This page is not a forum for general discussion about Alfred Kinsey. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Alfred Kinsey at the Reference desk. |
Frequently asked questions The main points of this FAQ ( Talk:Alfred Kinsey#FAQ) can be summarized as:
More detail is given on this point, below. To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?
A1: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to
reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be
polite and support your views with citations from
reliable sources. Past discussions
References |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
'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.
WP:ONEWAY applies, so paranoid rants about Kinsey beingThat'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 fraudare banned from Wikipedia.
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)
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)
Kinsey's observations of...
1. sex in abused children (absolutely ghastly that he and his foundation were never confronted about this, and had decades to concoct a justification for why he had this data -not to mention how he came in possession of this journal and why he gave it so much bearing in the first place-
2. Predominantly homosexual men as a point of reference for the sexuality of all men (some degrees of separation as it's on a spectrum, sure, but in no way conducive to thoughtful analysis)
3. Early 20th century sex workers who had little to no agency as a point of reference for the sexuality of women.
This is all controversial in the modern day, I have no clue why this article insists that this was only controversial in the 40s and 50s. 137.186.197.136 ( talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
repeatedlymeans more than once. Produce evidence that I have called you repeatedly homophobic. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
concoct a justification. Reisman's wild guesses won't do, she spewed a paranoid conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
That he was not a pedophile is not something postulated at the a priori level, but it is simply an empirical fact based upon:
So it is not so that Wikipedia forfeits positing that he was a pedophile at the a priori level, but simply because there is no evidence to believe it.
While him being a pedophile were not wholly impossible, there is no shred of evidence that he was one.
Same as for Trump and Clinton: it is not wholly impossible that they are pedophiles, but there is no evidence to believe it for a fact. So, while it is not a priori impossible, Wikipedia does not posit it because there is no evidence. Believers in conspiracies think that Wikipedia rejects it a priori, while we reject it because there never was good evidence for it. They don't understand that there never was evidence for their conspiracy theory. It's not an occult power acting against them, but merely the fact that they never had evidence for their claims. Nobody believes them around here, because they could never make a serious claim that they know the truth in this matter. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@vandals: The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association basically endorse Kinsey's conclusions. If he merely were a prevaricator, how do you explain that his view is still scientifically correct in 2022? As a pioneering work, he did not have to be altogether correct, but preponderantly correct does the job. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
As I was told before, Reisman is not representative for the anti-Kinsey movement. She was a fringe loon crying in the desert. There are other people who are more representative for that movement, but I am not an expert thereupon.
All she could show is that Kinsey had received data donated by pedophiles. The rest of her allegations were paranoid rants. So, reducing the anti-Kinsey movement to her is a straw man.
What Anthony Storr wrote about somebody else could also apply to her: "His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to consider it delusional...." So, of all anti-Kinsey folks, she is the easiest to dismiss, because she never had any real evidence that Kinsey were a pedophile organizing a world conspiracy against virtue and common sense. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Was Woodrow Wilson a pedophile? I mean: it is not altogether impossible. But since there is zero evidence to that extent, Wikipedia cannot claim that Wilson was a pedophile. Same applies to Kinsey. If Kinsey is fair game for libel, why not Wilson? If Wilson is, why not Trump? Just call Trump a pedophile because a ranting fool claims he is so. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
"being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online" O'Sullivan, Donie (12 December 2022). "Former top Twitter official forced to leave home due to threats amid 'Twitter Files' release - CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 15 December 2022. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Dlobr: Kinsey wasn't "associated" with pedophiles or anything like that. But he was hunting after data. The claim that we was associated with pedophiles is Reisman's paranoid delirium. See WP:GEVAL for the distinction between historical facts and paranoid conspiracy theories.
So, the obsession with "Kinsey's pedophiles" is just rhetoric meant to produce and organize anger against LGBT rights. People like Reisman have exported the death penalty for homosexuals to countries like Uganda. This can be seen from the fact that Reisman approvingly quoted Scott Lively and shared in his vision of Nazism as a homosexual conspiracy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Quoting myself. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
My claim is that pushing unsubstantiated allegations (conspiracy theories) about Kinsey being an associate of pedophiles should be treated as a de facto expression of homophobia. Agree or disagree with such claim? tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Should we include allegations that Kinsey was an associate of pedophiles in this article?or maybe
Is the mention in the lead that Kinsey's research was controversial "because of accepting data donation from pedophiles in particular" justified by the relevant text in the body?Loki ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
It does not matter that the allegations are batshit crazy, but Christofascist senators use them as a stick against the scientists whose works have been essential for the support for the LGBT (decriminalization up to gay marriage). Actually, the legally designated scientific advisor of the US Congress was just a phone call away, and they could learn very fast that they deal in WP:CB. Of the FBI, for that matter. But nothing beats stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance at their own game. If these people decide the fate of US science, the US is doomed, economically and militarily. In order to achieve that, they only have to combat mainstream science, and entropy will take care of the rest. If they make scientists feel unwelcome in the US, that will be the end of a superpower. Sexologists, evolutionary biologists, virologists, bacteriologists—make them all unhappy and see how fast the country reaches bottom. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: If you take into account that one side of that dispute based its amendment upon paranoid conspiracy theories, the other side are the voices of reason by virtue of not buying into paranoid conspiracy theories. The Democrats and several Republican senators voted against the amendment because it is an angry, vindictive, irrational, paranoid, and administratively badly thought-out political decision. I would not be amazed if Conservative judges declare it unconstitutional. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Peleio Aquiles and Giovanni 0331: Did he tried to have sex with men? Yes, but found out pretty soon it wasn't his thing. So, the category LGBT or bisexual is shoddy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Alfred Kinsey. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Alfred Kinsey at the Reference desk. |
Frequently asked questions The main points of this FAQ ( Talk:Alfred Kinsey#FAQ) can be summarized as:
More detail is given on this point, below. To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?
