Posted on 10/09/2017 9:13:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If Hugh Hefner was the poster boy of the sexual revolution, Alfred Kinsey was the father of the revolution. But that is not the only thing that joins these men together. Both of them were overt rebels against “puritanical” Christianity, devoting their lives to “liberate” humanity from what they perceived to be the bondage of a sterile, restrictive morality.
Kinsey was born in 1894 and died in 1956. His claim to fame was his 1948 volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, followed by his 1953 volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. (Is it a coincidence that it was in 1953 that Hefner published the first edition of Playboy, featuring the Marilyn Monroe nudes?)
Kinsey twice made it to the cover of Time Magazine, and in 1953, Time even claimed that “he has done for sex what Columbus did for geography . . . .”
Despite this fanfare, and despite the rather tame summary of his life on Wikipedia (“an American biologist, professor of entomology and zoology, and sexologist”), Kinsey was by all accounts a sexual pervert. As summarized by Susan Brinkman, “He was a pederast who enjoyed public nudity, made explicit sex films and eventually developed such an extreme sadomasochistic form of autoeroticism that some believe it caused his untimely death in 1956.”
Yet it was not enough for him to reputedly have sex with men, women, minors, and family members. Instead, as Judith Reisman notes, “Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal ‘child sexuality.’ Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.”
This is the man celebrated as the “father of the sexual revolution.” In his own words, “there are only three kinds of sexual abnormalities: abstinence, celibacy and delayed marriage.”
And what of his religious upbringing? When asked if Kinsey’s religious background influenced his research in any way,” Brinkman responded, “Absolutely. Kinsey was born into a strict Methodist home in Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1894. Dancing, tobacco, alcohol and dating were all forbidden. He eventually severed all ties with his parents — and their religion — and lived the rest of his life as an avid atheist.”
Kinsey was at war with God and with traditional religion, which to him were one and the same. (For the definitive study of the man, see the 939-page volume of James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, published in 1997.)
The legacy of Hugh Hefner, who just passed away at the age of 91, is much better known to contemporary Americans, whose lives he has influenced dramatically.
Gone are the days when pornography was hard to find. Today it is ubiquitous.
Gone are the days when nudity was shameful and a celebrity sex tape would forever destroy someone’s career (not to mention life). Today, it is fashionable to strip down to nothing, while a leaked sex tape can jump start a career.
In short, we’ve gone from Lassie to Game of Thrones and from The Facts of Life to Secret Diary of a Call Girl. Eight-year-old children now access porn; middle-schoolers engage in sexting; hundreds of thousands of teenage girls have STD’s; and having kids out of wedlock is as normal as going to work in the morning.
As for Hefner’s religious upbringing, he said he was raised as a “conservative, Midwestern, Methodist,” painting “a picture of guilt-ridden Puritanism, an environment and lifestyle he rejected and that caused him to become the ‘pamphleteer’ of the sexual revolution.”
As for his beliefs about God and traditional religion, he considered himself agnostic and remarked, “It’s perfectly clear to me that religion is a myth.”
Like Kinsey, he devoted his life to “liberating” people from the mores of this Puritanical faith, stating, “I believe embracing sexuality is a part of what it means to be free.”
Yes, the Christian religion itself was the oppressive enemy: “Historically,” he said, “the Puritans left England to escape religious persecution, and they promptly turned around and started persecuting the people they didn't agree with - the scarlet letter A, and the stocks and the dunking board came from that. That puritanism is still there.”
And it was “that puritanism” he gave his life to combat, dying as the epitome of a dirty old man. (For a sarcastic dig, see the article titled, “A Beautiful Tribute: This Old Decrepit Man Wandered Around His House In Pajamas Today Leering At His Granddaughter’s Friends In Honor Of Hugh Hefner.”)
What is the offshoot of all this?
First, one has to wonder if either of these men were ever exposed to a vibrant, life-transforming, joyful, positive expression of the Christian faith.
Could it be that they first rebelled against legalism? Could it be that their war was initially with traditional religion, a religion of laws and commandments and regulations, all negative, as in “Thou shalt not,” and all imposed from the outside in? Could it be that all they saw was a restrictive faith rather than a redemptive faith?
This kind of religion does more harm than good, trying to legislate spirituality and enforce morality rather than introducing people to a living Christ who truly liberates and transforms.
