and musicians. Sounds like a BS claim to me, but maybe I'm wrong?

---

Anyways to get back to the claim; it's the kind of claim you can make about any country in any time, because there are always people engaging in the oldest profession. I don't think people ignoring the cultural mores of their time can be classified as libertine behaviour, as if there is any intellectual underpinning to what they're doing.

There really is a very significant difference to a guy dressing in drag and a guy dressing in drag to challenge gender norms, just as there is a very significant difference between penthouse and playboy; they both had naked women, but the latter came with an ideology/lifestyle.


---


Ps. He brings up Kinsey in that first link (unaware that it oversampled prison populations, when Rogan equally unaware just reflexively asked "in prisons?" because I think Rogan has his finger on the pulse of human behaviour a little better to realize those are prison stats).
 
Last edited:

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
There's no such thing as an amoral standpoint even on a purely epistomological level, but I don't want to distract this thread onto philosophy, economics or race so let's refocus. Your citations and some figures you bring up are really interesting, though, and I think you should make a thread on it or at least one of its major figures like Du Bois whose name is everywhere in academia today. Would be helpful to contextualize our modern day. We could use a good Critical Race Theory thread to discern what that even is, let alone its end goal.

Yeah, this probably belongs to another thread. I just think that people can't get to the truth because they want to be thought of as moral.


I don't know about "most" but I get your take. Unlike the Frankfurt School, the Rockefellers weren't exactly imported from another country as I recall. Like I said, there was a coalescence of agendas going on from disparate groups. Also my point was that things like Pride Parades or "sex work" would not have been endorsed in a pre-SexRev American society.

I'd believe it considering not just what Weimar ended up looking like but ancient civilizations. Even so, the notion of "gay culture" being accepted, let alone celebrated, was altogether too foreign and repulsive in American society prior to the Sexual Revolution. Gays were broad-brush associated with pedophilia as well back then, which sadly the more prominent leaders and founders of the Gay Rights Movements actually endorsed:

I can see your point, but I am of two minds. I think cultural mores are enforced differently across classes and sub cultures. I also get your point that "sex work" and Pride Parades wouldn't have been endorsed in a pre - SexRev American Society. They would have have been thought of as a social ills that needed enforcement by vice squads. I can agree with those points. However, I'm going to admit bias. Bias on two accounts. One, I'm a homosexual and I don't like the thought of "oppression". So I don't want to believe that post 1930s - 50s America is really that "anti-gay". So maybe my sources could be cherry picked. I main the theme of the sources are don't be middle class in a rural or suburban town and you'll be fine. So I would like to say that I don't think that the cities weren't as intolerant as small towns and villages.
Though, I think that the 1950s were a blip in American history due the Cold War and the threat of Communism.

However, the mass normalization of these things--the effective changes in legal code, in education, etc. and the increasing snowball effect it has had in reshaping the social and political landscape--is what can be traced back directly to Kinsey & Friends. No matter how thriving a gay culture or any sexual alternatives may have been, no matter when or who the earliest drag queen was (very interesting though that is), none of it was ever broadly accepted or celebrated throughout the country until these men and their work's deep influence (as financed by Rockefellers and the like).
The fact that these things keep bounding back to pedophilia is what's so alarming to me, particularly with Kinsey's Reports and their influence on the world.


Okay. I can accept the argument. I'm not arguing to win or convince, but more for my own understanding. So I have some questions. I think that Kinsey was influential when it came to the Sexual Revolutions. But I would like to think that the social landscape wasn't uniform. Washington DC, New Orleans, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco were home to alternative lifestyles. and subcultures. New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago were places of education, politics, and culture. So wouldn't it be possible that alternative lifestyles and subcultures would have some influence on the culture products that could lead to normalization? Also how does this take into account class and different subcultures? For example, Truman Capote was accepted in New York High Society. Though, he did ruin it for himself with that story. Also, gay enclaves like Fire Island were forming during the 1950s. So how to account for that?
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
It seems to me like the fields of gender and sex studies are mainly developed by degenerates to explain their own immorality, only to "reach the conclusion" that they are the normal ones and society is either hiding its degeneracy or is suffering because it oppresses it.

It's also funny (and horrifying) there is a nazi connection to the sexual revolution. Pretty sure you can use the radius from the middle of the political ideology graph to correlate with how much a person is a deviant.
 

