Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,581
You might as well be staring at the sun, and as it burns your retinas away, denying that it exists. The malicious, hateful, anti-woman element of your agenda is obvious and undeniable.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Men in women's bathrooms
- Thread starter SmokeALib
- Start date
You might as well be staring at the sun, and as it burns your retinas away, denying that it exists. The malicious, hateful, anti-woman element of your agenda is obvious and undeniable.
Lilah
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 2012
- 3,378
- 6,545
- 2,085
So, nobody wants to comment on Kinsey and how these "experiments" got their start? Not surprising.
Recalling the First Sex Change Operation in History: A German-Israeli ...
ChrisL
Diamond Member
The surgeries are maiming them for the rest of their lives. The hormones that they are now giving to children also have terrible side effects and could potentially result in death due to cancer.
I don't know that the “cancer” cry is anything other than gratuitous fearmongering,but there's an obvious truth, that cannot be ignored.
A young boy, being given hormone suppressors to prepare him to “transition” into a female, is not ever going to be a female. All that these will do is prevent normal adolescent development from taking place, and guaranteeing that the child has no hope of developing into any normal sort of adult. If he goes through with the full surgical “transition”, he will still not be a woman. He will still only be a mutilated man, perhaps more convincing as an imitation of a woman than one who didn't begin the transition until after reaching adulthood, but still not a woman.
If he doesn't go through with the transition, he will be left a stunted, deformed man, who never fully developed his manly physical characteristics.
Either way, he'll be left a stunted, handicapped freak, with no hope of a normal and happy adulthood.
This is what those in the LGBpbiWTF branch of the wrong-wing now defend and advocate doing to children. There can remain no doubt that liberalism has abandoned any vestige of reason and decency, and has openly embraced madness and evil.
It can cause cancer in women who take HRT for menopause . . . not a chance I would take with my child.
HRT and cancer
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,584
Why are you so hell bent on labeling these people as delusional, Ill, diseased?
Perhaps it's because it's the obvious truth?
Why are you so determined to deny it?
ChrisL
Diamond Member
John Money - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a psychologist, sexologist and author, specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender. Money was one of the first scientists to study the psychology of sexual confusion and how the societal constructs of “gender” affect an individual. His work has been both celebrated for its innovation and criticized, particularly in regard to his involvement with the sex-reassignment ofDavid Reimer[1] and his eventual suicide. Money published around 2,000 articles, books, chapters and reviews. His writing has been translated into many languages. Money has received around 65 world-wide honors, awards, and degrees[2] but also heavy criticism.
Money proposed and developed several theories and related terminology, including gender identity, gender role,[6] gender-identity/role, and lovemap. He also changed the word "perversions" to "paraphilias", striving towards less judgemental descriptions, and the word "sexual preference" to "sexual orientation", arguing that our attractions are not necessarily matters of free will.[2] Money was a professor of pediatrics and medical psychology at Johns Hopkins Universityfrom 1951 until his death. He also established the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in 1965 along with Claude Migeon who was the head of plastic surgery at Johns Hopkins. The hospital began performing sexual reassignment surgery in 1966.[7] At Johns Hopkins, Money was also involved with the Sexual Behaviors Unit, which ran studies on sex-reassignment surgery. He received the Magnus Hirschfeld Medal in 2002 from the German Society for Social-Scientific Sexuality Research.
During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially for allegedly demonstrating that gender was learned rather than innate. Many years later, however, it was revealed that his most famous case was fundamentally flawed. The subject was the sex reassignment of David Reimer (Born as Bruce Reimer), in what later became known as the "John/Joan" case.[13]
In 1966, a botched circumcision left eight-month-old David Reimer without a penis. Money persuaded the baby's parents that sex reassignment surgery would be in Reimer's best interest. At the age of 22 months, Bruce underwent an orchidectomy, in which his testicles were surgically removed. He was reassigned to be raised as female and given the name Brenda. Money further recommended hormone treatment to which the parents agreed, Money then recommended a surgical procedure to create an artificial vagina, which the parents refused. Money published a number of papers reporting the reassignment as successful.