Not only is this a cautionary tale for conservative Christian parents, it’s a reminder for pastors and religious leaders: We cannot ultimately force people to do the right thing. We can only set good examples, advocate for what is right, and engage in active evangelism.
Second, whatever the root cause of their rebellion might have been, in the end, it was clearly a war against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” to quote the Declaration of Independence. These men were rebels and sex-addicts, spreading a message and lifestyle that has brought bondage rather than freedom to untold millions. And although we had plenty of faults and blemishes in post-World War II America, we were a far more innocent, family-friendly nation in the days before Kinsey and Hefner.
What we know is that their legacy is undeniably shameful. The question is, can it be reversed?
(For practical thoughts on how a purity revolution can displace the sexual revolution, see my new book Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation, in particular Chapter Ten.)
As a student, Hefner wrote a college thesis on Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”.
Quick answer: Both burning in hell?
Both were perverts.
What they have in common is the severe damage inflicted upon millions and millions of peoples’ lives.
Can it be reversed? No, I don’t think so. We live in an era when depravity, debasement and vulgarity are social norms, and I don’t see any trends that might reverse any of it.
Those three words,"Thou shalt not",is the heart of this issue.Having both been utterly amoral...utterly devoid of conscience...their attitude was "Yah,try to stop me!"
That's the basic attitude of all psychopaths.
exactly- they were immoral degenerates who shook their fists in God’s face till the end- and they very likely will spend eternity regretting having done so but still defiant and consumed by their anger and hostility towards God- Some say this increased hostility in hell is what causes the grinding and gnashing of teeth- they are so consumed by hatred that it twists them into demon-like caricatures- they very likely are in the place where fire burns them continually, but does not consume- for eternity- Was their hatred and defiance worth it? I think the answer is obvious
It has been said the Heffner was one of the most influential people of the 20th Century. I agree.
How many affairs did he influence? How many divorces did he influence? How many rapists did he influence? How many child molesters did he influence?
How many women did he influence to enter the world of pornography....who later went into prostitution and drug abuse? How many damaged and destroyed lives did he influence?
I looked around me this last week after hearing his death and noticed Huffner’s influence everywhere. In cinema, television, music, fashion....pop culture in general. He had an underlying influence in many areas, not just in this country but worldwide. I also realized that one could go to any emergency room, any police lock up (especially vice squad), any homeless shelter, any crisis center, any family counseling center, any divorce court....any where in this world....and you will find Hugh Heffner’s influence there. It is truly a terrifying realization.
Heffner is now in hell, along with Alfred Kinsey, Aleister Crowley and Anton LaVey. These individuals are arguably the most influential in not just shaping our societal culture, but also influencing multitudes into hell.
Kinsey is pretty much a typical psychologist who was a bit more sly than the rest.
KINSEY'S FRAUD AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOCIETY
by Raquel M. Chanano
Many people will be surprised to discover that what has served and is
serving as the basis for public school sex education (and is even being
used in many Catholic schools) has its roots in scientific fraud. Most of
this could be credited to one individual: Alfred C. Kinsey, with the help
of his colleagues Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul Gebhard.
Their research and studies have undoubtedly shaped current attitudes and
perceptions concerning human sexuality. These perceptions have ultimately
worked themselves into the current sex education programs.
Over forty years ago, Alfred C. Kinsey was a professor of zoology at
Indiana University (I.U.). Later he served as coordinator of new marriage
courses that were established at I.U. During his involvement in these
courses, he began to question students about their sex lives and offer
advice in matters of sex and relationships. He simultaneously began
compiling detailed documentation of several of these "sex histories" for
his own personal interest.
