Talk:Alfred Kinsey: Difference between revisions
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) →Article Woefully Insufficient in Including Issues of Concern: homophobic statement |
137.186.197.136 (talk) →Homophobic statement: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
{{tq|Kinsey's observations of sex in abused children (that he got from a pedophile), prostitutes and predominantly homosexual men, is still heavily scrutinized and controversial in 2022}} looks like a homophobic statement. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
{{tq|Kinsey's observations of sex in abused children (that he got from a pedophile), prostitutes and predominantly homosexual men, is still heavily scrutinized and controversial in 2022}} looks like a homophobic statement. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
:I don't know how you think Kinsey's use of predominantly homosexual men as a point of reference for the sexuality of all men, is not only conducive to an accurate assessment, but any criticism somehow reflects poorly on my support of the LGTBQIA2S+. Let's stay relevant, I won't take your attempt to smear my character personally, his work is still controversial. [[Special:Contributions/137.186.197.136|137.186.197.136]] ([[User talk:137.186.197.136|talk]]) 19:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:06, 14 October 2022
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Prisons, etc.
It is true that Kinsey studied prisoners. But he did not study exclusively prisoners. And that the statistical representativeness of his data was questioned. But, again, representativeness was not his main concern, he was mainly concerned with charting the variation. Many post-Kinsey studies revealed that indeed a large majority of Americans indulged in illegal activities, according to the laws from Kinsey's time. So, okay, his data were then questionable, but subsequent surveys have shown that it were basically correct. Stating that universities all over the world followed in his footsteps because academics are members of a giant planetary Satanic conspiracy is sheer lunacy. If his data were basically wrong, all scientists would have laughed at him. But they didn't. And Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream science and for the medical orthodoxy.
Curious about his overestimation of nonheterosexuality? See https://relationshipsinamerica.com/pdf/Relationships%20in%20America%202014.pdf . This is from a conservative social research institute. If you crunch their numbers (page 18) you will find that about 20% of US women between 18 and 60 years old had at least occasionally lesbian experiences or attractions. More than half of these 20% had some lesbian sex.
As long as the alternative is a paranoid conspiracy theory, Wikipedia will continue to assert that Kinsey was basically right. Kinsey's estimates should not be judged according to what scientists knew in his own time, but according to what we now know to be accurate estimates of masturbators, nonheterosexuals, and so on. It is a sad day for conservatism when it has to be defended with spewing conspiracy theories. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dillybar1968: Please read the above. WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories are unwelcome to be written in the voice of Wikipedia.
I don't think that Reagan and Thatcher stood for a conservatism which rejects mainstream science.
I think you missed that in our article is sourced that Kinsey stands for "scientific orthodoxy". While his detractors stand for unsubstantiated allegations and paranoid conspiracy theories. Why we would ask the opinion of politicians upon a matter which can only be judged by mainstream scientists? That's a fallacious appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences is the scientific advisor of the US Congress, its advisor designated by law. American Legislative Exchange Council isn't its scientific advisor. ALEC is a deeply homophobic organization, so they have an axe to grind against Kinsey, whom they perceive as the liberator of homosexuals. For their history of defense of various pseudoscientific POVs, it is patently obvious that the ALEC is incompetent at recognizing mainstream science for what it is.
The edits of the IP aren't a mockery of Kinsey, but a mockery of the highbrow conservative.
Kinsey asked all sorts of people about their sexual experiences. It was his job to do it. I don't know why you single Kinsey out for asking a Nazi about his sexual experiences. The idea that scientists should not ask difficult questions is called obscurantism. Paul R. Gross: "Everybody who has undertaken in the last 300 years to stand against the growth of scientific knowledge has lost." Highbrow conservatives understand this very well. I'm not opposed to conservatism, I'm opposed to rednecks who bash mainstream science, belong to the False Rape Allegations Party and peddle conspiracy theories. In the end, making false pedophilia allegations about a person who died 65 years ago is a token of a feeble mind. Not that I'm diagnosing the anti-Kinsey movement with anything, just saying my own opinion. This whole pedophilia charade was invented by a feeble-minded woman who stated that all mainstream sexologists are "Nazi serial pedophiles" because they sided with Kinsey despite her rants. She even tried to make the US Congress pass a law de-funding scientists who stick to mainstream sexology. See, if you are a sexologist and you don't do research the feeble-minded way, she would de-fund you. Her agenda was dumbing down American science.
