Alfred Kinsey - Father of the Sexual Revolution [Historical Perspective]

[Bum Driller]

What is the relevance of how conservative people are to this conversation? I think it's because conservative is to your worldview something approximating what a christian would call evil?

Any ideology is going to have rank and file dullards in it; my point then and now is that you're not making any defense of its ideology.

Also that just because you greet people in the street, you don't necessarily know the content of their character and whether they are engaged with for example criminal activity or not.

As such both your defense of the ideology as even the specific satanists is quite meaningless; not because itcomes from you, but because your basis for defense is both flimsy and your statements are constantly self-contradictory.

You absolutely hate satanists; yet you defend satanists yet again. It's hard to believe.

You speak on terms of all that is "holy" which seems to be truth and self love, judging by your words. Yet not even willing to take 5 minutes to develop your knowledge on Kinsey. Is that really treating truth as something holy? Or more as a punch line?

I dunno, I was open to the idea that I might be missing something pertinent, but you aren't really offering any reason to believe you, while refusing to read sources that disprove you. What even is the point of that?

Yeah Kenneth Anger is on record saying "I am not a satanist, I am a pagan". The guy with "Lucifer" tattood across the chest and voice recordings in which he says he himself is lucifer.

How do people ever come up with the idea that he might be a satanist anyways? It's hard to imagine. Maybe one day we'll figure it out.

It seems that you've some hard time to grasp my patterns of thought. I don't think in terms of "good" or "evil", in general. I think more along lines of "useful" and "harmful" in relation to life and spiritual development.

Now, because of this, I don't think that conservatism is "evil", I merely think that it's mostly harmful to developing as a human being. It builds upon fear, prejudice and self-loathing, and produces broken, insecure and limited beings.

Sexual revolution, as a culture-wide phenomenon, allowed humans to step over the boundaries of behaviour that had been held upon them for millenia, limiting their understanding of themselves. That is what I call useful, and that's why I can't do else but support it as a phenomenon.

On the other hand, how can you not conceive that I can at the same time hate something, but not hate it's adherents? Well, then again you can't conceive either that Grant wasn't a satanist, despite himself saying so, which tells something.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Unlike Reich, though, it seems Hirschfeld's name didn't remain tarnished and forgotten. Guy had a medal named after him

The medal was awarded by the institute where Money served on the board for years. It's self-conglatory, nothing too important.

I said it more to say "Germany didn't tolerate it, until they were conquered by the USA".

I just didn't like people mocking the entire thing as "hurr Jewmerica", hand-waving the entire OP

I don't think he was handwaving the OP as much as he was giving reasons why the US was the fertile ground where this could grow, where it had failed to grow in other places.

I don't know how accurate it is, btw, I am in the end a spectator of americana, not a a participant.

you did so as if to contradict what I posted about Reimer

Reimer is important to talk about. I just didn't have anything to add besides correcting that it isn't really where transgenderism began, even in modern history.

There is right now an undercurrent of popularizing John Money because it gives easy ammunition to damage the current transgender narrative (a worthy cause).

But I also see a lot of people making (unintentional) false claims, like that he invented the term gender. (He instead coined the term "gender role").

False claims can work as counterammunition so I'm trying to steelman it by pointing out the flaws when I see them.

What more do you know about Hirschfeld, mate?

Not enough to be worth a post. I was more interested in Kinsey. A while back I was trying to prove or falsify the thesis that Kinsey was the originator of a list of certain ideas and that brought me to Hirschfeld. I don't know much about wilhelm reich yet, either.

In regards to Hirschfeld and his institute, just a couple of bullet points.
1. he ran the institute of sexual science in Germany (institut fur sexualwissenschaft )
2. They performed early transgender surgery. Elbe was killed in a womb transplant to a male for a example.
3. National socialist youth did book burnings and that included their archives.
4. The supposedly first full transgender surgery including vaginoplasty Dora Richter died around that time.
5. There are vague claims that Dora was killed by the youths, but I think it is more likely medical complication like Lili Elbe. Nobody knows, really.
6. Hirschfeld lived out his life in France after that and died before the second world war.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Now, that's what I call edgy!

