Posted on 07/23/2009 2:05:48 PM PDT by NYer
She’s always bugged me, but I really just thought she was out to make money. I just thought it was gross to watch an unattractive old lady tell people to have sex.
One reason people continue is that our society continues to lie to them and tell them it’s really ok.
LOL if suddenly someone came out with a study *proving* that being obese was actually normal and good for you, people would feel better about their weight and even gain more. That’s not at all surprising.
Do I ever agree with this article! I have always told people the bottom rung of hell would be occupied by Hefner and Gurley Brown. They have brought more misery to the world than is imaginable.
FWIW, Margaret Meads work on Samoan girls was later debunked to pieces. I have the book somewhere. An Australian researcher, I think.
parsy, who hasn’t had sex with animals, unless that girl I met once at ....oh, I don’t want to talk about that.
His ideas took YEARS to be accepted. Some of the kids of the sixties did, but most didn’t. Seventies were the true sexual revolution.
Making perversion accepted is a Marxist idea.
The Marxism has been working for years to take over. This is just one aspect. And look at how well it’s working!
>>There were already lots of movies in the 40’s and 50’s that hinted at an underground of people straining against the mores of the day. Kinsey just gave people the permission to go ahead and do what their fantasies were telling them to do.<<
Goodness!
There have been deviants around forever. Study up on the Hollywood crowd from the beginning. Theda Bara drank her champaign in cocaine rimmed glasses, people believed that Fatty Arbuckle sodomized a young girl because that kind of thing went on.
That doesn’t mean it was normal. That means that for years it’s been “Normalized”.
I recall a time when 'sodomy' was a crime, punishable by imprisonment. Today, it has been elevated to 'sacramental'. For many years, the gay community claimed homosexuality was genetic. Science has now proven them wrong. There is no gay gene! To remedy that, they have altered their argument in favor of a 'chosen' lifestyle.
That lifestyle will cost us, the taxpayer, a ton of money as more gov't funds are devoted to combat sexually transmitted diseases. I give the pope much credit for maintaining that 'homosexuality' goes against the Laws of Nature.
Why would they base their sexual behavior on these same people?
Kinsey's success has more to say about the depraved desires of the average person than the messages sent by Hollyweird.
He was a total evil fraud.
No, the Hollywood habits of the 1900 on have been slowly normalized by the media.
People are seriously not that weird. Did you read the article and how many actual scientists disagreed with him?
Marriage and our age-old moral would not have been destroyed if we ourselves had continued to live according to Judeo-Christian values. As Judaism and Christianity retreat from public life, as the continue to do since the Enlightenment, the resulting vacuum is filled with garbage such as Kinsely, socialism, environmentalism, etc.
We have met the enemy and it is we ourselves.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
F.R. Duplantier June 11, 1996
Kinsey, Pt. II Commentary from America’s Future, Inc.
[According to a videotape expose released by the Family Research Council in 1994, Alfred Kinsey’s famous research on human sexuality was either fraudulent or based on “criminal experimentation on children funded by taxpayers. “]
A 30-minute documentary entitled The Children of Table 34 charges that Kinsey incorporated into his research data from the rape of children and infants, that he used these records of perversion and criminality as the basis for his influential observations on normal childhood development, and that he not only concealed the full extent of his experiments but shielded the adults involved in them from criminal prosecution. In a booklet that accompanies the videotape, Robert Knight of the Family Research Council observes that Kinsey’s 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, and his 1953 study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, “ignited a controversy over sexual morality that persists to this day. Both painted a picture of Americans of all ages awash in secret sexual experimentation.” The philosophy of Kinsey and his cohorts “placed all sexual acts on the same moral, social, and biological level.” The Kinsey Reports, says Knight, “provided the [seemingly] ‘scientific’ foundation for America’s sexual revolution.”
That foundation remained unchallenged until 1981, when Dr. Judith Reisman offered a critique of Kinsey’s research at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology in Jerusalem. “She began asking questions that have yet to be answered,” says Knight.
“How did the Kinsey team obtain the data on children? Did parents give consent? Was there any follow-up on the recorded experiments? Where are the children now?”
Nearly 10 years later, Dr. Reisman attempted to answer some of these questions with a book called Kinsey, Sex and Fraud.
The book, says Knight, “reveals shocking evidence that children were sexually abused by adults in the name of science.” But that was just the beginning of the tragedy.
Kinsey’s bogus and/or criminal research became the basis for a burgeoning sex-education industry. “The Kinsey data are the sole source of child sexuality data, since no other researchers have been willing to risk criminal prosecution for reporting on or conducting systematic molestation of children,” Knight explains. Kinsey’s conclusions “have permeated America’s educational institutions and are the major behavioral model on which sex education programs are designed for children.”
Today, sex education programs in schools across America “systematically strip children of sexual modesty, ridicule the idea of sexual restraint . . . and reduce parents’ roles to that of consultants, not authorities in their children’s lives. The
[rationalization] for this radical departure from traditional sexual morality begins with the Kinsey Reports,” says Knight. “Kinsey’s work remains an underpinning for many ongoing federally-sponsored research programs,” he adds, noting that a group with close ties to Kinsey, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (known as SIECUS), was chosen in 1994 “to evaluate sex education programs throughout the United States and to make recommendations to the federal government.”