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
It seems to me like the fields of gender and sex studies are mainly developed by degenerates to explain their own immorality, only to "reach the conclusion" that they are the normal ones and society is either hiding its degeneracy or is suffering because it oppresses it.

The fields of gender and sex studies mostly came about because psychology wanted to become a legitimate science. Also since religion was dying people needed a way to explain human behavior in more scientific way.


It's also funny (and horrifying) there is a nazi connection to the sexual revolution. Pretty sure you can use the radius from the middle of the political ideology graph to correlate with how much a person is a deviant.

Tell me more. I know that some of the rougher elements of Nazism were into homosexuality or pederasty. They wanted to restore Germany to an Hellenistic age.
 

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
However, the mass normalization of these things--the effective changes in legal code, in education, etc. and the increasing snowball effect it has had in reshaping the social and political landscape--is what can be traced back directly to Kinsey & Friends.

I think the sttength of this societal effect is noticable by how some of the poorly supported claims (10% of men is homosexual) are according to gallup polls the way the average american views the incidence of homosexuality, despite being 5/ 10 fold rarer.

Or how you can't read three studies about anything relating to (in particularly homosexuality) without running across more of kinsey or kinsey institute's work.

I think there is a chasm of difference to various subcultures and creating the intellectual and ideological basis (Kinsey was very much about saying it was all very scholarly and meticulous, but still made moral claims between the lines of his books, like the earlier mentioned that kids gain from their parent/grandparent induced orgasm).

The only bright light about that btw is that the sample size of children being made to orgasm was pretty small. About two dozen total IIRC.

Also since religion was dying people needed a way to explain human behavior in more

Seems to me more like it was murdered; more an active endeavor than a passive one.

Or perhaps supplanted is a better word.

It's also funny (and horrifying) there is a nazi connection to the sexual revolution.
In what way? I only know that the nazis burned down the institute of sexual redearch, the same institute connected to the failed womb transplant to idris elbe. As well as that they burned what they considered "jewish pornography", like Schnitzler's traumnovella that was later turned into a movie (eyes wide shut).

That why some LGBT historians argue against the notion of the closet

Why? Even if one proves the existance of some open homosexuality (shouldn't be hard), that doesn't disprove those who hide it, something that happened frequently if we believe homosexuality stats even 40 years ago.


---


Ps this is the best of effortthreads on the farm and I love it very much.
 
Last edited:

EyelessMC

kiwifarms.net
Also, gay enclaves like Fire Island were forming during the 1950s. So how to account for that?
Don't know much about enclaves but 1950's was the start of the Sexual Revolution so it makes sense.
However, I'm going to admit bias. Bias on two accounts. One, I'm a homosexual and I don't like the thought of "oppression". So I don't want to believe that post 1930s - 50s America is really that "anti-gay".
I'm bias, too, but I never took to certain studies like it seems you did, and those studies often encourage a particular worldview and leaning. Your sources come from what you've learned, like mine. Part of discerning truth, though, is not just testing that we've learned but accepting the results of those tests, even if they prove what we learned was misrepresented or false. It's hard for me, too. For example:

America really was that anti-gay it seems. I'm glad we don't broad-brush confuse pederasty with homosexuality anymore, but the overlap was always present enough that even those of the 50's believed they were one and the same. This confusion is only emboldened by the leaders of the Gay Rights movement as I posted previously, or Queer Theory etc. It was a confusion that existed and was part of the reason for America being anti-gay, but one which few of the major champions of sexual cultural reform wholeheartedly rejected. From the very start it all seems to have been about getting to the kids, and in more ways than one.

Whatever our bias (yours, mine, anyone's) we have to accept the result of testing what we learned in school and books prior. My Christian friend refused to believe real Bible believing Christians ever did anything evil until he started learning church history (from a proper historian on Sermon Audio or something, not some lady with technicolor hair and a chip on her shoulder). Same goes for us--our preconceived notions, informed by things which either obfuscated or defended the travesty of Kinsey's work and the SexRev as a whole, have to be set aside. We have to accept that what we thought we knew about sexuality and society past, we didn't know (mostly).