>t. dude who sometimes larps as a pagan

 

[EyelessMC]

Spoiler: Lemmingwise

The medal was awarded by the institute where Money served on the board for years. It's self-conglatory, nothing too important.

the institute where Money served on the board for years.

That's pretty important, I'd say, but fair enough. And I mentioned the "handwaving the OP" regarding @L50LasPak 's concern that mentioning the occult connection undermines the information. He wasn't handwaving it but he voiced disappointment that it could be because of that.
As for what that JewSA idiot kep typing, no it's not remotely true and you can check my reply to him for proof. The US was not fertile ground. It simply had disparate forces like the Rockefellers & Friends pouring enough money and resources into their aims that they could make a weed grow in cement.

America was never the degenerate cesspit nor the weak push-over for these things. Never. It took a lot to change the country from what it once was, if only briefly.

But I also see a lot of people making (unintentional) false claims, like that he invented the term gender. (He instead coined the term "gender role").

Thanks for the correction, though I think what they mean when they say that is how he's credited as coming up with the idea that gender is a singularly mental and social construct.

MAGNUS HIRSCHFELD

A while back I was trying to prove or falsify the thesis that Kinsey was the originator of a list of certain ideas and that brought me to Hirschfeld. I don't know much about wilhelm reich yet, either.

In regards to Hirschfeld and his institute, just a couple of bullet points.
1. he ran the institute of sexual science in Germany (institut fur sexualwissenschaft )
2. They performed early transgender surgery. Elbe was killed in a womb transplant to a male for a example.
3. National socialist youth did book burnings and that included their archives.
4. The supposedly first full transgender surgery including vaginoplasty Dora Richter died around that time.
5. There are vague claims that Dora was killed by the youths, but I think it is more likely medical complication like Lili Elbe. Nobody knows, really.
6. Hirschfeld lived out his life in France after that and died before the second world war.

Even just these bullet points and that he was an inspiration to John Money is more than enough. Great info reference for the thread.

Spoiler: L50LasPak

I'm of the opinion that the Satanism and occult connections of the elites are deliberate feint to make the people who criticize them look stupid, and that its unimportant overall to the larger narrative. It doesn't matter what a person worships, their guilt is found in their crimes.

I get your point but of course it matters. A renown and deeply influential scientist and psychologist was hanging out with/getting help from an occultist and posing for a picture in Alistair Crowley's shack. It matters for many obvious reasons.
Second, whether or not it's a deliberate feint (at least here it's not, since if it was then it would be more widely known for gaslighting purposes) it's still a factual aspect of those involved in the "research" which underpins so much of the Sexual Revolution and everything it's impacted since.
As an aside, it really does matter what a person worships if that worship is couched in teachings which directly inform not just their worldview but their sense of anthropology, particularly their presumptions about "Human Sexual Behavior" as Kinsey studied.

Now I'm not saying Kinsey was a devout Crowley follower. I don't even think Kinsey worshiped anything at all, Satan or otherwise. I don't really have evidence he did and it's not my main focus anyway. All I know are the facts I posted and that he was desperate for "data" of sexually aberrant behavior, heedless of where that data came from or how legitimate it was.

TL;DR Whatever it may be, if it's factually verifiable then it must be mentioned. It matters, if only because it is fact. The aversion people have to mentioning things like this comes from a fear of not wanting to be overlooked or mocked, which itself stems from that conditioning I mentioned. This stuff is real and there's no reason to keep it under a rug because others might emptily chuckle while thinking of Rosmary's Baby.

Spoiler: Bum Driller

It's Babalon(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babalon), you fucking philistine. It tells something of your ability to think at all, if it's this hard for you to grasp written facts.