David's case came to international attention in 1997 when he told his story to Milton Diamond, an academic sexologist who persuaded Reimer to allow him to report the outcome in order to dissuade physicians from treating other infants similarly.[14] Soon after, Reimer went public with his story, and John Colapintopublished a widely disseminated and influential account in Rolling Stone magazine in December 1997.[15]
In 2000, David and his twin brother (Brian) alleged that Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role.[16] He said as a child, Money forced him go "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks," and that Money forced David to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On at "least one occasion", Money reportedly took photographs of the two children doing these activities. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity".[16]
Reimer had experienced the visits to Baltimore as traumatic, and when Money started pressuring the family to bring him in for surgery during which a vagina would be constructed, the family discontinued the follow-up visits. From 22 months into his teenaged years, Reimer urinated through a hole that surgeons had placed in the abdomen. Estrogen was given during adolescence to induce breast development. Having no contact with the family once the visits were discontinued, John Money published nothing further about the case.
For several years, Money reported on Reimer's progress as the "John/Joan case", describing apparently successful female gender development and using this case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. Money wrote, "The child's behavior is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother." Notes by a former student at Money's lab state that, during the follow-up visits, which occurred only once a year, Reimer's parents routinely lied to lab staff about the success of the procedure. The twin brother, Brian, later developedschizophrenia.[17]
On July 1, 2002,[18] Brian was found dead from an overdose of antidepressants. On May 5, 2004, after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and marital troubles,[19] David committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a sawed-off shotgun at the age of 38. Reimer's parents have stated that Money's methodology was responsible for the deaths of both of their sons.[20]
Money claimed that media response to the exposé was due to right-wing media bias and "the antifeminist movement." He claimed his detractors believed "masculinity and femininity are built into the genes so women should get back to the mattress and the kitchen."[21] However, intersex activists also criticized Money, stating that the unreported failure had led to the surgical reassignment of thousands of infants as a matter of policy.[22] Privately, Money was mortified by the case, colleagues said, and as a rule did not discuss it.[23] Money's own views also developed and changed over the years.[1][24]
Pedophilia opinions[edit]
John Money was critical in debates on chronophilias, especially pedophilia. He stated that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional pedophilia and sadistic pedophilia. Money asserted that affectional pedophilia was about love and not sex.
If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way.[25][26]
Money held the view that affectional pedophilia is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioral disorder. Rather, he took the position that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore superficial, ideological concept.[25][26]
John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a psychologist, sexologist and author, specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender. Money was one of the first scientists to study the psychology of sexual confusion and how the societal constructs of “gender” affect an individual. His work has been both celebrated for its innovation and criticized, particularly in regard to his involvement with the sex-reassignment ofDavid Reimer[1] and his eventual suicide. Money published around 2,000 articles, books, chapters and reviews. His writing has been translated into many languages. Money has received around 65 world-wide honors, awards, and degrees[2] but also heavy criticism.
Money proposed and developed several theories and related terminology, including gender identity, gender role,[6] gender-identity/role, and lovemap. He also changed the word "perversions" to "paraphilias", striving towards less judgemental descriptions, and the word "sexual preference" to "sexual orientation", arguing that our attractions are not necessarily matters of free will.[2] Money was a professor of pediatrics and medical psychology at Johns Hopkins Universityfrom 1951 until his death. He also established the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in 1965 along with Claude Migeon who was the head of plastic surgery at Johns Hopkins. The hospital began performing sexual reassignment surgery in 1966.[7] At Johns Hopkins, Money was also involved with the Sexual Behaviors Unit, which ran studies on sex-reassignment surgery. He received the Magnus Hirschfeld Medal in 2002 from the German Society for Social-Scientific Sexuality Research.
During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially for allegedly demonstrating that gender was learned rather than innate. Many years later, however, it was revealed that his most famous case was fundamentally flawed. The subject was the sex reassignment of David Reimer (Born as Bruce Reimer), in what later became known as the "John/Joan" case.[13]
In 1966, a botched circumcision left eight-month-old David Reimer without a penis. Money persuaded the baby's parents that sex reassignment surgery would be in Reimer's best interest. At the age of 22 months, Bruce underwent an orchidectomy, in which his testicles were surgically removed. He was reassigned to be raised as female and given the name Brenda. Money further recommended hormone treatment to which the parents agreed, Money then recommended a surgical procedure to create an artificial vagina, which the parents refused. Money published a number of papers reporting the reassignment as successful.