This is really uncomfortable, especially if you're gay and looking at all of this. It's uncomfortable even if you're not. I'm not and I certainly find it to be a hard subject. Unsettling, not just because of what it means in the context of the world but even for myself. Our personal view on sex, our personal sexuality and even aspects of our very identity--how much of it is owed to these perverts who led the SexRev and sexual movements thereafter? How much of what my parents believed or what I believed, not just about humanity and psychology but even about myself, was actually just the aftermath and schooled indoctrination of the Kinsey Reports?

Ultimately the Sexual Revolution's impetus, aim and end result was not the advancement of discernment. That much is clear by how much Kinsey willfully falsified data to serve his aims and how his peers who knew better aided him in it, then carrying it on after his death. They were never about discernment, or trying to help people parse between a sexual preference and a sexual predator. What did they really want?

We can often see the intent of someone's actions by observing the results of them. The results of Kinsey's work and the Sexual Revolution was the widespread acceptance (and later the celebration and preference) of sexually aberrant behaviors and, in the end, the irrevocable alteration of society--socially, legally and medically.
We should face this head-on and take the unsettling feeling we have about this as a call to introspection. Why do I do what I do? Why do I like what I like? Why am I inclined to X? Why do I identify as Y? When did I first start to believe I was X? Am I really X? Who am I really? Am I who I think I am, or am I partially the result of what Kinsey & Friends intended all along?

We believed certain things, had certain bias, because we were part of a long chain of people who themselves were taught with studies influenced and guided by Kinsey's work. If we take time to acknowledge the truth of Kinsey and the SexRev as a whole--and if we self-examine in light of it--we break the chain.
 
Last edited:

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
Don't know much about enclaves but 1950's was the start of the Sexual Revolution so it makes sense.

I don't think that the forming of the enclaves had to with the Sexual Revolution. There were gay enclaves in the Pre-WW2 period.
I'm bias, too, but I never took to certain studies like it seems you did, and those studies often encourage a particular worldview and leaning. Your sources come from what you've learned, like mine. Part of discerning truth, though, is not just testing that we've learned but accepting the results of those tests, even if they prove what we learned was misrepresented or false. It's hard for me, too.

I agree that the most studies are bias because they have a particular worldview. Humans are bias. That's why I am trying to stay objective through the whole discussion. Though, I would admit that there are experiences and observations of others that make think that Kinsey is right to some degree. What about people who seem sexually fluid like late in life lesbians? Or gay guys that marry women? I'm not saying that everyone is going to engage in deviant sex acts. But there has to be scientific method in understanding these things.

America really was that anti-gay it seems. I'm glad we don't broad-brush confuse pederasty with homosexuality anymore, but the overlap was always present enough that even those of the 50's believed they were one and the same. This confusion is only emboldened by the leaders of the Gay Rights movement as I posted previously, or Queer Theory etc. It was a confusion that existed and was part of the reason for America being anti-gay, but one which few of the major champions of sexual cultural reform wholeheartedly rejected. From the very start it all seems to have been about getting to the kids, and in more ways than one.

Yes, America was anti-gay. I am not denying it. But I argue that anti-gay attitudes weren't as life-threatening as people would like to make it seem. How can you explain how Truman Capote, James Baldwin, and Gore Vidal were popular at the time?

This is really uncomfortable, especially if you're gay and looking at all of this. It's uncomfortable even if you're not. I'm not and I certainly find it to be a hard subject. Unsettling, not just because of what it means in the context of the world but even for myself. Our personal view on sex, our personal sexuality and even aspects of our very identity--how much of it is owed to these perverts who led the SexRev and sexual movements thereafter? How much of what my parents believed or what I believed, not just about humanity and psychology but even about myself, was actually just the aftermath and schooled indoctrination of the Kinsey Reports?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I been looking at this stuff since I was 16. Personally, I think that you're giving to much credit to the Sex Revolution. The terms for homosexuals and heterosexual predate Sex Revolution. Also the Oscar Wilde trial and German sexologists had more influence on how upper class men in the Anglo sphere thought of themselves, friendship, and sexuality. I know you went over this so it's no need to go over again if you want.


This notion of "situational homosexuality", as opposed to simple "sexual confusion", stems back to Kinsey and the Kinsey Scale. See? The man's work even influences our vernacular and understanding to this very day. It's permeated every corner of the house.

Also what do mean you by sexual confusion? When I think of sexual confusion, I think of people who aren't aware of what they're going. With situational homosexuality, I think that there is some form of agency and awareness among the participants.
Why? Even if one proves the existance of some open homosexuality (shouldn't be hard), that doesn't disprove those who hide it, something that happened frequently if we believe homosexuality stats even 40 years ago.