Morals: if you have no respect for mainstream science, we will boot you out of this website.
And for your information: according to the laws of the time, more than 50% of Americans would have been considered sex offenders if their sexual experiences were known to investigators. So, be careful with claims that he investigated sex offenders. "Then the liars and swearers are fools, for there are liars and swearers enow to beat the honest men and hang up them." Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth. At the end of the day, US are a democracy, and sex offenders according to the laws of that time are the majority and elect the politicians and politicians name SCOTUS judges. The majority is no longer oppressed by prudish moralists, that seems to be the problem according to ALEC. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Percentage
The percentage according to the Austin Institute is being discussed at WP:NORN.
So, yup, is seems that either one fifth or about one quarter of US women had some lesbian/bisexual sex or attraction.
Kinsey was lambasted for the "ten percent myth" and it appears that about 23.9% of US women have had some involvement in lesbianism (sexual and/or romantic). And who says it? A conservative, right-wing institute from Texas. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- We don't add material on the basis of 'even these people admit it'. Actually, right-wing groups may be motivated to exaggerate prevalence for their own reasons, to whip up moral panic that homosexuality is a socially learned contagion. I don't see how this group's views are relevant to the topic of Kinsey except as part of a WP:SYNTH argument.
- It in no way detracts from how groundbreaking his work was that the exact rates he found for certain behaviors were found to be too high by later researchers. He did not use random sampling. Up-to-date secondary sources that critically analyze his work agree on this. Science advances and past findings get refined. Crossroads -talk- 01:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Crossroads: Mark Regnerus is not an amateur, he is a full professor of sociology at a reputable university. And the source does mention Kinsey, albeit passingly.
- My take is that I don't believe that highbrow conservatives are idiots, or that they lie like a dog.
- While I might not agree with Regnerus's personal views upon LGBT, I trust him to render the objective facts correctly.
- Whether Regnerus likes Kinsey is besides the point, but Regnerus manifestly works in a tradition which began with Kinsey, the source discloses as much.
- I'm not so filled with hatred and suspicion as to believe that conservatives are biased hacks who can't tell the truth.
- Perhaps it helps to think that Regnerus's view was the normative mainstream view just a decade ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I said at ORN:
- "It's still a report from a politically biased institute, as your own source acknowledges, rather than a published paper in a journal. That source and the sources in our article on Mark Regnerus also show how controversial his work has been. That source also only mentions Kinsey as the originator of what is usually called the Kinsey Scale, which is not enough to mitigate the SYNTH issues here."
- I would be saying the same thing for a left-biased institute or researcher. Whether such a view was common in society is not relevant, just representing the published reliable sources with proper weight. Crossroads -talk- 00:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Crossroads: You may say that it is not germane to this article, but the percentage of 23.9% is not itself WP:SYNTH.
- Regnerus has been portrayed as having ill will, while in fact it could be a disagreement about arcane statistical matters. I.e. homosexual parents being better/worse if one controls for social class and income. If homosexuals are richer than average, that would go against them, if they are poorer than average, that would plead in their favor. And you have bickering among sociologists if it has to be mean, median, or mode.
- Seen the criterion of embarrassment, its bias is a feature, not a bug. And I did not hide its bias, but stated it upfront. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The source still doesn't connect it to Kinsey. I'm not sure what the "criterion of embarrassment" is supposed to mean. Right-wing-biased people could be argued to favor low figures (to minimize the size of this minority as unimportant) or high figures (to portray it as a rampant social contagion). This is why it's best to avoid such sources entirely as undue. Crossroads -talk- 02:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@Crossroads: Have you seen this? https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relationships/trackers/how-brits-describe-their-sexuality?crossBreak=1824 tgeorgescu (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but it varies heavily by age, different surveys can get inconsistent results, and there are various reasons that their survey responses can be at odds with their actual history of behavior or physiological responses. Let's stick to the academic review articles. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Epistemology
This whole enterprise of attacking the scientific consensus from 60 years ago is unwholesome. Judith Reisman apparently never heard of Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend because it is an intellectual cop out to resort to conspiracy theories instead of reading their works.