David's case came to international attention in 1997 when he told his story to Milton Diamond, an academic sexologist who persuaded Reimer to allow him to report the outcome in order to dissuade physicians from treating other infants similarly.[14] Soon after, Reimer went public with his story, and John Colapintopublished a widely disseminated and influential account in Rolling Stone magazine in December 1997.[15]
In 2000, David and his twin brother (Brian) alleged that Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role.[16] He said as a child, Money forced him go "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks," and that Money forced David to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On at "least one occasion", Money reportedly took photographs of the two children doing these activities. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity".[16]
Reimer had experienced the visits to Baltimore as traumatic, and when Money started pressuring the family to bring him in for surgery during which a vagina would be constructed, the family discontinued the follow-up visits. From 22 months into his teenaged years, Reimer urinated through a hole that surgeons had placed in the abdomen. Estrogen was given during adolescence to induce breast development. Having no contact with the family once the visits were discontinued, John Money published nothing further about the case.
For several years, Money reported on Reimer's progress as the "John/Joan case", describing apparently successful female gender development and using this case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. Money wrote, "The child's behavior is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother." Notes by a former student at Money's lab state that, during the follow-up visits, which occurred only once a year, Reimer's parents routinely lied to lab staff about the success of the procedure. The twin brother, Brian, later developedschizophrenia.[17]
On July 1, 2002,[18] Brian was found dead from an overdose of antidepressants. On May 5, 2004, after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and marital troubles,[19] David committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a sawed-off shotgun at the age of 38. Reimer's parents have stated that Money's methodology was responsible for the deaths of both of their sons.[20]
Money claimed that media response to the exposé was due to right-wing media bias and "the antifeminist movement." He claimed his detractors believed "masculinity and femininity are built into the genes so women should get back to the mattress and the kitchen."[21] However, intersex activists also criticized Money, stating that the unreported failure had led to the surgical reassignment of thousands of infants as a matter of policy.[22] Privately, Money was mortified by the case, colleagues said, and as a rule did not discuss it.[23] Money's own views also developed and changed over the years.[1][24]
Pedophilia opinions[edit]
John Money was critical in debates on chronophilias, especially pedophilia. He stated that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional pedophilia and sadistic pedophilia. Money asserted that affectional pedophilia was about love and not sex.
If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way.[25][26]
Money held the view that affectional pedophilia is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioral disorder. Rather, he took the position that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore superficial, ideological concept.[25][26]
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,586
Honestly, I don't mind if a woman wants to use the men's room and have no opinion about men using the ladies room. I think it's another front of the Left's war on women, but it is up to women to complain about their privacy being taken from them. Not my issue.
Men—at least those of us who have any honor—have a duty and a responsibility to protect women against the perverts such as those that the wrong-wing is now trying to sic on them. If you have a wife, a mother, a daughter, a sister, or any other female loved ones, then yes, it is your issue. Man-up and do your duty.