Alfred Kinsey considered animal sexual behavior as the model for human
sexual behavior, the only difference being that animals act without
inhibition and by instinct alone. However, various cultural conditions are
imposed on human beings, according to Kinsey, that unjustly inhibit and
even criminally prohibit "natural human sexual behavior." "Being involved
in all types of sexual activity would represent freedom from the cultural
conditioning which society imposes and which leads to artificial
distinctions such as right and wrong, licit and illicit, normal and
abnormal, acceptable and unacceptable in our social organization," Kinsey's
Male Report (1948) states.[1]
The most famous and widely used Kinseyan concept is the notion of the
sexual outlets. This notion subscribes to the principle that there are six
possible forms of sexual release, which are the following from the male
perspective: masturbation, nocturnal emissions, heterosexual petting,
heterosexual intercourse, homosexual relations, and intercourse with
animals of other species.[2]
Since all of these constitute sexual release, they are all equally
acceptable and normal, according to Kinsey. In reference to sexual release,
there is the concept that bisexuality is the most balanced of all sexual
orientations, because it includes both heterosexual and homosexual
activity. In Kinsey's own words, "biologically there is no form of outlet
which I will admit as abnormal."[3] The problem, according to him, is that
society was conditioned through traditional modes of thought to believe
that heterosexual activity within marriage, especially, is both correct and
the healthiest means of sexual expression. Kinsey strictly believed that
all forms are healthy and that if any one form is abnormal and lesser, it
is heterosexual intercourse.[4]
One of the most worrisome of his concepts is that which justifies
pedophiliac activity. Kinsey believed that children were predisposed to
sexual activity from the moment of birth and that adult-child sex was
included under the notion of a sexual outlet. Our social conditioning made
it taboo, although it is actually a "normal" sexual behavior that should be
practiced as well as pursued, Kinsey believed. He maintained that when done
under circumstances where the adult genuinely cares for the child, as would
a loving parent or relative, sex between an adult and a child could prove
to be a healthy experience for the child. The results are unfavorable,
Kinsey said, only when the child is conditioned by police authorities and
parents to believe that such conduct is immoral and incorrect.[5]
How does a scientist go about collecting evidence for such theories? One
would like to believe that both ethical and scientifically sound research
methods would be employed. Kinsey claimed that he wanted to conduct
research that would be representative of American society. However,
Kinsey's work and research was manipulated so that its results would be
indicative of what he himself believed, without any real and tangible
scientific support. According to Paul Robinson, one of Kinsey's
biographers, Kinsey's work was designed to "undermine the traditional
sexual order."[6] Kinsey had his own amoral agenda and hoped to use his
research as the scientific base to "change society's traditional moral
values."
Kinsey's research included two main parts: he used data from the "sex
histories" of about 18,000 persons, and he directed experimental sex
research on several hundred children aged two months to almost 15 years of
age. The information from the "sex histories" was not only manipulated, but
most of his interviewees were not representative of society, because they
were deliberately chosen (others volunteered) for their sexual deviancy.
Though Kinsey wanted to document and expose what society was doing
sexually, he only concentrated on one section of society -the deviant. A
great number of the 5,300 male interviewees were sex offenders, pedophiles
and exhibitionists, while about 25 percent of them were prison inmates.
Many of those who volunteered were also biased in favor of the "sexually
unconventional."[7]
Kinsey himself and his team also observed and took notes on several filmed
"experiments" that dealt with various kinds of deviant behavior, especially
sex acts between homosexual males.[8]
The experimental research on several hundred children consisted of the
molestation of these children by a group of nine persons. Some were
"technically trained" and in reality acted like pedophiles. It is reported
that some were indeed already pedophiles because not all had to be trained.
In Kinsey's (1948) it is reported that the children reacted
to the oral and manual stimulation by these nine adults in various ways.
The reactions ranged from bodily "twitching", "violent cries", "violent
convulsions", and "extreme trembling", to "excruciating pain".[9]
This was all done in order to supposedly demonstrate that children are
sexual beings and can enjoy sexual pleasure as well as any adult. Kinsey
sought to use these results to indicate that children are indeed able to
engage in and benefit from sexual activity. There was no documentation as
to who were those children or where they came from. How's that for
scientific soundness? However, the relevant issue here is that Kinseyan
concepts and perceptions on human sexuality, though deceitful and
unscientific, have surfaced in sex education courses.
It is clear that sex education has been oriented towards the direction
Kinsey had envisioned for society. Due to the second part of his research,
his unfounded assertions have made their way into sex education for
children. Most of the professional sex educators are being taught the
Kinseyan model of human sexuality. A number of materials on sex education
have captured Kinseyan modes of thought to their curricula. Even the
biggest and most influential organizations include and promulgate Kinseyan
concepts within their educational efforts.