The closet myth is that the idea that all LGBT were isolated from each other and in hiding. Yes, there were people who hide their homosexual activities. But there were others made communities and cultures..
 

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I would admit that there are experiences and observations of others that make think that Kinsey is right to some degree. What about people who seem sexually fluid like late in life lesbians? Or gay guys that marry women? I'm not saying that everyone is going to engage in deviant sex acts. But there has to be scientific method in understanding these things.
I agree, but one does not achieve such knowledge by falsifying research, oversampling prisoners and prostitutes and depicting them as an average sample.

What about people who seem sexually fluid like late in life lesbians
On average, lesbians barely have sex. On some days I wonder if a sexuality such as lesbianism exists. Female sexuality on the whole seems much more fluid. I know we can't study these things for being taboo, but if we did I'm pretty sure that a 40 year study would show that male sexuality is far less mutable compared to female sexuality.


But I argue that anti-gay attitudes weren't as life-threatening as people would like to make it seem.
I think this is very much the case. The way that the enlightenment stereotyped the dark ages as far darker than they really were (to look like more of an enlightenment), our current ideas are of women and homosexuals being given a far rougher deal than was the case. Alan Turing is an apt example. The chemical castration of someone who had been so essential to the war effort is a special kind of evil and there is no shortage of books and movies on the subject. Yet his homosexuality wasn't exactly unknown prior; it's just that when he made a police report and officially claimed to be a participating homosexual that his trouble began.

On the other hand, there are people that think british intelligence considered him uniquely vulnerable to communist blackmail. It's hard to know what really happened.

In any case I agree that the anti-gay attitudes did exist, but are certainly exaggerated these days.


The closet myth is that the idea that all LGBT were isolated from each other and in hiding. Yes, there were people who hide their homosexual activities. But there were others made communities and cultures..

Uhhh okay. I suppose one can define it as such, as well. But even then those communities were kind of subcultures I presume, which is it's own kind of closet. Though I suppose not by your definition.

I never took "in the closet" to mean as "non-practising" but just "hidden from public view". Something that Turing ended when he made a police report of it, for example.
 

EyelessMC

kiwifarms.net
The mention of modern philosophers and psychologists in the thread got me thinking, as did a video regarding the origin of marketing propaganda in America which was posted elsewhere. Considering the impact Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) had on cultural influence and propaganda, I wondered if he was involved in what would later transpire. The answer is yes-and-no, much like his uncle's involvement.

According to an interesting article I found by a Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College at the "Heritage Foundation" ( Archived ), Freud's teachings (which is a can of worms unto itself) were merged with Karl Marx's views on social and especially financial economics (against Capitalism, obviously) into something called "Freudo-Marxism", a kind of ideological grape-nut which merged a psychoanalytic view of cultural norms and morals with an antagonistic view of Capitalism, partly proposing "sexual repression" as an extension of Capitalism and, thereby, a tool of oppression.

It would further seem that one of the noted champions of a similar notion was a man by the name of Wilhelm Reich
Wilhelm Reich.jpg
Freud Wilhelm Reich and Carl Jung_teacher and pupils picture.png

Liberalism Radicalized_Hillsdale College article Wilhem Reich.png

There's also something about "Orgonomy" which was founded by Reich I think, like some kind of cult or new ageism but I didn't look into it because I don't think it is relevant to the thread.
Looking at how elements of different philosophies and theories steadily clumped together, each joining only to grow and incorporate newer ideas before growing further... Almost feels like looking at the beginnings of a Katamari Damacy ball.
katamari damacy.gif

This doesn't mean the Sexual Revolution truly started in the late 20's, though, despite what the article states. It can't be taken just at face value, especially not when it curiously leaves out the one name which, unlike the incarcerated and tarnished Reich, has yet to be uprooted from so many fundamental aspects of our society--Alfred Kinsey.
Certain modern philosophers (like those mentioned on the first page of this thread) and noted psychoanalysts were instrumental in getting this ball rolling but their notions were relegated to certain circles, spheres of society.

Point is, the definitive Sexual Revolution would come later on through Kinsey & Co, and when we look back further toward men like Freud and Reich we can feel the rumbling of its coming.