"Babalon /ˈbæbælən/ (also known as the Scarlet Woman, Great Mother or Mother of Abominations) is a goddess found in the occult system of Thelema, which was established in 1904 with the writing of The Book of the Law by English author and occultist Aleister Crowley. The spelling of the name as 'Babalon' was revealed to Crowley in The Vision and the Voice."
So like I said, it's Crowley's fan fiction, but he decided to Donut Steel his occult sanic recolor by misspelling the name.

Yes, he did some truly questionable stuff like interviewing pedophile(s), which I don't support at all. He also did some other stupid shit in the name of his agenda in regards to exaggerating certain research results. However, while none of this is good or recommendable, he is hardly the only scientific pioneer to have done so.

So because others did similar things--albeit not to this great success--he should get a pass?

In my opinion his worth was to get the ball rolling in regards to research in to human sexuality, and this is what we should honor him for. He also was important to the sexual revolution, which was one of the few good things last century brought us.

That's intellectually deranged to say with any sincerity. Also, I wonder if you feel we should honor the Nazis for getting the ball rolling on the advancement of medicine and the dangers of tobacco, x-rays and DDT.

What meager good came from the Sexual Revolution cannot compare to the horrific ramifications it has had on the world, most especially regarding children, and honoring a man who enabled pedophiles and encouraged child rape is a grotequery of the mind.

 

[Lemmingwise]

It seems that you've some hard time to grasp my patterns of thought. I don't think in terms of "good" or "evil", in general. I think more along lines of "useful" and "harmful" in relation to life and spiritual development.

I don't see the value of the distinction between the different words.

What would be useful for life and spiritual development, yet not be "good"? What could be harmful to life and spiritual development, yet not "evil"?

My first instinct would be that it introduces wiggle room to put corrupt practices under the positive category.

To make examples, not opposing evil can be useful and even save your life. Taking bribes can be useful. But they certainly aren't good.

Well, then again you can't conceive either that Grant wasn't a satanist, despite himself saying so, which tells something

I'm talking about Kenneth Anger, not Kenneth Grant. Different thelemite.

And yes, if a guy would tattoo lucifer on his chest and say that's his own name, is cofounder to church of satan, has only made movies with satanic themes, half of them with satan in the name.... and you're telling me I should believe him when he tells me he isn't a satanist?

I poked a couple of questions at you to see if there's more there. But you can't be serious with this shit. Can you see how your position looks from the outside?

How can I possibly interpret your "thought patterns" differently?

 

[L50LasPak]

I get your point but of course it matters. A renown and deeply influential scientist and psychologist was hanging out with/getting help from an occultist and posing for a picture in Alistair Crowley's shack. It matters for many obvious reasons.

Its here it occurs to me that you clearly don't have unimaginably low opinion of academics that I do. This sort of behavior is what I've come to expect from their kind to the point where I feel its flat out pedestrian. I've learned to never trust the character of an intellectual, especially an academic.

Second, whether or not it's a deliberate feint (at least here it's not, since if it was then it would be more widely known for gaslighting purposes) it's still a factual aspect of those involved in the "research" which underpins so much of the Sexual Revolution and everything it's impacted since.

I feel acknowledging it at all is still playing into their hands.

As an aside, it really does matter what a person worships if that worship is couched in teachings which directly inform not just their worldview but their sense of anthropology, particularly their presumptions about "Human Sexual Behavior" as Kinsey studied.

These people are not capable of worship as I have established. It contradicts the underpinnings of their personality. Therefore any religion they partake in is something they clearly do not believe in.

The aversion people have to mentioning things like this comes from a fear of not wanting to be overlooked or mocked, which itself stems from that conditioning I mentioned. This stuff is real and there's no reason to keep it under a rug because others might emptily chuckle while thinking of Rosmary's Baby.

Your commitment to telling the whole truth is another reason these people consistently outmaneuver people like you. Doing so causes you to get bogged down in side arguements precisely like this one, and shifts focus away from the more important main point.