For me it's simple, it's about my daughter, period. I will never compromise when it comes to her. And again I'm not hateful towards the boy, I just will not stand by and watch one boys concerns trump 30 young girls. It's plain and simply wrong. Anything else is irrelevent. It also sets a precedent. People compare this to racial civil rights I don't buy it. This young man is given preference over our daughters and we are not talking about frivolous issues, we are talking about expecting my daughter and 29 others to get naked in front of young men. Right now it is the dictator demanding my daughter get naked.I completely agree with you which is why, if we are going to make laws about this thing, it should be very clear that men can not go into a lady's room with the claim that they just feel like a woman. I laid out in an earlier post some ideas on how we can do that. We need to define what a transgender is and use the law to help those it's intended for and punish people who abuse it.Keep in mind trans has nothing to do with it. Any man can walk into a womens room, they are not handing out trans cards that say "I'm a man and identify as a woman". I agree with unsupervised children being a bad thing, at the same time I cannot follow my 14 year old everywhere. The idea that any man can walk into a womans room with the full knowledge that anyone that challenges him runs the risk of a hate crime is bothersome to say the least.Don't you think if you saw that same "man" in a dress and high heels follow your little boy into the restroom, you'd want to follow as well?? Unfortunately in our society, without even the trans argument, it isn't smart to allow young children to go to the bathroom alone or unsupervised.No I have seen the boy but haven't met any of them. Don't get me wrong I don't mean to vilify. I just can't understand how the same consideration given the young man, to not have to shower with boys, is not given to my daughter and the other girls. I probably could have gone along with public bathrooms, although if I were to watch a grown man follow a young girl into the bathroom I know I will have to follow. I can not stand by and hope for the best even if it's not my child. There isn't much I hold sacred in this world, children are at the top of the list.Interesting... Have you met the child or the parents?In my 14 yr old daughters PE class.
Regarding the kid in your school... Why don't you try and meet with the parents and meet the child and learn about what the situation is before being so animately opposed to it?
As far as talking to the parents or boy involved I don't see the point. There is nothing that is going to sway my view. The fact that one boy feels uncomfortable in the boys room supercedes the 30 girls in my daughters PE class feeling uncomfortable changing or showering with a boy is just wrong. Again I don't wish to demonize the boy, but we're talking to about my daughter, nothing supercedes that. And I can't understand how any one can see this as equality. His concerns are met, 30 girls are ignored..
If you are that hard headed that you won't engage or explore other points of view then you are a lost cause... If everybody had that point of view the world would be an even uglier place. Without open mindedness and compromise we have little room for progress. It is the spirit of our country. Otherwise lets just get a dictator to tell us all what to do, screw the voice of the people if nobody is ever going to budge.
As far as the boy and his family are concerned, I wish them the best but there is nothing I can add to their situation and it is none of my business except as far as it concerns my daughter.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 67,460
- 17,163
- 2,190
I see your point and agree it can be true in some cases... I also see, and I hope you do, that suppression of a child's identity and making them feel like even more is wrong with them can also be extremely damaging... This is why it should be analyzed case by case.I found this to be rather interesting and thought provoking as well.
About
In addition, there is a body of evidence, originating with and continuing to this day, from the Dutch team who pioneered pediatric transition, indicating that social transition can be harmful. It can lock a child into a transgender identity and make it more difficult for a child to “desist.” Not only that: Being a social media star and receiving plaudits from parents and other important adults for conforming to gender stereotypes is a powerful incentive and reward. And this particular child has had a law dedicated to him. Can anyone think it would be possible for him to change his mind, after all that?
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,590
I agree, i don't think men should be showering with women
…And yet you keep arguing in favor of exactly that.
You have truly mastered the wrong-wing art of Orwellian doublethink.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 67,460
- 17,163
- 2,190
Aren't you fortunate that that "boy" is not your son... Have you thought about that?For me it's simple, it's about my daughter, period. I will never compromise when it comes to her. And again I'm not hateful towards the boy, I just will not stand by and watch one boys concerns trump 30 young girls. It's plain and simply wrong. Anything else is irrelevent. It also sets a precedent. People compare this to racial civil rights I don't buy it. This young man is given preference over our daughters and we are not talking about frivolous issues, we are talking about expecting my daughter and 29 others to get naked in front of young men. Right now it is the dictator demanding my daughter get naked.I completely agree with you which is why, if we are going to make laws about this thing, it should be very clear that men can not go into a lady's room with the claim that they just feel like a woman. I laid out in an earlier post some ideas on how we can do that. We need to define what a transgender is and use the law to help those it's intended for and punish people who abuse it.Keep in mind trans has nothing to do with it. Any man can walk into a womens room, they are not handing out trans cards that say "I'm a man and identify as a woman". I agree with unsupervised children being a bad thing, at the same time I cannot follow my 14 year old everywhere. The idea that any man can walk into a womans room with the full knowledge that anyone that challenges him runs the risk of a hate crime is bothersome to say the least.Don't you think if you saw that same "man" in a dress and high heels follow your little boy into the restroom, you'd want to follow as well?? Unfortunately in our society, without even the trans argument, it isn't smart to allow young children to go to the bathroom alone or unsupervised.No I have seen the boy but haven't met any of them. Don't get me wrong I don't mean to vilify. I just can't understand how the same consideration given the young man, to not have to shower with boys, is not given to my daughter and the other girls. I probably could have gone along with public bathrooms, although if I were to watch a grown man follow a young girl into the bathroom I know I will have to follow. I can not stand by and hope for the best even if it's not my child. There isn't much I hold sacred in this world, children are at the top of the list.Interesting... Have you met the child or the parents?
