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

  • DDoS is active again.

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
It's a bit of a derrail, so I'll pm the argument to you when I have time to fully lay it out, or we can start a new thread. if you really want me to.

Probably somewhere later this week or beginning of the next. It's a controversial position and I don't believe it's true, but I want to do it justice and lay out the argument as well as I can.

-----


edit: This thread revived some of my interest and I saw this tonight, where Reisman says Chinese professors contacted her in 2007 after a book about Kinsey was translated to Chinese and they saw considerable change in sexual behaviour in young Chinese people.



Make a thread.


2 .,16(<&5,0(6 &216(48(1&(6&+$37(5Helen Keller In 1910, Dr. Winfried Scott Hall, Professor of Physiology at the Northwestern University Medical School, catalogued some of the deleterious results of public toleration of adultery and prostitution:Statistics show that of the operations on women in the hospitals of New York City... for the removal of one or both ovaries, sixty-five per cent of those operations were brought about and necessitated because of gonorrheal infection [largely contracted by wives infected by their] lawfully wedded husbands.2Commenting on the growing influence of organized vice and crime in the merchandising of sex, the police chief of Des Moines, Iowa, reported that neighborhood “segregation” of brothel “cribs” cre-ated such a sex market that “Landladies... by reason of competition [put] red lights over the doors... displaying the charms of [girls] in the windows.”3In 1908, Edward Bok, editor of The Ladies Home Journal, implored parents to speak frankly to their children about sex, and to stress that “There can be but one standard: that of moral equity,” which requires that “the young man” be “physically clean” before being granted the privilege of matrimony.The famed Helen Keller, blind and deaf after a bout with scarlet fever in infancy, warned in the same magazine of the perils of “free love.” Her article, “I Must Speak,” candidly addressed marriage and family life issues:The most common cause of blindness is ophthalmia of the newborn. One pupil in every three at the institution for the blind in New York City was blinded by this disease. What is the cause[?]... [Her husband]... has contracted the infection in licentious relations before or since marriage. “The cruelest link in the chain of consequences,” says Dr. Prince Morrow,” is the mother’s innocent agency. She is made a passive, unconscious medium of instilling into the eyes of her newborn babe a virulent poison which extinguishes its sight.” ...It is part of the bitter harvest of the wild oats he has sown.4Miss Keller noted that blindness was by no means the most terrible result of this “pestilent sin.”5Diseased children reared in poorhouses, and scores of young, once-healthy women, died in great pain and misery as a direct result of their husbands’ sexual irresponsibility. Discussions of the effects of venereal disease were sorely needed, since “some surgeons attribute three-fourths of the surgical operations on women to this disease: one-fourth is a very conservative reckoning.”6Motivated by the Purity Movement, all states eventually required would-be brides and grooms to be “clean” of venereal diseases before marrying. Prior to publication of Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male volume, (hereafter Male) in 1948, and Sexual Behavior in the Human Femalevolume, (hereafter Female) in 1953, America witnessed a successful “Women’s War” against alcohol-ism and vice, as thousands of “women marched from church meetings to saloons where, with prayer and song, they demanded an end [to alcohol sales].” (During Prohibition, the per capita annual consumption of hard liquor plummeted from 2.6 to 0.97 gallons.7) While traffic in sex slaves, drugs, alcohol, obscenity, and child labor escalated in Europe, there were significant inroads against
KINSEY’S YOUTH TO FAMILY MAN 3Fighting the Traffic in Young Girlsurged restoration of social virtue and purity after an era of incivility. such vices in the U.S. Not until mid-century, with Kinsey’s help, would they flourish once again. Kinsey blamed “sexual re-pression” for everything from the “high” rate of divorce to rape and homosexuality. Yet he was in his own mid-20s at the start of the “Roaring 20s,” which was hardly a decade of sexual repression. Rather, it was a time when girls bobbed their hair, donned shorts, shortened their skirts, and rolled up their stockings, sometimes to attend risqué collegiate alcohol, drug, and sex parties. By 1930, at age 36, Kinsey would have been aware of the considerable success of ordinary citizens in overcoming state-sanctioned (or state-ignored) “commercial vice"


This whole block text undermines her thesis. So what she's saying is that Kinsey's research undid the Purity movement or that he just amplified the social current of "vice"?
 