As if the scientific consensus from 60 years ago would have anything to do with the consensus statements of the American Psychiatric Association from 2022. Wholly deplorable! ALEC is completely deplorable for seeking to change the APA consensus from 2022 by attacking someone who died in 1956. That is sheer academic incompetence. For more information: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/12/11/1044266/- I know it isn't considered WP:RS, but it gives copious quotes from ALEC statements.
I envision a bunch of old geezers sitting around the table talking about the “old days” and then they use that conversation to write articles and “model legislation”. Every time – it becomes more evident to me that these folks will grab onto any piece of outdated crap and use it to forward their agenda. Every time – even though ALEC members aren’t all old geezers – they act as if they have been stunted in growth mentally and can not relate to the society as it exists today. I truly believe that ALEC wants to take us back to the good old days of the robber barons.
— MNDem999, dailykos, 2011
Anyway, you get the idea: by the time of the 2004 ALEC paper, ALEC members were scientifically several decades behind the consensus of mainstream psychiatry; they were truly left behind. Psychiatry has advanced a lot since Kinsey died, but that was not despite his scholarship. ALEC statements upon what amount to junk science in contemporary psychiatry should be allotted the same due weight as Kent Hovind's opinions upon what amounts to junk science in contemporary biology. And, frankly, I don't think that ALEC really cares of what Kinsey did, they're just seeking for a club (stick or bat) in order to bully American psychiatrists into submission to Old Testament law. Of course ALEC claims that Kinsey did "junk science", but what they mean is browbeating the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association into turning back the clock with 70 years. ALEC couch their move in moral and humanitarian terms, but what they really do is propaganda against freedom and against civil rights. While even the GOP recognizes that "I think even with Christians the gay [marriage] issue, that ship has sailed." [1]. So, if Kinsey's legacy means freedom for homosexuals, neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to undo Kinsey's legacy. As for Kinsey being the father of contraception and abortion, that is not a remotely plausible claim. Accusing him of having created either seems like the ramblings of an opium smoker.
Besides, the dailykos article offers quotes from the ALEC website, wherein ALEC seems to make propaganda for Christian Sharia law. RSVPAmerica intends to make it possible, for those whose heart is tender, to restore God’s law and make it honorable again (Isaiah 42) in America, to find the Truth about this matter
could be construed as propaganda for theocracy—if this isn't really the case, then the author is in bad need of intelligible writing classes.
You cannot change the medical consensus from 2022 by claiming that a certain scientific outlook originated from Kinsey, same as you cannot change it by claiming that it originated from Napoleon Bonaparte. It's an ad hominem (patent token of intellectual ineptitude) to say that a scientific outlook is invalid because it originated from Kinsey; you should debate instead if it is supported by evidence published with peer-review in reputable scientific journals. Yup, it amounts to formal proof of ineptitude, any peer reviewers will PLONK you from any respectable journal for doing it. Nobody stops you from believing that such ad hominem is a valid argument, but you should never state that publicly among educated people. They know very well that it cuts no ice, and that listening to it is a waste of time. E.g. some of the current statistical tests used in sociology come from racist scientists who used those tests in order to promote racism. But that does not mean that the tests themselves are flawed.
About Only interviewed prisoners convicted of child sex crimes. And performed sexual experiments on children as young as 10 months old.