Evidence of the correlation between Kinsey's theories and prominent
educational agencies is abundant. One of the largest of these is the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Its publication, ),
for the Western Hemisphere Region, states that sex education
methods should facilitate the understanding that there is no one model of
sexual behavior, but on the contrary, that there are diverse types of
sexual behavior which are all acceptable and respectable.[10] The root of
their sex education objectives are clearly embedded in Kinsey's views. What
is more obvious is the fact that various remarks from both Kinsey and
Pomeroy (his colleague) are stated in order to justify teaching the
validity of diverse types of sexuality, the most prominent of which is
homosexuality.[11] The Teaching of Human Sexuality in Schools (la Ensenanza
de la Sexualidad Humana en las Escuelas) by IPPF, also states that young
people should not be exposed to negative prevailing attitudes towards
homosexuality so that they can develop "freely" and "normally."[12]
Other organizations that follow Kinsey's lead are the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), its regional
center of higher education for Latin America and the Caribbean CRESALC),
Planned Parenthood of America, and the Sex Information and Education
Council of the United States (SIECUS). UNESCO's publication, )
for first grade education, includes several cartoon-type figures claiming
that children have the right to know their bodies. They proclaim the
uselessness of guilt, prejudice, and social taboos. From seventh through
ninth grade, students are taught that sexual relations can be constructive
and pleasant experiences for both persons involved if both are open to
having them freely, conscientiously, and if they are informed and
responsible.[13]
The Regional Center of Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean
(CRESALC), under the UNESCO-FNUAP umbrella, also dedicates much of its
effort to similar educational instructions. In Diez Hechos Ciertos y De
Peso Acerca del Sexo (a Spanish translation of Ten Heavy Facts About Sex),
a publication partly funded by CRESALC, students are informed that the
enrichment of a relation is sex between two people, no matter who the two
people are.[14] In other words, students are taught to believe that any type
of sexual activity is both correct and naturally enriching. Ultimately,
children learn that heterosexuality is but one of the many options
available to them. In this manner they start to establish the premise that
heterosexuality can be easily abandoned. It is the creation of a
"heterophobic" society, which Kinsey obviously aimed for through his
research. This term, as of yet, has not worked its way into American
mainstream society as the term "homophobic" has. (Homophobia is used to
describe the unfounded fear and discomfort which some people or a
particular culture supposedly have toward homosexuals.) Once all of
Kinsey's ideas are in place, society will come to fear and be wary of
heterosexuals, while the sexual deviations will be seen as the norm.
Two of the main promoters in the U.S., where Kinsey's ideas are concerned,
are the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and SIECUS (Sex
Information and Education Council of the United States). Planned
Parenthood, by far the more prominent, founded by Margaret Sanger, is a
model of Kinseyan thought. Kinsey was simply following in the footsteps of
Sanger, who once claimed that "the marriage bed is the most degrading
influence of the sexual order . . . a decadent institution, a reactionary
development of the sex instinct."[15] SIECUS, under the leadership of Dr.
Mary S. Calderone, formerly medical director for the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, has also been making continuous strides in relation
to sex education for children, based on the Kinseyan philosophy. For
example, the promotion of the "acceptance of the wide range of possible
expressions of sexuality," was affirmed in a January 1980 SIECUS Report.[16]
But where Kinseyan philosophy is most noticeable is in SIECUS's attempts at
teaching childhood sexuality. By 1983 Mary Calderone was writing that the
child's sexual capacities could "be developed in the same way as the
child's inborn human capacity to talk or to walk . . "[17] It is amazing how
society is now working towards indoctrinating children in matters of
sexuality at an early age: Planned Parenthood's Sex Education and Mental
Health Report (1979), states that "no religious views, no moral standards,
are to deflect the child from the overriding purposes of self-discovery,
self-assertion, and selfgratification."[18] Children, especially teenagers,
are learning in sex education courses patterned after Kinsey, that all sex
is good in an of itself and that it is fun. They are being taught to
believe they have the right and that it is for their well-being that they
enter into any type of sexual activity at an early age, even with adults.
Many sex educators have joined the bandwagon, without any slight hint of
hesitation. It is no wonder that young people are engaging in promiscuous
sexual activity, now more than ever, with the resulting rise of venereal
diseases, illegitimate pregnancies, abortion, AIDS, etc. It is obviously a
cause-and-effect scenario, and our society is clearly reaping the fruits
from this type of mentality.