# # # # #
Behind The Headlines is produced by America’s Future, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the preservation of our free-enterprise system and our constitutional form of government. For a free transcript of this broadcast, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
America’s Future, 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.
bookmark
KINSEY, KIDS, AND “GAY” SEX WHY SCHOOLS ARE TEACHING YOUR KIDS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
by Steven A. Schwalm This speech was delivered on Thursday, May 14, 1998, to parents at St. Paul’s Girls’ School in Baltimore. Parents organized a forum to address what they deemed the promotion of homosexuality at the school by Headmistress Evelyn Flory. Dr. Flory had given a talk introducing “sexual orientation” to the girls , and posted pink triangles, a homosexual-rights symbol, in the school. According to the parents, teachers had also invited girls to “come out” as lesbians to faculty members.
I want to thank you all for making the sacrifice of missing the media event of the year — the Seinfeld finale — to be here tonight. And thank goodness for programmable VCRs. Your presence truly does show your commitment to your children.
Many of you might wonder how we got here, talking about homosexuality and your children today, and, second, about where we’re going — what can you expect after homosexual issues are introduced in your school?
Two things underlie efforts to introduce homosexuality to young children. One is the sexualization or eroticization of children. The other is the normalization of homosexuality. Both have their American roots in the Kinsey studies.
Many of you are familiar with how the works of sexologist Alfred C. Kinsey changed the way America viewed sexuality. Kinsey’s research purported to show that sexual behavior considered deviant and aberrant was actually widespread , common, and therefore “normal.” Kinsey also promoted the idea that children are sexual from birth. These ideas have become axioms for all sex research and sex education curricula since that time, and Kinsey’s research has been at the root of the push for sex education in schools as well as the gradual normalization of homosexuality.
Recent books like Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Judith Reisman, Ph.D., and a biography by James Jones detail the astounding extent to which Kinsey was either complicitly or directly involved in child abuse, pedophilia, masochism , homosexuality, bestiality, and other criminal sex acts. These activities formed the basis for his so-called “research.”
Kinsey himself called for the liberalization of sex crime laws and changes in child molestation laws. In his second study, he wrote, “It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.”
Even so, Kinsey continues to serve as the basis for sex education in the United States. Later researchers like Masters and Johnson and virtually all sex-education foundations and quasi-governmental institutions, such as SIECUS , the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, all accept and utilize Kinseyan principles. SIECUS’s co-founder Dr. Mary Calderone said in 1980 that its primary role was to educate society on “the vital importance of infant and child sexuality.” Dr. John Money, Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University, has written of the need to legalize sex with children in the pseudo-academic Journal of Paedophilia.
The acceptance of homosexuality by the American Psychological Association in 1973 was preceded by an unquestioning acceptance of Kinsey’s work and under heavy political pressure by the nascent gay lobby, which recognized that to normalize homosexuality, they had to get it taken off the list of psychological disorders. More recently, in 1995, the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual removed sadism and pedophilia from classification as “disorders.” Only guilt feelings associated with pedophilic impulses are now considered disordered by American psychology.
Sex-Ed Subterfuge Sex educators generally view parents as obstacles. One group at Cincinnati’s St. Xavier High School issued a report warning, “The parent community will raise a backlash against actions to get the issue in the open. They fear that their own children might turn out to be gay. They fear recruiting. They fear experimentation. … If a school raises these issues, it should expect a backlash and prepare for it.”
They have prepared for it by reframing the issue as AIDS prevention or safety.
Kevin Jennings, executive director of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) in the early 1990s, recognized that parents would not sit for a direct push for acceptance of homosexuality. Instead, says Jennings, “We immediately seized upon the opponent’s [that’s you] calling card — safety,” arguing that an epidemic of gay teen suicide was the result of homophobia. The myth of widespread gay youth suicide is just one of the latest statistical stratagems used to promote the gay agenda. Using “safety” as her issue, Dr. Flory has brought the issue of homosexuality to St. Paul’s, even though there had been no prior incidents to prompt it.
There have indeed been unfortunate incidents of “gay-baiting” among kids — but teachers and administrators can and should ensure a civil atmosphere free of harassment among students at school without describing or advocating homosexual behavior, and without encouraging kids to identify as homosexual. For Jennings and others, of course, the safety issue was merely a tactic. As the Jan.-Feb. issue of The Lambda Report has discovered, Jennings’ real goal is to directly promote homosexuality in schools as a positive good.