Kinsey's nightmarish doctrine can be dismantled completely without ever needing to even mention his Satanism. Mentioning his Satanism also provides zero tangible benefit to the discussion, it only serves as a distraction, which is what it was always meant to do in the first place. The fact that he was a weirdo and a repulsive person in general can come after you've conivnced people that he's wrong, if it really is that important to you.

 

[EyelessMC]

Its here it occurs to me that you clearly don't have unimaginably low opinion of academics that I do.

I'm sure I do, lol But not everyone else does, hence why the connection is extra disturbing.

Mentioning his Satanism also provides zero tangible benefit to the discussion, it only serves as a distraction, which is what it was always meant to do in the first place.

I understand where you're coming from better now. Part of the reason for the inclusion wasn't just a dogged commitment to giving the whole truth and nothing but; the Farms has a rule that OP should be written like a mini biography, or something like that. No comedy routines, only pertinent and interesting information regarding the subject, written "like a historian".

I knew it was both relevant and interesting to add that into the OP's summary of Kinsey. I stand by it still, but I can't deny your point. Still interesting for the thread, though.

 

[L50LasPak]

I understand where you're coming from better now. Part of the reason for the inclusion wasn't just a dogged commitment to giving the whole truth and nothing but; the Farms has a rule that OP should be written like a mini biography, or something like that. No comedy routines, only pertinent and interesting information regarding the subject, written "like a historian".

I knew it was both relevant and interesting to add that into the OP's summary of Kinsey. I stand by it still, but I can't deny your point. Still interesting for the thread, though.

This makes much more sense in retrospect. Though I would offer the advice that if you wanted the OP to more resemble a lolcow thread (which I would agree Kinsey qualifies for) you might want to parse things out a bit more to prevent similar confusion in the future.

A separate thread on Satanists/Occultists in general would be fitting of something like Community Watch too, now that I think of it.

 

[Mnutu]

How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?

 

[Bonesjones]

How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?

Topic dilution is an old technique to disrupt discussion.

 

[Lemmingwise]

How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?

Topic dilution is an old technique to disrupt discussion.

The more you learn about Kinsey, the harder it is to avoid his occult connections. The fact that he wasn't just an isolated basketcase is as important for him as it is for Andrew Epstein.

(not saying Epstein is a satanist; just that the nature of his connections is of value to discuss)

Besides, scope sniping is also a technique of discussion disruption.

Kinsey's nightmarish doctrine can be dismantled completely without ever needing to even mention his Satanism. Mentioning his Satanism also provides zero tangible benefit to the discussion, it only serves as a distraction, which is what it was always meant to do in the first place.

I am not convinced. Even if it is just a smokescreen (which I don't think), there would be value in mentioning the smoke screen.

I recognize that a decent amount of people percentage go into brain freeze mode when the topic is mentioned, but that too needs to be dismantled in the persuit for truth.

Think of it like a crime scene; if a pentagram has been drawn on the wall in blood it is worth examining and discussing, even if you believe that it was made to hide a crime of passion.

And then if that person is connected to not just one but multiple high profile occultists where that is part of their tradition, well that is worth exploring too.

I'm also writing a longer post in regards to what you said but I want to mull over what you wrote a little more. I just wanted to get my say in, in regards to people complaining about the discussion of satanism at all in relation to Kinsey.

 

[L50LasPak]

How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?

Topic dilution is an old technique to disrupt discussion.

I believe I've demonstrated my point quite well by exploiting the exact vulnerability I originally pointed out.

I first look at the material aspect. I see it more as a church: there are different roles. Regardless of belief at either the top level or lower level, it is a structure that sets out ideals, demands certain behaviour that some more than others fulfill.

This is a horrendously generous interpretation of the level of organization that Satanists are even capable of, to be honest.

And then if that person is connected to not just one but multiple high profile occultists where that is part of their tradition, well that is worth exploring too.

Everyone is already fully aware that these people collaborate with each other though, in general most people assume all of the rich and powerful of society are familar with each other.