What is extremely difficult to believe is that our society seems to be on
the verge of accepting pedophilia as an orientation within the sex
spectrum. This particular issue is where the ties to Kinsey's research can
be fully attested. In an article, Joan A. Nelson, Ed.D., writes in favor of
a model of adult-child sexuality in which sex acts with children are to be
viewed as acceptable and even essential to the healthy development of the
child. What Dr. Nelson views as the harmful agent is "society's
condemnation," rather than the effects of such grotesque and immoral acts
on young children.[19] Also, Wardell Pomeroy (Kinsey's colleague) of Planned
Parenthood, once stated that "incest between adults and younger children
can also prove to be a satisfying experience. Incestuous relationships can-
and do-work out well."[20] This is exactly what Kinsey believed! A variety of
materials from Alyson Publications, which consist mostly of pro-homosexual
literature, includes a new series of books that attempt to justify
pedophilia and render its perpetrators respectable. "They promote children
as objects of sexual pleasure, give advice on how to have sex with children
without getting caught, provide locations around the world were child
prostitutes can be had, and list clubs pedophiles can join..."[21] Now that
academic sexology accepts children as sexual beings and many strides are
being taken to legitimize child-adult sex, we can see the acceptance of
pedophilia as an orientation on the horizon. It is only a matter of time
before we will find other scientists, sex educators, and publishing
companies, sympathizing with the pro-pedophilia effort. We owe this largely
to the work and effort of Alfred C. Kinsey!
The traditional, Christian moral values that once prevailed are undoubtedly
under attack. The endeavor appears to be one on which some of the most
influential sectors of society have embarked. Kinsey himself was motivated
to change society's perception of human sexuality by his disgust towards
the Judeo-Christian tradition. "Kinsey knew a great deal about the Judeo-
Christian tradition, and he was indignant about what it had done to our
culture," says Pomeroy.[22]
IPPF's manual Human Sexuality and Personal Relations states that a more
positive view of human sexuality, free of preconceived moral and religious
taboos, should be integrated.[23] And "SIECUS' idea of current needs in sex
education has led to the basic conflict . . . about the nature of human
sexuality in a civilized society and whether traditional Judeo-Christian
beliefs about sexuality are repressive and unhealthy."[24]
Alfred C. Kinsey had opened an avenue of abuse and deceit within the study
of human sexuality and sex education; we are witnesses to the continuous
expansion of this avenue.
Raquel M. Chaviano is a summer intern at HLI and is a junior at Florida
International University, majoring in Religious Studies.
HLI has available the book on which this article was based, Kinsey, Sex and
Fraud, by Reisman and Eichel. Call 1-800-749-4009.
ENDNOTES
1 Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel, , (Lochinvar Inc., 1990), pp. 6-8.
2 Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, (W.B. Saunders Company, 1948), 193. Cited hereafter as
.
3 Wardell B. Pomeroy,
(Harper and Row, 1972), 77.
4 Reisman and Eichel, p. 45
5 Ibid., p. 3 and 130.
6 Ibid., p. 7, quoted from Paul Robinson, (New
York: Harper & Row, 1976).
7 Reisman and Eichel, p. 8.
8 Ibid, p. 49.
9 Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, , pp. 160-161.
10 International Planned Parenthood Federation, (New York, 1983), 54.
11 Ibid, pp. 252-253, 257.
12 Ibid pp. 252-253, 257.
13 Republica Dominicana, Secretaria de Estado de Educacion, Bellas Artes y
Cultos, . Cresalc-Unesco, Apartado Postal 62090, Caracas
1060 A, Venezuela.
14 Asociacion Guatemalteca de Educacion Sexual (AGES) y CRESALC. Ten Heavy
Facts About Sex, The Institute for Family Research and Education, 1979.
15 Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, , p. 7,
quoted from by Margaret Sanger (State University of New York at
Stonybrook, 1976).
16 Reisman and Eichel, p. 123.
17 Ibid, p. 128, taken from SIECUS Report, May-July 1983, p. 9.
18 Brian Clowes, , v. II c. 67-6, quoted
from Planned Parenthood Sex Education and Mental Health Report, 1979.
19 Reisman and Eichel, p. 207, taken from Joan A. Nelson,
"Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and
Experience," 15 (1989) 3-12.
20 Brian Clowes, , v.II C. 678, quoted from Wardell B.
Pomeroy, "A New Look at Incest," , November 1976, pp. 84-
89.
21 "Who publishes those pro-gay kids' books?" , February
1993: 2.
22 Pomeroy, , p. 30.
23 IPPF, , p. 34.
24 Reisman and Eichel, p. 123.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Since psychologists believe that humans are just animals (pure projection) it fits.
It’s not what they did that will put them in hell…. It’s what they didn’t do. Luke 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Repenting and accepting what Jesus Christ has done is the only way to escape perishing in hell.
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.