One article by a heavily Reich sympathetic writer reviewing a book by a similar man vehemently points out differences between Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey (Archived)
In Defense of Wilhelm Reich review.png
More interestingly is this article by the Guardian (Archived WARNING: First image in the article is NSFW). Here we have more sympathetic musings on Reich's influence but without the stark contrast between Kinsey and Reich. Instead they are juxtaposed in the same breath, with Socialism's inevitable mention. Whereas Reich was political and philosophical Kinsey's "research" was different. Also for clarity, Wilhelm Reich is said to be one of Sigmund Freud's pupils.
Guardian Article on Wilhelm Reich.png
It should also be noted that Kinsey was less of a politician and philosopher and more of a scientist, at least supposedly. He focused far more heavily on biology than simply psychoanalysis. He also seems to have been far less concerned with socioeconomics and more focused on sexuality in society (and pedophilia).
It's curious to see this kind of proto Cultural Marxism so early on, long before the infamous Frankfurt School would be established and pioneer Critical Theory and all of its subsets (Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, etc.) While giving a cursory look to see if Wilhelm Reich was involved with the School I found no evidence, but there was a curious reddit post by yet another Reich sympathetic writer going on a rant about how the Frankfurt School essentially stole and retooled Reich's theories and studies into Cultural Marxism (Archived). But that's for a different thread.

TL;DR Like @Noir drag freak keeps bringing up, there were certainly smaller aspects of American society and even the civilized world at large which bore elements of what was to come. A coalescence of ideas and disparate agendas helped lay groundwork. It didn't just spring from Kinsey alone. However, as I said in return, although we can keep looking back to find elements to foreshadow what was to come there needs to be an axis point and identifiable figures at the shift of that axis.
Our axis here is the fully realized Sexual Revolution of the 50's and the figures are Kinsey & Friends (with Rockefeller funding).

There is nothing to suggest we would have had a fully realized Sexual Revolution even with Reich's propositions and Freud & Friends' theories in the air. Nothing says these disparate ideas were definitely going to be accepted regardless of the Rockefellers' and Kinsey's efforts.

No one cites Wilhelm Reich during legal proceedings for a pedophile case and neither Reich nor Freud were instrumental in establishing Sex Ed as we know it. Hugh Hefner wasn't chiefly inspired by Reich nor was so much media, law and medicine. The roots of it all bear one name (among many) which stand out repeatedly, the one which is still highly regarded in all of this--Alfred Kinsey.
 
Last edited:

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
The mention of modern philosophers and psychologists in the thread got me thinking, as did a video regarding the origin of marketing propaganda in America which was posted elsewhere. Considering the impact Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) had on cultural influence and propaganda, I wondered if he was involved in what would later transpire. The answer is yes-and-no, much like his uncle's involvement.

According to an interesting article I found by a Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College at the "Heritage Foundation" ( Archived ), Freud's teachings (which is a can of worms unto itself) were merged with Karl Marx's views on social and especially financial economics (against Capitalism, obviously) into something called "Freudo-Marxism", a kind of ideological grape-nut which merged a psychoanalytic view of cultural norms and morals with an antagonistic view of Capitalism, partly proposing "sexual repression" as an extension of Capitalism and, thereby, a tool of oppression.

It would further seem that one of the noted champions of a similar notion was a man by the name of Wilhelm Reich.
View attachment 2115137
There's also something about "Orgonomy" which was founded by Reich I think, like some kind of cult or new ageism but I didn't look into it because I don't think it is relevant to the thread.
Looking at how elements of different philosophies and theories steadily clumped together, each joining only to grow and incorporate newer ideas before growing further... Almost feels like looking at the beginnings of a Katamari Damacy ball.
View attachment 2115187
This doesn't mean the Sexual Revolution truly started in the late 20's, though, despite what the article states. It can't be taken just at face value, especially not when it curiously leaves out the one name which, unlike the incarcerated and tarnished Reich, has yet to be uprooted from so many fundamental aspects of our society--Alfred Kinsey.
Certain modern philosophers (like those mentioned on the first page of this thread) and noted psychoanalysts were instrumental in getting this ball rolling but their notions were relegated to certain circles, spheres of society.

Point is, the definitive Sexual Revolution would come later on through Kinsey & Co, and when we look back further toward men like Freud and Reich we can feel the rumbling of its coming.

