Kinsey was a fraud


watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htAUysRPvNs

then this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3704337510629412177#

then you'll know what they did not tell in the movie. "Kinsey" is a pure propaganda flick.

also if you're trying to discredit anything that is being said in the movies posted by me, please don't use "reisman is a christian" argument. if you know what 'logic' means then you also know 'ad personam' are fallacious arguments. respond to the facts given.

btw. i'm not even 'christian right' (i'm not even a christian or US citizen), but Kinsey was a one sick bastard, and everyone should recognize that.

reply

I'm the writer-director's partner, and this is the same tired old stuff. Just because you say you aren't from the Christian right doesn't mean that you aren't. And just because you cite ad personam doesn't mean that the only person in the argument who has been thoroughly discredited and revealed as a fraud is Reisman. The "facts given" are, FACTUALLY, themselves fallacious and CREATED BY Reisman.

My favorite bit, though, is your claim that KINSEY is a "pure propaganda flick", yet you include links to two HILARIOUS pieces of badly-produced propaganda. KINSEY'S PAEDOPHILES is about as creaky (and scary, at this point) as an old Universal horror movie, and the more recent piece of junk that you linked to can't even bother to identify the first talking head in it.

Here are three far more credible and well-organized links to consider:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_%28film%29

3. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/Movie-facts.html

...which I'm sure you'll dismiss as more propaganda.

That'll do for now. I'm happy to continue this so bring it on back.

Cheers,

J.

reply

[deleted]

I suggest that instead of watching the videos the TC linked to, find the Goofy cartoon where he learns to swim.

reply

latest reply ever: rolled off my couch when i read this. best response possible.

reply

Jack, I recall feminists attacking him also right about the time of the porno pedo paranoa panic in the '90s. Some feminists were "in bed" with chritstian fundamentalists.

Kiwiboy62

reply

The man's been dead for decades -- I've stood over his grave. Some people need to get a life.

Thanks for your post!

J.

reply

Some feminists were "in bed" with chritstian fundamentalists.


they still are, they want to ban MORE things today than the religious right tried to ban in the 90s, like video games, women working as models, revealing clothing. using make up...

They became worse than the puritans today...

reply

I agree with you absolutely. Like Kinsey would have said, 'people don't like to hear the truth about themselves - especially others.

They lose respect for themselves and one another when they confront the real you.

A difficult issue for us - we are all basically the same. It' a survival mechanism.'

Great factual bio. Pity he hadn't explored child sex. An absolute phenomenon.

Cheers

reply

Why do you assume that only the "Christian right" believe that Kinsey was a fraud? I am not a member of the American Christian right, and I believe that Kinsey was essentially a fraud. There is much evidence that his methods were shoddy, conclusions were not supported by his bad evidence, and he essentially used his research to create "truths" of his own. No true scientist tries to debunk old and probably false beliefs by creating his own falsehoods.

reply

noe7: judging by the prior responses, you've certainly won a lot of converts! (snicker)

reply

It's been my experience that the people who wag their fingers are secretly jerking off with their other hands.

Interested in collaborative work on a new type of film rating system? Contact me

reply

However Kinsey, the real human being, was is a separate issue from the character in the film. The film showed a diligent, conscientious, loving man with the boldness to expand his intelligence and to share it with the world, and to fight being hypocritical. I think those are qualities we can all stand behind. To find out about Kinsey, the real human being, there are non fiction works to research for that.

reply

Yes, I know about Kinsey's fraud. He did great harm to this country, and I consider him one of the worst true-life villains of all time. I am shocked that many people don't even believe it, they are so brainwashed by the Kinsey institute.

reply

Here are three credible and well-organized links to consider:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_%28film%29

3. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/Movie-facts.html

...which I'm sure you'll dismiss as more propaganda.

That'll do for now. I'm happy to continue this so bring it on back.

Cheers,

J.

reply

Wikipedia? Please. Wikipedia is well-known for being a bad source for information.

reply

Why not provide a few links of your own.