Regarding the kid in your school... Why don't you try and meet with the parents and meet the child and learn about what the situation is before being so animately opposed to it?
As far as talking to the parents or boy involved I don't see the point. There is nothing that is going to sway my view. The fact that one boy feels uncomfortable in the boys room supercedes the 30 girls in my daughters PE class feeling uncomfortable changing or showering with a boy is just wrong. Again I don't wish to demonize the boy, but we're talking to about my daughter, nothing supercedes that. And I can't understand how any one can see this as equality. His concerns are met, 30 girls are ignored..
If you are that hard headed that you won't engage or explore other points of view then you are a lost cause... If everybody had that point of view the world would be an even uglier place. Without open mindedness and compromise we have little room for progress. It is the spirit of our country. Otherwise lets just get a dictator to tell us all what to do, screw the voice of the people if nobody is ever going to budge.
As far as the boy and his family are concerned, I wish them the best but there is nothing I can add to their situation and it is none of my business except as far as it concerns my daughter.
I still don't understand why you wouldn't want to meet the kid and parents to learn more about the situation. Perhaps it's not a matter of compromising or promoting a destructive threat to your child as you think. Maybe it would teach a valuable lesson about acceptance that will help her in the future... or Perhaps you will be able to voice your opinion to the parents of the boy and to the school board... but without the perspective of the other side you will only come off as uneducated and biased. I don't know, what would result, but I don't see how it would hurt.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 67,460
- 17,163
- 2,190
No I don't keep arguing for that... You read my posts with bias because I called you a bigot... I am much more objective that you think I am... I pretty much stopped reading your garbage though... Adds nothing of value to the discussion.I agree, i don't think men should be showering with women
…And yet you keep arguing in favor of exactly that.
You have truly mastered the wrong-wing art of Orwellian doublethink.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Alfred Kinsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alfred Charles Kinsey (/ˈkɪnzi/; June 23, 1894 – August 25, 1956) was an American biologist, professor ofentomology and zoology, and sexologist who in 1947 founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University,[1] now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. He is best known for writing Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale. Kinsey's research on human sexuality, foundational to the field of sexology, provoked controversy in the 1940s and 1950s. His work has influenced social and cultural values in the United States, as well as internationally.
Marriage and family[edit]
Kinsey's home in Bloomington
Kinsey married Clara Bracken McMillen in 1921, whose ceremony, like his college graduation, was also avoided by Alfred Sr. They had four children. Their first-born, Donald, died from the acute complications of juvenile diabetes in 1927, just before his fifth birthday. His daughter, Anne, was born in 1924, followed by Joan in 1925, and Bruce in 1928.
Kinsey was bisexual.[15] He and his wife agreed that both could sleep with other people as well as with each other. He himself slept with other men, including his student Clyde Martin.[16]
Kinsey designed his own house, which was built in the Vinegar Hill neighborhood of Bloomington, Indiana at 1320 First Street. There he practiced his deep interest in gardening.[17]
Personal habits[edit]
As a young man, Kinsey began inserting objects into his urethra — initially drinking straws before moving on to pipe cleaners, pencils and finally a toothbrush – to punish himself for having homoerotic feelings, and inserting toothbrushes continued throughout his adult life.[18][19][20] After becoming accustomed to the pain of urethral insertions, he circumcised himself without anesthesia.[20]
Sexology[edit]
The Kinsey Reports[edit]
Main article: Kinsey Reports
Kinsey is widely regarded as the first major figure in American sexology; his research is cited as having paved the way for a deeper exploration into sexuality among sexologists and the general public, and as having liberated female sexuality.[21][22] For example, Kinsey's work disputed the notions that women generally are not sexual and that female orgasms experienced vaginally are superior to clitoral orgasms.[21][22] He initially became interested in different forms of sexual practices in 1933, after discussing the topic extensively with a colleague, Robert Kroc. Kinsey had been studying the variations in mating practices among gall wasps. During this time, he developed a scale measuring sexual orientation, now known as the Kinsey scale, which ranges from 0 to 6, where 0 is exclusively heterosexual and 6 is exclusively homosexual; a rating of X for "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions" was later added.