I will spare you the details from modern epistemology, but it was already clear for centuries that knowledge means true belief based upon evidence. So, performed sexual experiments on children as young as 10 months old
isn't knowledge because there is no evidence in that respect. Never was and never will be. Just take a look at #FBI file: the feds were already examining his life, since McCarthy was a powerful politician pushing them do it. But they found nothing on Kinsey. Why trust a paranoid woman and distrust the FBI? What could she know that the FBI did not know? She read the same book as the feds, and she came to wholly different conclusions. These are simply paranoid rants about what Kinsey could have done according to her own imagination. Yup, Kinsey got witch-hunted by McCarthy, even if the link between Kinsey and the Communist Party was purely imaginary. As Judith Levine stated, the sexual morality of the Communist Party was pretty much on the same page as that of the Catholic Church: the Communists were prudes, so the sexual revolution certainly wasn't a Communist plot. While there were some experiments with a sexual revolution in Leninist Soviet Union, they were quenched before Stalin got to power.
And you should not believe everything the BBC tells you. I saw The Power of Nightmares and while the movie is beautiful, the evidence behind it is very shallow. It is simply an opinion piece, it does not render factual knowledge (although it may contain widely agreed facts). I mean its grand narrative is bogus. It's a bunch of tall stories about the neocons. It's from the BBC. Maybe it is commendable as courageous journalism, but essentially it is not based upon evidence. Not that you can't learn anything from it, but it is just a highfalutin conspiracy theory, catering at liberals and pinkos. Why wasn't Adam Curtis killed by neocons? Or sent to jail? Or at least fired? Because there is no such conspiracy.
Drawing the line: such allegations about Kinsey are taken seriously only by wackos, ignoramuses, and political hucksters. It is as credible as I would tell you that J.F. Kennedy and F.D. Roosevelt drank children's blood for dinner. Whatever she achieved through rhetoric, charisma, and imagination falls down like a house of cards because she had no evidence. That's why she never had much success at persuading scientists. They ask creepy questions like what's the evidence for it? And like how does she know what she pretends to know?
And for people who do not like my edits, anyone can fill a complaint against me at WP:AE. Please read WP:GOODBIAS before doing so. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
About his abusive experimentation on children and infants has been widely condemned
: there no evidence that he has ever experimented on children, and there is no evidence that, supposing it really happened, it was widely condemned. If it were widely condemned, WP:RS were very easy to find, but according to my Google searches such allegations are restricted to conspiracist and alt-right websites. Such allegations have never been published in mainstream scientific/scholarly journals because these allegations are a paranoid conspiracy theory. These are simply an attack by lunatic charlatans upon the findings of mainstream science. For the paranoid mind the fact that these allegations do not appear in WP:RS is considered "evidence" of a worldwide conspiracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Not representative of what he really was.
Kinsey was no better than Money. Both dont deserve any notoriety for the fraudulent studies they did. Why is normalizing such behavior so important now? Wikipedia is part of it now too. Sick fucks. 2603:8001:C03D:FC1F:F0A5:A9B7:F2D8:C628 (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- You missed the part with
But, again, representativeness was not his main concern, he was mainly concerned with charting the variation. ... If his data were basically wrong, all scientists would have laughed at him. But they didn't.
AndWhile even the GOP recognizes that "I think even with Christians the gay [marriage] issue, that ship has sailed."
- While the Republican Party is not fully acceptant of T, they made peace with LGB. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The vitriol seems produced by this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20256528/ . Although the link from Kinsey to the affirmation of transsexuals is rather tenuous.
- I can agree that becoming transgender is not the magic solution to all their life problems, and even that some of them come to regret such change (mainly because other people are very mean to them, to the extent others cancel their ability to function properly in society). But I suspect that the movie is basically hate speech.
- Here it is: What is a Woman?. The charge that Kinsey experimented upon five months old children is mythomania erotica. The film makers chose for the easy cop out of mythomania, so their credibility is close to worthless. The reality-based community has a very low opinion of such paranoid rants.