Last edited:

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This whole block text undermines her thesis. So what she's saying is that Kinsey's research undid the Purity movement or that he just amplified the social current of "vice"?
I don't think it undermines her thesis of the twenties being a kind of peak sexual looseness, which was inhibited by among other things prohibition and women's war, which would later rise again after Kinsey's reports.
 

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
You know I think this thread warrants revival. I've seen a number of examples now on messageboards where discussion of this topic got derailed by a kind of dishonest "gay nazi" discussion.

I think it is dishonest in nature because discussion with these people, I do not seem to encounter the same kind of curiosity or studiousness to the subject. It seems rather to be a kind of demoralization attempt. That doesn't mean that everyone that engages in it is dishonest, but I do think the impetus, the articles published about it are of the "hitler only had one ball, hitler hated animals" kind of nature.

A couple of crossdressing pictures of nazi's do not prove a kind of rampant homosexuality.

It also makes me think of Nick Fuentes for a bit and his interest in cat girls. For all of the funny side to it, particularly for someone grandstanding against tranny's, there's something dishonest about attacking him over it (as some do), when it's behaviour they would cheer on for someone else. And also because even if all allegation in both instances are accurate, then I still don't think organisations which denounce an activity and try to diminish it is really comparable to one that encourages it.

And in both cases they would have grown up in a culture that all but deifies degeneracy.

Anyways, those are some of my thoughts. I intend to renew my study of Kinsey and share the results.

This was also spurred by the recent new yorker article about "the german experiment", where basicly kids were molested to prevent another holocaust:

https://archive.md/pEOWS

This has been known for some time (I think I first read about it 3 years or so ago), but it's worth to see some topical expansion on it.

Some saillant quotes:


Kentler’s goal was to develop a child-rearing philosophy for a new kind of German man. Sexual liberation, he wrote, was the best way to “prevent another Auschwitz.”

Marco was Henkel’s eighth foster son in sixteen years. When Henkel began fostering children, in 1973, a teacher noticed that he was “always looking for contact with boys.” Six years later, a caseworker observed that Henkel appeared to be in a “homosexual relationship” with one of his foster sons. When a public prosecutor launched an investigation, Helmut Kentler, who called himself Henkel’s “permanent adviser,” intervened on Henkel’s behalf—a pattern that repeats throughout more than eight hundred pages of case files about Henkel’s home. Kentler was a well-known scholar, the author of several books on sex education and parenting, and he was often quoted in Germany’s leading newspapers and on its TV programs.

n 1976, the magazine Das Blatt argued that forbidden sexual desire, such as that for children, was the “revolutionary event that turns our everyday life on its head, that lets feelings break out and that shatters the basis of our thinking.” A few years later, Germany’s newly established Green Party, which brought together antiwar protesters, environmental activists, and veterans of the student movement, tried to address the “oppression of children’s sexuality.” Members of the Party advocated abolishing the age of consent for sex between children and adults.

And finally here are a couple of rumors from various sources that I want to see if I can confirm their accuracy:

In 1994, Kentler wrote: “Children are capable of orgasm; Boys up to puberty are even capable of multiple orgasms, like girls and women of repeated orgasms without a break. The idea that children are non-sexual, pure and innocent angels is an invention of the 17th and 18th centuries. ”With this, Kentler repeated the allegedly scientific statements by Kinsey about“ normal ”child sex that Kinsey had adopted from habitual child molesters.

But exposing the network behind Kentler is just one of the tasks to be done: Kentler’s influence goes far beyond his crimes during the “experiment”. For decades he was considered a star of sex education and the “chief evaluator of the nation in matters of sex education” (ZEIT). He saw himself as a liberator of “sexual energy of life” in the tradition of Freudo-Marxism, Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Charles Kinsey.