J.

reply

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/07/the_kinsey_repo.html-------http://www.illuminati-news.com/alfred-kinsey2.htm

reply

Here's another Wiki entry for you -- do take time to read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman

And here's the New Yorker - a publication not known for inaccurate reporting - on Ms. Reisman:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/12/06/041206ta_talk_radosh

What else ya got? Anything remotely credible?

J.

P.S. I had to chuckle when I saw the word "Illuminati" in your link, and I LOVED the banner at the top of their page.

reply

Judith Reisman is credible. I'm sorry if you don't believe her word, just because of a few smear campaigns.

reply

I'm sorry if you place more credibility in the Concerned Women for America or the Illuminati News than you do in the New Yorker. But regardless of her nonsensical claims and her fanatical crusade against Kinsey, the film will live forever and no one will EVER be making a film on the life of Captain Kangaroo's zaniest sidekick.

J.

reply

The "New Yorker" is run by people who have much to lose by telling the truth.

reply

Um, okay.

J.

reply

It's true. My rule of thumb is this: "The more they have to lose, the less they are to be trusted, and vice-versa." The "Illuminati News" and "Concerned Women for America" have little to nothing to lose, why should they lie?

reply

Actually, I would argue that, if you have nothing to lose, it is easier to lie. Why? Because, you have nothing to lose.

reply

They also have nothing to gain.

reply

i certainly don't believe that to be true. They figure i won't lose anything but i MIGHT gain something. Could be true in some instances but definitly not as a rule.

reply

Wikipedia (known to be as credible as the Britannia encyclopedia) = not credible

illuminatie-news.com = credible


LOL!

reply

I would not believe anything coming from the Illuminati.

reply

Opinions agsinst scientific method. Just great...

reply

Well, scientific method can be poorly executed and it can always be argued against.
That's the point.

reply

Argued against with other scientific researches. Not opinions of laymen.

----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/

reply

Well, laymen should be warned that somebody's conclusions are not a fact and if some scientific method was invalid, and Kinsey's methods were at least dubious.
His sample collections were biased, he was circling down numbers and groups how he pleased, he apparently forged some of his data. Man received most of the public interest because of the topics he investigated, not because of the science.
This Reissman chick does the same. I would put them both in the same basket, that of pseudoscience.

reply

That's for other scientists to say, not the Illuminati.

nobody lives forever...

reply

I was quoting scientists.
And I am a scientist myself; not that i practice it, but i have a Masters degree in experimental science.

reply

So, which of his conclusions is not generally agreed to by the scientific community?

nobody lives forever...

reply

Which of his conclusions is?

Just the fact that he interviewed one person and portrayed the responses of that person as to be of many different people is enough to understand that the man is not a scientist.

reply

I gather from the reports he interviewed thousands of people. Can you point out some research work from other scientists that invalidated Kinsey's finding?

nobody lives forever...

reply

For example, most of the observational studies on male homosexuality estimate it to somewhere between 3 to 5 %. kinsey reported the value of 10 %. He came to that conclusion thankfully to biased sample collections, since a lot of the people he questioned were prisoners and male prostitutes.

Ofcourse, in either case, this cant be thought of as a finding because observational studies cant prove anything ( experiments do that ), but the scientific methods Kinsey used to make this estimate on homosexuality would not satisfy today's criteria.scientific magazines would probably publish it nonetheless because this kind of study sells and increases tirage, but scientists wouldn't take it seriously.

reply

Can you please share some links on this alternate studies/observations?

nobody lives forever...

reply

You can google it. i Can't put links now.
Just write "homosexuality incidence filetype:pdf" and you ll find tens of them.

reply

Thanks!

nobody lives forever...

reply

Who told you this?

nobody lives forever...

reply


also if you're trying to discredit anything that is being said in the movies posted by me, please don't use "reisman is a christian" argument. if you know what 'logic' means then you also know 'ad personam' are fallacious arguments. respond to the facts given.


Sorry but you reveal yourself there. Apparently you being a Christian could and would influenced which of the "facts" you wish to bring up....

If you're a Fundamentalist Christian then you have a stake in Kinsey being wrong and your impartiality is suspect!