- Christian means someone dedicated to Christ, defined as The Truth. People who indulge in pseudology are not Christian and are not conservative. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- How is the article not representative? X-Editor (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Meaning: not representative of conspiracy theories and of pseudologia fantastica. The article includes views from authors who don't like Kinsey, but there is of course a difference between not liking Kinsey and the lunatic fringe/lying like a dog. Do I put all my money upon Kinsey being right? No. But there are ways of attacking him which are utterly debasing for the attacker. When one cannot avoid behaving like a paranoid fool, they lose the debate by default, at least in so far it is attended by educated people. When the champions of one side are idiotic clowns, one naturally tends to favor the other side. The leaders of the conservatives have to get their facts straight, unless they want to leave the impression that conservatives are senile, comprehending neither science nor the world around them. This does not mean that Wikipedia is opposed to conservatives, but Wikipedians are allergic to stupidity. As Peter Enns stated, "I’m only talking here about uninformed public claims made by Evangelical leaders. They may be rhetorically effective, but they are false and only lead to more cognitive dissonance." Their insinuations are a mere parody of conservatism.
- Why they did not ask the FBI for information? Because it was fairly obvious, even to these conspiracy theorists, that the FBI had nothing on Kinsey. Meaning no felony.
- And this is simply scientific retardation: 1044-1045 "The State of Texas should repeal all Texas laws based on the fraudulent research by Dr. Alfred Kinsey." [2] He died 66 years ago. That means ages ago in respect to scientific research. Perhaps they should name a Texas law based solely upon research by Kinsey, and not upon the 2001-2022 consensus of the American Psychiatric Association. The POV of the Texas GOP is so otherworldly that it seems that they lived totally isolated from the medical science of the past 50 years. Any bona fide MD could have told them that.
A specter is haunting the US—the specter of Alfred Kinsey. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French radicals and German police spies.
- The difference: the US Communist Party were a bunch of losers, while Kinsey got endorsed as official science.
- If politicians think they can decide all by themselves upon what amounts to "fraudulent research", they are in for a rude awakening: such privilege is reserved to the scientific community only. It requires an amazing degree of scientific illiteracy to figment that politicians would have such privilege. That's why I said they behave like clowns: their understanding of the ways wherein science works is abysmal. Yup, they are the same people who oppose vaccination and the teaching of evolution. The US Congress is scientifically advised by the National Academy of Sciences, but politicians have no option of overruling (i.e. changing) the scientific consensus when they no longer like it. Politicians do politics, scientists do science. The scientific community is self-policing in respect to scientific fraud.
- According to the National Post, a conservative Canadian newspaper, Walsh used "bad-faith storytelling to rile up audiences while oversimplifying complex issues." So, this confirms my view that What is a Woman? employed pathological lies. Yeah, conservative journalists imply that Walsh is a manipulative liar (it is Zivo's article, but he is not publishing it alone). So, forget about liberals, this is a dispute between rationally-minded conservatives who show empathy for their fellow citizens, and conservatives who have no respect for science and no respect for truth. Walsh seems more like a rabble-rouser from Agora (film). tgeorgescu (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing
I'm distressed to see that an MSNBC article was cited here. Not even close to a reliable source. And it's called "Here are wildest arguments against marriage equality"? Wikipedia needs to do a lot better. Get some standards. 2601:142:200:38B0:25AC:3594:9BE8:5764 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Alfred_Kinsey. Generally speaking, a source is not either all-out reliable or all-out unreliable, but reliable or not reliable for the claim being made. For further insight, search for MSNBC at WP:RSP.
- To cut down the craps: do you claim that Reisman did not write that?
- Solution: according to WP:RSN, I have also provided the WP:PRIMARY source for further WP:Verification.