A1: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to
reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be
polite and support your views with citations from
reliable sources. Past discussions
References |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
'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.
WP:ONEWAY applies, so paranoid rants about Kinsey beingThat'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 fraudare banned from Wikipedia.
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)
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)
Kinsey's observations of...
1. sex in abused children (absolutely ghastly that he and his foundation were never confronted about this, and had decades to concoct a justification for why he had this data -not to mention how he came in possession of this journal and why he gave it so much bearing in the first place-
2. Predominantly homosexual men as a point of reference for the sexuality of all men (some degrees of separation as it's on a spectrum, sure, but in no way conducive to thoughtful analysis)
3. Early 20th century sex workers who had little to no agency as a point of reference for the sexuality of women.
This is all controversial in the modern day, I have no clue why this article insists that this was only controversial in the 40s and 50s. 137.186.197.136 ( talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
repeatedlymeans more than once. Produce evidence that I have called you repeatedly homophobic. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
concoct a justification. Reisman's wild guesses won't do, she spewed a paranoid conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
That he was not a pedophile is not something postulated at the a priori level, but it is simply an empirical fact based upon:
So it is not so that Wikipedia forfeits positing that he was a pedophile at the a priori level, but simply because there is no evidence to believe it.
While him being a pedophile were not wholly impossible, there is no shred of evidence that he was one.
Same as for Trump and Clinton: it is not wholly impossible that they are pedophiles, but there is no evidence to believe it for a fact. So, while it is not a priori impossible, Wikipedia does not posit it because there is no evidence. Believers in conspiracies think that Wikipedia rejects it a priori, while we reject it because there never was good evidence for it. They don't understand that there never was evidence for their conspiracy theory. It's not an occult power acting against them, but merely the fact that they never had evidence for their claims. Nobody believes them around here, because they could never make a serious claim that they know the truth in this matter. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@vandals: The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association basically endorse Kinsey's conclusions. If he merely were a prevaricator, how do you explain that his view is still scientifically correct in 2022? As a pioneering work, he did not have to be altogether correct, but preponderantly correct does the job. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
As I was told before, Reisman is not representative for the anti-Kinsey movement. She was a fringe loon crying in the desert. There are other people who are more representative for that movement, but I am not an expert thereupon.
All she could show is that Kinsey had received data donated by pedophiles. The rest of her allegations were paranoid rants. So, reducing the anti-Kinsey movement to her is a straw man.
What Anthony Storr wrote about somebody else could also apply to her: "His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to consider it delusional...." So, of all anti-Kinsey folks, she is the easiest to dismiss, because she never had any real evidence that Kinsey were a pedophile organizing a world conspiracy against virtue and common sense. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Was Woodrow Wilson a pedophile? I mean: it is not altogether impossible. But since there is zero evidence to that extent, Wikipedia cannot claim that Wilson was a pedophile. Same applies to Kinsey. If Kinsey is fair game for libel, why not Wilson? If Wilson is, why not Trump? Just call Trump a pedophile because a ranting fool claims he is so. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
"being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online" O'Sullivan, Donie (12 December 2022). "Former top Twitter official forced to leave home due to threats amid 'Twitter Files' release - CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 15 December 2022. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Dlobr: Kinsey wasn't "associated" with pedophiles or anything like that. But he was hunting after data. The claim that we was associated with pedophiles is Reisman's paranoid delirium. See WP:GEVAL for the distinction between historical facts and paranoid conspiracy theories.
So, the obsession with "Kinsey's pedophiles" is just rhetoric meant to produce and organize anger against LGBT rights. People like Reisman have exported the death penalty for homosexuals to countries like Uganda. This can be seen from the fact that Reisman approvingly quoted Scott Lively and shared in his vision of Nazism as a homosexual conspiracy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Quoting myself. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
My claim is that pushing unsubstantiated allegations (conspiracy theories) about Kinsey being an associate of pedophiles should be treated as a de facto expression of homophobia. Agree or disagree with such claim? tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Should we include allegations that Kinsey was an associate of pedophiles in this article?or maybe
Is the mention in the lead that Kinsey's research was controversial "because of accepting data donation from pedophiles in particular" justified by the relevant text in the body?Loki ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
It does not matter that the allegations are batshit crazy, but Christofascist senators use them as a stick against the scientists whose works have been essential for the support for the LGBT (decriminalization up to gay marriage). Actually, the legally designated scientific advisor of the US Congress was just a phone call away, and they could learn very fast that they deal in WP:CB. Of the FBI, for that matter. But nothing beats stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance at their own game. If these people decide the fate of US science, the US is doomed, economically and militarily. In order to achieve that, they only have to combat mainstream science, and entropy will take care of the rest. If they make scientists feel unwelcome in the US, that will be the end of a superpower. Sexologists, evolutionary biologists, virologists, bacteriologists—make them all unhappy and see how fast the country reaches bottom. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: If you take into account that one side of that dispute based its amendment upon paranoid conspiracy theories, the other side are the voices of reason by virtue of not buying into paranoid conspiracy theories. The Democrats and several Republican senators voted against the amendment because it is an angry, vindictive, irrational, paranoid, and administratively badly thought-out political decision. I would not be amazed if Conservative judges declare it unconstitutional. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Peleio Aquiles and Giovanni 0331: Did he tried to have sex with men? Yes, but found out pretty soon it wasn't his thing. So, the category LGBT or bisexual is shoddy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)