In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful. Kinsey obtained research funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, which enabled him to further study human sexual behavior.[23] He published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, both of which reached the top of the bestseller lists and turned Kinsey into a celebrity. These publications later became known as the Kinsey Reports. Articles about him appeared in magazines such as Time, Life, Look, and McCall's. The Kinsey Reports, which led to a storm of controversy, are regarded by many as a precursor to the sexual revolutionof the 1960s and 1970s.
Controversial aspects[edit]
Kinsey's research went beyond theory and interview to include observation of and participation in sexual activity, sometimes involving co-workers. Some of the data published in the two Kinsey Reports books is controversial in the scientific and psychiatric communities, due to the low amount of research that was done and Kinsey's decision to interview and sexually experiment with volunteers who may not have been representative of the general population.[24] Kinsey justified this sexual experimentation as being necessary to gain the confidence of his research subjects. He encouraged his staff to do likewise, and to engage in a wide range of sexual activity, to the extent that they felt comfortable; he argued that this would help his interviewers understand the participants' responses.[25][26] Kinsey filmed sexual acts which included co-workers in the attic of his home as part of his research;[27] Biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardyexplains that this was done to ensure the films' secrecy, which would have caused a scandal had it become public knowledge.[28][29] James H. Jones, author ofAlfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, and British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, among others, have speculated that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.[30]
Kinsey collected sexual material from around the world, which brought him to the attention of U.S. Customs when they seized some pornographic films in 1956; he died before this matter was resolved legally.[27] 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.[31] This information was said to have come from adults' childhood memories, or from parent or teacher observation.[32] 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.[33] 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".[34][35] The Kinsey Institute wrote 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.[35][36]
Alfred Charles Kinsey (/ˈkɪnzi/; June 23, 1894 – August 25, 1956) was an American biologist, professor ofentomology and zoology, and sexologist who in 1947 founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University,[1] now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. He is best known for writing Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale. Kinsey's research on human sexuality, foundational to the field of sexology, provoked controversy in the 1940s and 1950s. His work has influenced social and cultural values in the United States, as well as internationally.
Marriage and family[edit]
Kinsey's home in Bloomington
Kinsey married Clara Bracken McMillen in 1921, whose ceremony, like his college graduation, was also avoided by Alfred Sr. They had four children. Their first-born, Donald, died from the acute complications of juvenile diabetes in 1927, just before his fifth birthday. His daughter, Anne, was born in 1924, followed by Joan in 1925, and Bruce in 1928.
Kinsey was bisexual.[15] He and his wife agreed that both could sleep with other people as well as with each other. He himself slept with other men, including his student Clyde Martin.[16]
Kinsey designed his own house, which was built in the Vinegar Hill neighborhood of Bloomington, Indiana at 1320 First Street. There he practiced his deep interest in gardening.[17]
Personal habits[edit]
As a young man, Kinsey began inserting objects into his urethra — initially drinking straws before moving on to pipe cleaners, pencils and finally a toothbrush – to punish himself for having homoerotic feelings, and inserting toothbrushes continued throughout his adult life.[18][19][20] After becoming accustomed to the pain of urethral insertions, he circumcised himself without anesthesia.[20]
Sexology[edit]
The Kinsey Reports[edit]
Main article: Kinsey Reports
Kinsey is widely regarded as the first major figure in American sexology; his research is cited as having paved the way for a deeper exploration into sexuality among sexologists and the general public, and as having liberated female sexuality.[21][22] For example, Kinsey's work disputed the notions that women generally are not sexual and that female orgasms experienced vaginally are superior to clitoral orgasms.[21][22] He initially became interested in different forms of sexual practices in 1933, after discussing the topic extensively with a colleague, Robert Kroc. Kinsey had been studying the variations in mating practices among gall wasps. During this time, he developed a scale measuring sexual orientation, now known as the Kinsey scale, which ranges from 0 to 6, where 0 is exclusively heterosexual and 6 is exclusively homosexual; a rating of X for "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions" was later added.