Then I look at the ideological aspect. It defines itself as anti-christian and seems to act like it too. Eschewing the idea of a higher power is anti-christian too. But it also is hard to know what to believe, much like when talking to muslims. Muslims have a doctrine of lying to further islam, with a number of times muhammed did it too to further support the practise. And satan is the prince of lies, ideologically. So if a person were to believe in satan and if a person were to serve satan, why wouldn't they lie/obfuscate at every turn?

If all one needs to do to serve Satan is lie regularly then every religious and finanical institution on this planet is firmly controlled by The Devil. Then again, given my bleak outlook, I could easily believe this.

I do think there is a difference between people that ideologically value truth and those who prefer to succumb to a swamp of unknowing.

This is a way of thinking that can be used against you though; I think one should plan their attack accordingly. Then again I've already been informed that I was to some extent mistaken about the point of the thread, this point may not be relevant anymore.

I'm also writing a longer post in regards to what you said but I want to mull over what you wrote a little more. I just wanted to get my say in, in regards to people complaining about the discussion of satanism at all in relation to Kinsey.

Fair enough.

 

[Noir drag freak]

This thread is taking a left turn.

Not enough to be worth a post. I was more interested in Kinsey. A while back I was trying to prove or falsify the thesis that Kinsey was the originator of a list of certain ideas and that brought me to Hirschfeld. I don't know much about wilhelm reich yet, either.

In regards to Hirschfeld and his institute, just a couple of bullet points.
1. he ran the institute of sexual science in Germany (institut fur sexualwissenschaft )
2. They performed early transgender surgery. Elbe was killed in a womb transplant to a male for a example.
3. National socialist youth did book burnings and that included their archives.
4. The supposedly first full transgender surgery including vaginoplasty Dora Richter died around that time.
5. There are vague claims that Dora was killed by the youths, but I think it is more likely medical complication like Lili Elbe. Nobody knows, really.
6. Hirschfeld lived out his life in France after that and died before the second world war.\

According to my own readings, Hirschfeld's insitute was burned down for multiple reasons. For starters, the Nazis were composed of multiple factions that had various ideals. Some people suggested that Hirschfeld treated some Nazi for their homosexual, intersexuality, and other paraphernalia. And there were homosexual and cross dressing nazis particularly among the SS. That was one key motivated. Another reason was that the traditionalist Nazi faction thought that he polluting Germany's morals.

Sexual revolution, as a culture-wide phenomenon, allowed humans to step over the boundaries of behaviour that had been held upon them for millenia, limiting their understanding of themselves. That is what I call useful, and that's why I can't do else but support it as a phenomenon.

The Sexual Revolution didn't really break boundaries of behavior. Before the Sexual Revolution, there was the Grand Epoch, Victorian, and Edwardian England. In my opinion, all the Sexual Revolution did was free the middle class from respectability. The weathy and poor were always allowed to break convention behavior as long they kept quiet about it.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Fair enough

You ended up responding to the half-written, most intended for deletion post. The unfinished part was accidently copy pasted in and quickly removed, but you must have loaded the page in the 2-3 minutes it was up.

It's okay, just a little more error prone and shallow thought. It's worth rereading my post as it was intended.

If all one needs to do to serve Satan is lie regularly then every religious and finanical institution on this planet is firmly controlled by The Devil. Then again, given my bleak outlook, I could easily believe this.

I feel ya. It's not exactly what I was saying. I meant that I don't necessarily believe church of satan claims that they don't believe in satan. I am not saying that I know them to believe in satan, just that it's already hard to know what anyone believes. Doubly so for occultists; who are by their nature attracted to the esoteric, That Which Is Hidden. Triply so for occultists who name their congregation after the prince of lies.

But said short: they're not satanist worshippers because they're liars. They probably are liars because they are satanists.

Everyone is already fully aware that these people collaborate with each other though, in general most people assume all of the rich and powerful of society are familar with each other.