Once the Trojan Horse of “diversity and acceptance” has brought the issue of homosexuality into the schools, the next stage of the “safety” strategy is to encourage gay “safe sex.” Doubtless, Dr. Flory would disavow any plans to introduce gay “safe sex” at St. Paul’s. Then again, we don’t know, because she has not made her “diversity” policy available to parents. Nevertheless , generally the youth strategy quickly moves from “verbal and emotional” safety to explicit “safe sex” instruction. I have here a copy of a pornographic pamphlet describing sex acts many of you have probably never heard of. It was distributed to kids between the ages of the 12 and 14 in the New York School system. These bags full of sex aids and instructions were handed out at a “gay youth pride” rally in Washington, D.C., last month. One of the speakers at that youth rally was Jose Uclas, sponsor of the District’s latest Dungeon Dance, a sadomasochistic sex party. I invite any interested party to come up and review it, with the proviso that it is extremely graphic. Just today I spoke to someone from Newton, Massachusetts. The high school there had a gay day where they passed out pink triangles to every student — along with literature that said , “If you haven’t had sex with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn’t like it?”
Gay activists have been able to disarm parents’ concerns about the dangers of introducing children to homosexual practices by using victim imagery, as detailed in Principle 5 of the homosexual strategy manual After The Ball. The authors say, “Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection” to make “straights feel very ashamed … and to lay the groundwork for the process of conversion.” The authors also advise using “symbols and spokespersons that reduce the straight majority’s sense of threat and induce it to lower its guard.” Dr. Flory did exactly that with an unhistorical portrayal of gays as unique victims of systematic Nazi persecution. If any of you are ashamed by the fact that you don’t want your children taught homosexuality, the strategy has worked on you.
Linking homosexuality with the civil rights movement is another variation on homosexual “victimology.” With a great deal of help from the media, homosexuals have made objections to their behavior a “discrimination” issue. They have succeeded to the extent that many of you here tonight are uncomfortable to be viewed as being against homosexuality, even when it is introduced to your own children.
It is a false connection. There are three traditional criteria used by our courts for denoting legitimate minorities for the purpose of extending special legal protections. These are economic deprivation, political powerlessness, and immutable characteristics. I do not propose to go into detail on these here, but to note only that homosexuals fail all three. On average, they are far wealthier, more educated, and more politically powerful than other Americans.
The central distinguishing characteristic of homosexuality is not identity, but a set of behaviors. This cannot be emphasized enough. Someone who does not act on or express same-sex impulses is no more “gay” than a married person who does not act on or express his opposite-sex attractions is an adulterer. No one says it is simple, but we can control our actions, and even change unwanted impulses.
But not if these attractions and desires are encouraged and given free rein.
As parents at a girls’ school, you’ll be fascinated to hear this. It comes from Dean Hamer, one of the “gay gene” scientists, quoted in the January 30 issue of our local gay paper, The Washington Blade. “Hamer’s research involving women found that sisters of lesbians have about a 6 percent chance of becoming lesbian, but that daughters of lesbians have about a 33 percent chance of being a lesbian. This ‘whopping’ jump in the percentage of lesbians among daughters of lesbian mothers, said Hamer, ‘could only mean one thing; being a lesbian … was ‘culturally transmitted’, not inherited.’“ Unlike race, almost by definition, homosexuality is not a trait handed down from one generation to the next. In fact, how could anyone identify a homosexual if that person did not make an issue of it? The whole purpose of “gay pride” and “coming out of the closet” is simply to force your public acceptance of a private behavior. Let us be clear that this is not an issue of what people do in private bedrooms, but what is favored and taught in public classrooms.
So here we are discussing homosexuality and your children. Others’ sex lives are being made your business, because acceptance of homosexuality is being forced upon your children. The seductions of the homosexual lobby are being brought to your children in your school, and that seduction is followed by destruction.
Thank you.
*** Steven A. Schwalm is a senior writer/analyst at Family Research Council.
— 9/10/98
I recall the look of horror on one psych professor's face when the chapter on Kinsey came up, the horror over a 'scientific observation' of a 3year old whose molestation Kinsey documented but didn't stop, calling the child a 'subject'. It was just one revolting, sickening example of Kinsey's 'studies'.
They didn't express an opinion about what humans might secretly want to do if there were not social or legal prohibition.
We now have the answer to that question ... and the answer is a rather disturbing one.
Except for rape victims, noone has a gun put to their head to do the things that supposedly everyone else is doing, or that some so-called expert like Kinsey thinks they ought to be doing.
There are loads of experts who tell us to eat healthy diets and excercise regularly. We have plenty of famous people who seem to be very popular because they look so great in their lean and fit bodies. And yet the vast majority of us choose to eat poorly and excercise too little.
I wish I could blame it all on the evil liberal MSM and the secret communist conspiracy that is poisoning our minds, but that would be too simple.
The point that your missing is the normalization of mores. It’s the “I have black friends” syndrome. In the past to show we accepted people of another race, we told of our “black friends”. Now it’s gays.
But true acceptance comes when one sees nothing wrong with a behavior. That shifting of mores comes with time. And it doesn’t mean it’s right, or that people believed that way all along.
Go into some areas of the country with a gun and you will be suspected and watched. Is having a gun wrong? No, but the mores of the area are shifted.
You see sexual deviance as normal. I see it as deviance made normal.
He's dead but still affiliated with a public university in Indiana. Isn't is about time to cut funding?
But gay public bathhouses can still continue to spread STDs unabated.
I think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.