In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful. Kinsey obtained research funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, which enabled him to further study human sexual behavior.[23] He published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, both of which reached the top of the bestseller lists and turned Kinsey into a celebrity. These publications later became known as the Kinsey Reports. Articles about him appeared in magazines such as Time, Life, Look, and McCall's. The Kinsey Reports, which led to a storm of controversy, are regarded by many as a precursor to the sexual revolutionof the 1960s and 1970s.
Controversial aspects[edit]
Kinsey's research went beyond theory and interview to include observation of and participation in sexual activity, sometimes involving co-workers. Some of the data published in the two Kinsey Reports books is controversial in the scientific and psychiatric communities, due to the low amount of research that was done and Kinsey's decision to interview and sexually experiment with volunteers who may not have been representative of the general population.[24] Kinsey justified this sexual experimentation as being necessary to gain the confidence of his research subjects. He encouraged his staff to do likewise, and to engage in a wide range of sexual activity, to the extent that they felt comfortable; he argued that this would help his interviewers understand the participants' responses.[25][26] Kinsey filmed sexual acts which included co-workers in the attic of his home as part of his research;[27] Biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardyexplains that this was done to ensure the films' secrecy, which would have caused a scandal had it become public knowledge.[28][29] James H. Jones, author ofAlfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, and British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, among others, have speculated that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.[30]
Kinsey collected sexual material from around the world, which brought him to the attention of U.S. Customs when they seized some pornographic films in 1956; he died before this matter was resolved legally.[27] 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.[31] This information was said to have come from adults' childhood memories, or from parent or teacher observation.[32] 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.[33] 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".[34][35] The Kinsey Institute wrote 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.[35][36]
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,594
You are making the assumption that having your boy in the girls restroom will make the girls less safe. Maybe your boy would be less safe or maybe it would make no difference at all.
60 years ago, there was a similar argument. No white person will be safe in a restroom with blacks.
Right. Because being black is exactly the same thing as being a sick male pervert who wants to go into women's facilities where women are undressing.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,595
How do you know what it obviously is if you haven't even seen it... It is a news piece done by ABC... not some sappy left wing propaganda video.
So being a product of the wrong-wing-dominated mainstream media, that consistently buys into the very worst of wrong-wing madness and lies, is a great assurance that it isn't wrong-wing propaganda.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,597
This one blew up in the left's faces. They pushed too far this time
They should have known, a few years ago, when they tried to organize that big “boycott” of Chick-Fil-A, only to have that blow up in their faces, that they were getting very close to hitting a brick wall with regard for the public's willingness to tolerate the madness and filth that they have been trying to feed us. But then I guess it is a defining characteristic of madness, and in turn, of modern liberalism, to be oblivious to obvious reality when it conflicts with their delusions.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Read my links, make the connections. Connect the dots. These "transgender" victims are nothing but macabre experiments.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,599
This one blew up in the left's faces. They pushed too far this time
aside from athletic locker rooms, name me one womans restroom that has showers ...
ONE.
There are several. Especially in warehouses. In our office we have one each, men's room and ladies room that have shower.
The factory in which I used to work had showers. In fact, one had to go through the locker rooms on the way in and out of the factory. Just past the entrance, men went one way, women the other, through the locker rooms, into the factory.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Kinsey and Money were both seriously involved in the "transgender" movement. Both of these men were highly disturbed individuals.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 641
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 671
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 504
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 92
- Replies
- 485
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 82
- Replies
- 235
- Views
- 19K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8624
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-