Plenty of people don't know much about Kinsey, nor his connections.

This despite the fact they probably have 3-4 beliefs about the world that came about due to his falsified research.

According to my own readings, Hirschfeld's insitute was burned down for multiple reasons. For starters, the Nazis were composed of multiple factions that had various ideals. Some people suggested that Hirschfeld treated some Nazi for their homosexual, intersexuality, and other paraphernalia. And there were homosexual and cross dressing nazis particularly among the SS. That was one key motivated. Another reason was that the traditionalist Nazi faction thought that he polluting Germany's morals

Just clarifying that my disagree is on the other part of your post, not this quoted part.

What do you understand "Hirschfeld treated some for their homosexual, intersexuality, and other paraphernalia" to mean?

And why would the existance of crossdressing in SS lead to the burning of the institute? Seems odd cause and effect.

 

[L50LasPak]

I meant that I don't necessarily believe church of satan claims that they don't believe in satan. I am not saying that I know them to believe in satan, just that it's already hard to know what anyone believes. Doubly so for occultists; who are by their nature attracted to the esoteric, That Which Is Hidden. Triply so for occultists who name their congregation after the prince of lies.

I'm pretty sure if you asked a Satanist or anyone into some kind of new-agey religion, they would be happy to tell you that they believed in Satan, assuming they trusted you enough to speak candidly about it. But its in much the same way that someone from the Deathfats part of the forum claims they're going on a diet; just the trappings of a religion or a system of beliefs, sometimes merely a suggestion of that, and nothing more. It pretty quickly becomes apparent that Satanism is just a bunch of gibberish and random pagan rites that are excuses to engage in all kinds of debauchery.

Part of this arguement does come down to how willing you are to characterize a certain set of beliefs as a religion. For me the idea that satanism is a single force or even a movement on its own is silly because its arbitrary, carries no real fundamentals, and it seems like every Satanic leader has had their own drastically different interpretation of what it entails. I also firmly refuse to believe that the people partaking it actually believe it is a serious set of beliefs, though I'll concede that maybe when they're tripping balls on designer drugs during their get-togethers it might feel more real for them at the moment.

But said short: they're not satanist worshippers because they're liars. They probably are liars because they are satanists.

It is pretty difficult to tell when someone with such a fundamentally distorted view of reality like an occultist is actually lying or not. For me though that's more evidence to not trust that their "faith" is real.

Plenty of people don't know much about Kinsey, nor his connections.

This despite the fact they probably have 3-4 beliefs about the world that came about due to his falsified research.

Its possible I may be taking my own perspective for granted on this one, but I've conversed with even super woke people who will openly acknowledge that the influential people of society interconnect with each other in all of their weird rich people clubs. It seems to be the only common ground I can find with some people honestly. So I meant that as more of a general point.

Regarding Kinsey specifically I agree that the man and his findings do not get the attention or scrutiny that they have coming to them. That said, he's being talked about a lot more in academia in the last few years than he has been when I was still in school learning about this stuff. I think the left has miscalculated on this one though, because bringing his name up more and more is going to cause more people to look into him.

 

[EyelessMC]

How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?

Why are you pretending that two or three people repeating their grievances about it =/= "the entire thread"
Look at the posts. We've had plenty of interesting information and discussion aside from that.

Regarding Kinsey specifically [...] he's being talked about a lot more in academia in the last few years [...] because bringing his name up more and more is going to cause more people to look into him.

Which is good and the reason we need threads like this across the net. However, I think modernity (social media, etc.) has trained people to have the memory of mayflies and the tribal politics of Congo child soldiers. This is what keeps me from being too hopeful about them overplaying their hand, that people will look up Kinsey, start discovering uncomfortable truths and immediately stop to pretend they never saw anything.