One article by a heavily Reich sympathetic writer reviewing a book by a similar man vehemently points out differences between Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey (Archived)
More interestingly is this article by the Guardian (Archived WARNING: First image in the article is NSFW). Here we have more sympathetic musings on Reich's influence but without the stark contrast between Kinsey and Reich. Instead they are juxtaposed in the same breath, with Socialism's inevitable mention. Whereas Reich was political and philosophical Kinsey's "research" was different. Also for clarity, Wilhelm Reich is said to be one of Sigmund Freud's pupils.
It should also be noted that Kinsey was less of a politician and philosopher and more of a scientist, at least supposedly. He focused far more heavily on biology than simply psychoanalysis. He also seems to have been far less concerned with socioeconomics and more focused on sexuality in society (and pedophilia).
It's curious to see this kind of proto Cultural Marxism so early on, long before the infamous Frankfurt School would be established and pioneer Critical Theory and all of its subsets (Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, etc.) While giving a cursory look to see if Wilhelm Reich was involved with the School I found no evidence, but there was a curious reddit post by yet another Reich sympathetic writer going on a rant about how the Frankfurt School essentially stole and retooled Reich's theories and studies into Cultural Marxism (Archived). But that's for a different thread.

TL;DR Like @Noir drag freak keeps bringing up, there were certainly smaller aspects of American society and even the civilized world at large which bore elements of what was to come. A coalescence of ideas and disparate agendas helped lay groundwork. It didn't just spring from Kinsey alone. However, as I said in return, although we can keep looking back to find elements to foreshadow what was to come there needs to be an axis point and identifiable figures at the shift of that axis.
Our axis here is the fully realized Sexual Revolution of the 50's and the figures are Kinsey & Friends (with Rockefeller funding).

There is nothing to suggest we would have had a fully realized Sexual Revolution even with Reich's propositions and Freud & Friends' theories in the air. Nothing says these disparate ideas were definitely going to be accepted regardless of the Rockefellers' and Kinsey's efforts.

No one cites Wilhelm Reich during legal proceedings for a pedophile case and neither Reich nor Freud were instrumental in establishing Sex Ed as we know it. Hugh Hefner wasn't chiefly inspired by Reich nor was so much media, law and medicine. The roots of it all bear one name (among many) which stand out repeatedly, the one which is still highly regarded in all of this--Alfred Kinsey.

I like this post because it points to Kinsey and his research as a potpourri of earlier movements that took a life of its own. I can accept that conclusion because the old world was slowly crumbling by the time Kinsey hit the scene. All he did was hasten it to a conclusion.

About Proto Cultural Marxism, this is just me guessing. One of the causes of proto Cutlural Marxism was British Imperialism and class. For one thing, Oxford University used to train elite scions of the countries that they ruled. You should look up the Oxford Cosmopolitan Club. Alain Locke, the father of the Harlem Literary Movement, was apart of that club during his stay at Oxford University. It was around that time he developed the idea of cultural pluralism. It was around that time, the non-whites in Oxford argued for a kind of cosmopolitan nationalism for their own countries. Also around this time was the Bloomsbury Set that was linked to Cambridge. Bloomsbury Set was one of the core of British art scene.

 

Drain Todger

Unhinged Doomsayer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net

Attachments

  • evidence-regarding-kinsey.pdf
    538.7 KB · Views: 27

Cardenio

*YAWN*
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Kinsey’s research always freaked me the hell out, because it’s very obvious that many of his findings literally came from studies of diddled kids.


A lot of LGBT people basically worship him and even use the Kinsey Scale in casual conversation. I always wondered how the hell him and his cohorts were never prosecuted for this shit.
For the same reason John Money wasn't thrown in prison for what he did to David Remar. If it's in the name of academic progress the police get their arms tied.
 

mr.moon1488

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Traditionalism is cancer and is not the answer, in fact it is counter-productive
Traditionalism is what bred these people and ideologies. Oppress people too much and you get the opposite extreme.
>Traditionalism
>Oppress

None of these fags were oppressed though, and the JewSA at any point in its history was far from anything traditional. Not oppressing them was what got these ideologies to the point at which they are. You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them. The JewSA and other liberal republics' grand experiments in secular individualism were what allowed for things like this to grow in prevalence and in extreme because there was never some figure in authority present to say "enough is enough," and then to take the necessary actions to stop this sort of thing from snowballing out of control.
 
Top