- I mean: I might not know everything, but I seek that my editing is open, transparent and thorough. Also, I define truth as what WP:CHOPSY say it's true. And my definition of truth is generally compliant with the understanding of the Wikipedia Community. And, believe me, the evidence standard for giving the lie to the unanimous view of CHOPSY is extremely high. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
FTN
Discussing it again at WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
As Mangoe has shown, I was doing Reisman much too much honor to include her in the article about Kinsey. WP:ONEWAY applies, so paranoid rants about Kinsey being child abuser or fraud
are banned from Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Article Woefully Insufficient in Including Issues of Concern
The page as it stands underrepresents the problems that have been identified with the Kinsey 'research'. These issues need to be included, eg;
'The most disturbing and hotly debated part of Kinsey’s research is chapter 5 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male titled, “Early Sexual Growth and Activity.” Kinsey gathered data from people who can only rightly be called child molesters. Describing the source of some of his data on small children he said, “Better data on pre-adolescent climax come from the histories of adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys’ experiences.”[1] Kinsey then goes on to say that “9 of our adult male subjects have observed such [pre-adolescent] orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal; and from them we have secured information on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self masturbation, or who were observed in contacts with other boys or older adults.”[2] This disturbing description of child molestation is accompanied by a statistical chart that documents the observation of pre-adolescent experiences in orgasm for children between the ages of 2 months and 15 years old. Later on in the book, Kinsey discusses masturbation and says, “Of course, there are cases of infants under a year of age who have learned the advantage of specific manipulation, sometimes as a result of being so manipulated by older persons; and there are some boys who masturbate quite specifically and with some frequency from the age of two or three.”[3] Another chart in the male report titled “Speed of Adolescent Orgasm” records the length of time it took for children to reach climax and includes the notation, “Duration of stimulation before climax; observations timed with a second hand or stop watch. Ages range from five months of age to adolescence.”[4] Perhaps the most painful reading in the male report is the description of children who supposedly experienced orgasm, a description supplied from adults who had sex with children, describing the children “groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)” and also children who “will fight away from the partner.”[5] This final description sounds like a terrified child being molested.
[1] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 176- 177.
[2] Ibid., 177.
[3] Ibid., 501.
[4] Ibid., 178.
[5] Ibid., 161.
[6] Further: https://www.thevoid.uk/void-post/secret-history-kinseys-paedophiles-yorkshire-television/ added per EFFP @ 07:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
37.228.200.153 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are you making your own objections, or are you quoting sources? Who are you quoting when you write
'The most disturbing and hotly debated part of Kinsey’s research is chapter 5 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male...
? The article states that
Kinsey said he also interviewed nine men who had sexual experiences with children and who told him about the children's responses and reactions. Little attention was paid to this part of Kinsey's research at the time, but where Kinsey had gained this information began to be questioned nearly 40 years later.[26] It was later revealed that Kinsey used data from a single pedophile and presented it as being from various sources. Kinsey had seen the need for participant confidentiality and anonymity as necessary to gain "honest answers on such taboo subjects".[27][28] Years later, the Kinsey Institute said that the data on children in tables 31–34 came from one man's journal (started in 1917) and that the events concerned predated the Kinsey Reports.
- What are the published sources that express the concerns you raise and how should the article be changed to better represent those concerns? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- As I have previously stated,
WP:ONEWAY applies, so paranoid rants about Kinsey being
That's it folks: paranoid conspiracy theories vs. mainstream science. Kinsey belongs to mainstream science. And nobody pretends that he was a saint, but no evidence has been ever produced that he was a pedophile. If he were, the FBI would have known about it, they were not amateurs and he was a target for surveillance.child abuser or fraud
are banned from Wikipedia.
- As I have previously stated,
- From the horse's mouth: "The_Void delivers the information you won't find in the mainstream media."