Kentler claimed that even a small child would need stimulation and sexual satisfaction in order to grow into a healthy personality. Based on these assumptions, he developed the “emancipatory sexual education”, which was very well received during the sexual revolution between the 1960s and 1980s.

lfred C. Kinsey und das "sexuelle Kind"
Die Veröffentlichung des sog. Kinsey-Reports von Alfred C. Kinsey
(1894–1956) sorgte weltweit für großes Aufsehen. In vielen
Publikationen und Ausarbeitungen zur Sexualerziehung tauchte er
als vermeintlich seriöse Quelle auf. Dabei ist das Werk statistisch
äußerst unseriös und völlig unwissenschaftlich.
Absolut haarsträubend sind darin Kinseys Aussagen über die
"Sexualität des Kindes", von denen sich Kentler augenscheinlich
stark beeinflussen ließ. In Anlehnung an Kinsey schrieb Kentler
1994: "Kinder sind zum Orgasmus fähig; (…) Die Vorstellung, Kinder
seien unsexuell, reine und unschuldige Engel ist eine Erfindung des
17. und 18. Jahrhunderts." Aus seiner Forschung meinte Kinsey
herauslesen zu können, dass Kinder von Geburt an sexuelle Wesen
mit sexuellen Bedürfnissen seien.
Für sein Kapitel "Die frühe sexuelle Entwicklung und Betätigung"
nutzte Kinsey die Beobachtungen von hunderten Kinderschändern.
Mit Stoppuhr und Notizheft ausgestattet notierten diese, wie oft
und wie lange die von ihnen missbrauchten Kinder und sogar
Säuglinge (!) zum Orgasmus gekommen seien. "Anhaltend" und
"wiederholt" wurden sie dafür von ihren Peinigern "stimuliert". Diese
brutalen Grausamkeiten sind die Datenbasis, auf der Kinseys und
damit Kentlers Behauptung vom Kind als sexuellem Wesen fußt
 
Last edited:

EyelessMC

kiwifarms.net
Anyways, those are some of my thoughts. I intend to renew my study of Kinsey and share the results.
I've been meaning to get to the materials you posted, the books you got via email with Dr. Reissman, but I've been busy with other things. Whatever else you can find is always appreciated. Your posts are golden.
This was also spurred by the recent new yorker article about "the german experiment", where basicly kids were molested to prevent another holocaust:
[...]
Genuinely horrifying and utterly depraved. Evil. Yet another "sexologist" and yet more pedophilia, this time on a massive scale, and with the chief excuse being "muh holocaust". The idea was to create a generation of raped boys to make them "sexually liberated" so as to prevent fascism? So much power in the hands of a repugnant monster.

Once again we come across the phrase Freudo-Marxism and among sexologists. That he was something of a contemporary of Kinsey and Reich is also telling.
Nice work with all this! Wonder if the "gay nazi" meme stems from this on some level.
 

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I've been meaning to get to the materials you posted, the books you got via email with Dr. Reissman, but I've been busy with other things. Whatever else you can find is always appreciated. Your posts are golden.
It's one of the subjects I just find endlessly fascinating and horrifying.

I am now reading a biography of writer Glenway Wescott.

I had never heard of him, no idea how famous he is in US. But he was among other things, one of Kinsey's gay lovers.

In his youth supposedly he frequently sucked off each of the boys in his class. And as I'm reading that I think: How does one know this is true? How does one know it isn't exaggeration?

Later in the book it's mentioned that he collected what was in his journals and gave long exhaustive accounts of his sexual exploits. Like a file of around 250 pages. I wonder about the value of such "qualitive" accounts for scientific research.

That's about all it yielded so far. Not terribly interesting, but thought I'd share each find.
 

Drain Todger

Unhinged Doomsayer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
He was funded by the Rockefellers and had close peers who worked with him and would continue his work even after his death. True, he wasn't alone in anything he did. The Rockefellers took on the US Courts in their subversion to proliferate the supposed legitimacy of his work and, after an actual government investigative committee discovered they were attempting to basically subvert society via academia they still managed to pull it off, although obviously this was a different matter from the Frankfurt School which was imported from the Weimar Republic sometimes between the 30's and early 50's, where literal Socialists would introduce Critical Theory to academia and so on.