Its that simple...



"If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament!" Erica Jong

reply

Unfortunately the only source of facts for your argument come from one person, Reisman, who has a self-confirmed bias. In this instance, the shoe fits.

But looking beyond that, the overwhelming weight of both academia and Kinsey biographers have found no support for the arguments claimed in these videos. If you'd like to make specific claims supported by linked facts, that might be a different story.

reply

Just because this woman is an uneducated prude, doesn't make Kinsey a fraud.

Here's an example from Dr. Reismans website


"Pornography triggers a myriad of endogenous, internal, natural drugs that mimic the "high" from a street drug."

While pornography may lead to the release of these chemicals, it is not the 'cause' persay.

Those chemicals are called endorphins. They are released during sexual arousal and climax. That would be ANY sexual arousal, whether you're a prudish Christian 'Dr.' (of communications) having sex with your husband, or a gay, bi, straight person having monogamous sex or an illicit affair. Same chemicals for ALL human beings.

Kinsey was not studying whether all these sexual acts and 'biological feelings' were moral, immoral, part of love etc. He was studying and reporting on what people WERE DOING at the time, and how it felt to their bodies, not neccesarily how it felt to their psyche. He did not condone performing sex acts against someones will, including children.

Some of the text from his book could be construed as misleading.

Kinsey wrote about pre-adolescent orgasms using data in tables 30 to 34 of the male volume, which report observations of orgasms in over three-hundred children between the ages of five months and fourteen years...

Does it say HE witnessed these orgasms? No. Some were witnessed by pedophiles he interviewed, yes. Some were witnessed by parents. Some were recollections of victims of childhood sexual abuse. Did you know it's normal for young children to masturbate? Were these children abused, molested, or witness to sex acts. For the most part, no. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that Amish children touch their bodies and feel some pleasure from it, until 'caught' by their parents and shamed for it.

Anyone can take any text from ANY book, study etc. and twist it to fit their beliefs. I'm guessing I could read the bible and find a passage somewhere that could indicate to me that I should listen to punk rock music, get a tattoo and have premarital sex with another consenting adult.

As long as everyone follows the moral guidline of not doing something against someones will, how does it affect YOU what 2 (or more) consenting adults do in private? How does same sex marriage affect YOUR marriage. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

reply

Reisman is tied to the "Knights of Malta" or the right-hegelian flank. They are obsessed with sex and thus explains their obsession with homo's and other sexual "oddities" in nature.

Lets note, Kinsey never said they were the norm nor put a "affirmative" % on them. He needed a lot more data and he was pretty much pushed down. A big reason because he was digging up stuff these right-hegelians didn't want out and expose them.

Thus the Rockefeller Foundation cut off the money and that was it.

reply

Noe7, true: Kinsey was not perfect. Some of his methods were questionable and therefore, his results tainted, but I believe he did far more good than bad. If he enabled pedophiles, nothing can condone it, not even for the benefits of science.

But this Reisman woman, yikes. She's a wacko. Just because Kinsey was, at times, wrong, does not make Reisman right simply because she opposes him.

She thinks that chemicals created in the brain when viewing pornography are toxic, and that such "individuals who have suffered brain damage from pornography are no longer expressing 'free speech' and, for their own good, shouldn't be protected under the First Amendment." There is no scientific basis for her concept of these "erototoxins." She made it up. And she wants to take away your Constitutional rights.

She compares homosexuals to nazis and claims "homosexuals employ recruitment techniques that 'rival those of the United States Marine Corps.'"

Her stance against all forms of pornography resulted in an wasteful and exhaustive (and widely criticized, disregarded and never formally published) report on skin mags, including Playboy cartoons. Yeah, we need that.

It seems that if there is a photograph of a naked person about, the good Dr Judith Reisman will get highly upset. If there is a direction in which she can point her finger, she will. She has made it her life's work to be offended by skin and sex and to spread fear and to rail against the ideas and contributions of a man that died eons ago.

She reminds me of the latest batch of Republican presidential candidates.

reply