I never said that Wikipedia should strive to represent the views of editors. Rather what I said is that since Wikipedia strives to represent views in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable secondary sources, editors who let their views bleedthrough into their editing are a bigger problem when their views are outside of the mainstream then when their views are within the mainstream. For example if an editor is a Nazi who believes whites are the superior race, when they try to force this view into our articles, this is a significant problem. By comparison, if an editor believes that there is no such thing as a superior race, it's far less of a problem when their editing to articles is biased by this particular view. It's not because there are few Nazis on Wikipedia, and most editors are not Nazis. It's because sources overwhelming reject Nazi idealogy. The fact that our editors also overwhelming do so is great, but was never part of my point. The rest of your commment supports this, so I'm not even sure why you're challenging me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Those who proclaim that the diagnoses from DSM-5-TR stand or fall by the morality of someone who died 66 years ago have some sort of mental retardation. He died 65 years before the book was sent to printing, and the team who wrote it were not somehow possessed by his spirit, they were not brainwashed people, under the mental servitude of a guru. People who drafted anti-Kinsey legislation 50 years after his death were simply put mentally insane. While Kinsey won in respect to mainstream science, their theories were rejected as paranoid claptrap. Even the conservative-dominated SCOTUS would rule such laws as unconstitutional. Even thoroughly conservative judges don't side with sheer lunacy, in its vain attempt to relitigate the scientific orthodoxy. ALEC declaring mainstream sexology a pseudoscience is pretty much like Stalin declaring genetics a pseudoscience. And like the Nazis acting against "Jewish Physics". tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're talking about there. The issue referred to is the concerns that have been raised numerous times that Kinsey used horrific accounts of child abuse as 'evidence' of child-sexuality. The other issues you are discussing seem to involve arguments with an earlier editor. (For some reason my previous attempt to post this response was deleted without explanation....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.153 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- And in response to the person with the quote from 'TheVoid'- the pertinent part of the link is to the Channel 4 documentary - a very large mainstream and reputable UK media organisation (& thus outside the US political partisan binaries that seem to muddle the positions taken by factions of editors here on the Kinsey wikipedia page). The website 'theVoid' itself is irrelevant. The link was added to enlighten those who might be under the misapprehension that criticism of Kinsey's methods and findings (especially the particular ones referred to above) are largely the preserve of the American 'right'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.153 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Those who proclaim that the diagnoses from DSM-5-TR stand or fall by the morality of someone who died 66 years ago have some sort of mental retardation. He died 65 years before the book was sent to printing, and the team who wrote it were not somehow possessed by his spirit, they were not brainwashed people, under the mental servitude of a guru. People who drafted anti-Kinsey legislation 50 years after his death were simply put mentally insane. While Kinsey won in respect to mainstream science, their theories were rejected as paranoid claptrap. Even the conservative-dominated SCOTUS would rule such laws as unconstitutional. Even thoroughly conservative judges don't side with sheer lunacy, in its vain attempt to relitigate the scientific orthodoxy. ALEC declaring mainstream sexology a pseudoscience is pretty much like Stalin declaring genetics a pseudoscience. And like the Nazis acting against "Jewish Physics". tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, there is criticism of Kinsey which does not originate in Judith Reisman's paranoid rants. But to this day I have seen very little of it around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- The two reports were morally objectionable from their beginning to their end, according to the official US morality of that time, and according to the laws of the land and time. And Kinsey's purpose was to scientifically research morally objectionable behavior that took place in reality. Reisman noticed that some of the stuff that was highly objectionable in Kinsey's time was no longer objectionable in the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s (e.g. premarital sex, oral sex, anal sex, etc.). So, she decided to pick pieces which are still regarded as objectionable, and construct a paranoid delirium about world domination conspiracies around those pieces. So, there is no denying that he researched objectionable behavior, simply because scientists have to know the truth about the reality. That's also a ground rule of modern liberal democracies: scientists investigate the truth. Reisman completely forgot that this a ground rule of our societies, she thought she can dodge this rule through moralistic preaching. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I saw the documentary:
- Reisman and the victim do not have evidence, since they have no access to the archives;
- The Kinsey Institute cannot positively say she wasn't a victim, since the evidence is a disordered mess. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Homophobic statement
Kinsey's observations of sex in abused children (that he got from a pedophile), prostitutes and predominantly homosexual men, is still heavily scrutinized and controversial in 2022
looks like a homophobic statement. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how you think Kinsey's use of predominantly homosexual men as a point of reference for the sexuality of all men, is not only conducive to an accurate assessment, but any criticism somehow reflects poorly on my support of the LGTBQIA2S+. Let's stay relevant, I won't take your attempt to smear my character personally, his work is still controversial. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)