So yes, a lot of factors and agendas were crisscrossing around this time which would, like a steel mesh being super-pressed over a floundering fish, slice apart American society (and thereby be exported internationally over time). Honestly it seems "repression" among the populace (as some posters above have suggested) being the least of any trouble. It's less that people were being repressed regarding sexuality and more that they were being taught they were repressed. For twenty years.

Remember, Baby Boomers were born at the earliest around 1945. Kinsey's reports were broadly publicized around 1948 and spreading far and wide by 1953, roughly the time Playboy and similar rags were being released. Imagine being born right at the epoch of porn being argued as "art" and for social acceptance of what only five years ago most people across the world would consider outright sexual deviancy, if not sexual criminality.

Most of us living today and posting on the Farms aren't old enough to remotely recall the world of the 1940's outside of what we read from WWII sources, textbooks, films etc. Baby Boomers don't even have an understanding of that world, for their most formative years they were already entering a world being irrevocably changed, and later they would be the generation to lead the march for that change. For all we know society was never repressed and no one had any real problems (except racism against Blacks I'd assume, but that's for a different thread) until people were taught they were by all these radical teachings crossing over one another.

At least millennials entered a world more knowable. They came in where porn and sexual expression already existed. Sure the Internet porn boom is nothing to ignore, but if that was impactful then imagine the impact of an entire generation being born right when porn as we know it was being invented and distributed. What kind of never before seen effects would/did that have, let alone that these "sexually liberated" ideas were being touted as backed by science?
Not to take all the blame off of Baby Boomers but rather to understand why that blame exists. Unlike retards who just shout "muh gays" and "muh Whites" and "muh Boomers" this subject actually gives us real insight into what happened and who was ultimately to blame. Boomers certainly pushed it all along but they didn't start this--men like Kinsey did, emboldened by groups like the Rockefellers.

TL;DR Although there were larger disparate forces at work which likely would have attempted a similar direction even without Kinsey, the specific aspects of Kinsey's teaching and especially his research--most crucially that regarding children even from birth and earlier--is actually all him.
He directly inspired and legitimized what otherwise would have been just sexual deviancy and endorsed the most terrific abuses and sexual extremes by signing off on it with a PhD. Money propelled him and popular mainstream media eventually made him shine. It was arguably the beginning of the end, all because of this guy's ideas (and sexual proclivities) getting shady money and shady help from shady people aiming to change the world.

If you want to think of it in a kind of funny way, Alfred Kinsey was the tool they used to shatter cultures. The force with which he was swung didn't come from him, but the specific contours and shape of the tool are all his own.
Another way is to see him as a mad scientist, but instead of inventing a super death robot or some kind of uber virus he invented a means of promulgating sexual abuse and further under the guise of legitimate academic research.
View attachment 2076095

The whole point of “sexual liberation” is to attack the nuclear family and to commoditize people’s bodies. We are told, over and over again, that the nuclear family is bad, that women are oppressed by the division of labor and differing responsibilities in a traditional family, and that eliminating the family as an institution is a matter of social justice.
Except the people responsible for these policies that are dividing families are not interested in social justice at all. Not even in the slightest. See, our society is run like a pyramid scheme. The nuclear family shifts power away from governmental and supranational institutions and towards the population. Families are like governments-within-governments, more able to petition for their own needs than atomized individuals. Families restrict access to their children and decide the content of their education. Families also build dynastic wealth. That is, they eventually accumulate enough assets that they don’t pay in to the pyramid scheme anymore. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the like would very much prefer it if we were broken up into individual consumer-units. That way, we’re all individually paying taxes, paying rent, securing loans, and purchasing subscription services. Introducing women to the workforce had nothing to do with liberating women and everything to do with enabling the other half of the adult population to pay into the pyramid scheme. Securing access to children by making them wards of the state makes it easier to brainwash them and to obtain underage fuckmeat for Elite orgies.

People really need to understand; the ones who rule over us literally view us as livestock. What do farmers do to cattle? They impregnate them as they wish. They take their calves away and raise them. They slaughter them at their leisure. They study their animals’ behavior intensely so they can figure out how to direct and limit it.

This planet is a free range human ranch.
 

Lemmingwise

Female gamers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The westcott book yielded little of value in regards to Kinsey. Anyone have any recommendations or books they think might be interesting in regards to this subject? I'll probably do some new search on monday.
 

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
The whole point of “sexual liberation” is to attack the nuclear family and to commoditize people’s bodies. We are told, over and over again, that the nuclear family is bad, that women are oppressed by the division of labor and differing responsibilities in a traditional family, and that eliminating the family as an institution is a matter of social justice.
Except the people responsible for these policies that are dividing families are not interested in social justice at all. Not even in the slightest. See, our society is run like a pyramid scheme. The nuclear family shifts power away from governmental and supranational institutions and towards the population. Families are like governments-within-governments, more able to petition for their own needs than atomized individuals. Families restrict access to their children and decide the content of their education. Families also build dynastic wealth. That is, they eventually accumulate enough assets that they don’t pay in to the pyramid scheme anymore. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the like would very much prefer it if we were broken up into individual consumer-units. That way, we’re all individually paying taxes, paying rent, securing loans, and purchasing subscription services. Introducing women to the workforce had nothing to do with liberating women and everything to do with enabling the other half of the adult population to pay into the pyramid scheme. Securing access to children by making them wards of the state makes it easier to brainwash them and to obtain underage fuckmeat for Elite orgies.

People really need to understand; the ones who rule over us literally view us as livestock. What do farmers do to cattle? They impregnate them as they wish. They take their calves away and raise them. They slaughter them at their leisure. They study their animals’ behavior intensely so they can figure out how to direct and limit it.

This planet is a free range human ranch.


Poor women have always worked, especially during the industrial revolution. I think that what you're talking about is the reduction of standards of living for the 1950s white middle class.




The whole point of “sexual liberation” is to attack the nuclear family and to commoditize people’s bodies. We are told, over and over again, that the nuclear family is bad, that women are oppressed by the division of labor and differing responsibilities in a traditional family, and that eliminating the family as an institution is a matter of social justice.
Except the people responsible for these policies that are dividing families are not interested in social justice at all. Not even in the slightest. See, our society is run like a pyramid scheme. The nuclear family shifts power away from governmental and supranational institutions and towards the population. Families are like governments-within-governments, more able to petition for their own needs than atomized individuals. Families restrict access to their children and decide the content of their education. Families also build dynastic wealth. That is, they eventually accumulate enough assets that they don’t pay in to the pyramid scheme anymore. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the like would very much prefer it if we were broken up into individual consumer-units. That way, we’re all individually paying taxes, paying rent, securing loans, and purchasing subscription services. Introducing women to the workforce had nothing to do with liberating women and everything to do with enabling the other half of the adult population to pay into the pyramid scheme. Securing access to children by making them wards of the state makes it easier to brainwash them and to obtain underage fuckmeat for Elite orgies.

People really need to understand; the ones who rule over us literally view us as livestock. What do farmers do to cattle? They impregnate them as they wish. They take their calves away and raise them. They slaughter them at their leisure. They study their animals’ behavior intensely so they can figure out how to direct and limit it.

This planet is a free range human ranch.

According to the biographies, Carl Van Vechten and Samuel Stewards also collected writings and recordings of their sexual exploits. Carl Van Vechten sent his box of sexual recordings to Yale or something. And Samuel Stewards donated his work to the Kinsey Institutes.
 
Last edited:

CheetoDust

All singing crap of the world
kiwifarms.net
I like the tag line of this book

‘For most of western history, all sex outside marriage was illegal, with the church and state punishing any dissent.’

How difficult it is to even imagine this. Imagine the goal being marriage and how it would alter everyone’s daily goals and drives.
 
Top