Or worse, that they will actively overlook his evils and defend him and his fraudulent work just because he and those like him are "on right side of history" so to speak, or because he's made great strides for their particular worldview. ITT we already had someone saying Kinsey, despite the obvious pedophilia and further, should be honored anyway.
It's like when I bring up to a family member that letting their teenager delve into transgenderism is only going to end in irreversible damage--even showing them the book by the same name which chronicles scientific and anecdotal data to support it--they start shrugging and reacting like they're getting a rash. Some people just need to see their kid lop off their own breasts before they realize what they're complicit in just because it's endorsed by some doctors or (supposedly) the new cultural norm.

Here's hoping more insight leads to greater reaction against the ongoing aftershock of the Sexual Revolution rather than greater attempts at self-deception. If nothing else it's great to see people gain something from threads like this, and even give in return.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm pretty sure if you asked a Satanist or anyone into some kind of new-agey religion, they would be happy to tell you that they believed in Satan, assuming they trusted you enough to speak candidly about it.

This just isn't true. There are numerous cults, including scientology, that work hard to guard their secrets. The scientology stuff only comes out after a member manages to flee, an endeavor that often took months of planning. Then they have to battle the lawsuits, the gangstalking and harassment.

L Ron Hubbard, the founder of scientology was also involves with a number of Thelemites, including being written about by a journalist when he tried to summon Babalon in a ritual with John Parsons.

They say they don't believe in satan and that they are purely secular; and then there is shit like that.

----

For everyone:

Here are a couple of questions in regards to Kinsey. Would love for anyone to take a shot at all of the questions. Or even just one. You don't have to know much to participate; would be interesting tothings get anyone's take on this:

1. Which legislations have used his research to support their position?

2. Which flawed beliefs have comeabout due to his books that persist to this day?

3. What are the goals of the Kinsey institute?

4. How influential is the Kinsey institute?

5. Why has Kinsey never faced legal action for either being present for child abuse or encouraging it?

 

[dorxter¼]

A long time ago I was digging around researching how different cultures raise children, especially around modesty, and stumbled into a book title "The Sexual Lives of Children". I'd never heard of the author, but I think researching him, lead me to Kinsey. I'm sure it's all related. I read most of that book, and although it has some rough parts in it, I found myself laughing at some of the other parts of people giving "testimonies" of their screwed up sexual experiences as adolescents. Made me think of all the screwed up things that happened around me when I was a young kid that I never thought as sexual. Like when I was 8 I think, I used to go hiking with this group of brothers and their neighbors, we were all the same age mostly. I'd always climb this tree right at the start of the hiking trail and take a dump while all the boys "watched the poop" come out. I never thought anything of it, just always had to take a dump right before hiking or something and that tree had a perfect toilet seat made out of a horizontal forked branch about 10 ft from the ground.
I moved and was 11 I think and at least once a week, my neighbor who was 1 year older than I, we would go over to this girl's house (who was 9 I think) down the street and ask her if she wanted "walk around". And like clockwork each time, we'd cut across this old field with a run down abandoned house in it. He'd always herd us into the detached falling apart garage and act like there would be "cool" stuff we might find in there. But it was always the same, after digging through trash and junk he'd point out an old 5 gallon bucket and ask if the girl needed to pee or anything and that we would be fine "watching" (as if watching would be some kind of convenience). She'd always decline, but he would always ask and she would always still come "walking" with us anyway. I never really thought anything of it. My mom is "friends" with him and his parents on facebook, but I can't make myself friend the guy plus I quit facebook anyway.

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

A long time ago I was digging around researching how different cultures raise children, especially around modesty, and stumbled into a book title "The Sexual Lives of Children". I'd never heard of the author, but I think researching him, lead me to Kinsey. I'm sure it's all related. I read most of that book, and although it has some rough parts in it, I found myself laughing at some of the other parts of people giving "testimonies" of their screwed up sexual experiences as adolescents. Made me think of all the screwed up things that happened around me when I was a young kid that I never thought as sexual. Like when I was 8 I think, I used to go hiking with this group of brothers and their neighbors, we were all the same age mostly. I'd always climb this tree right at the start of the hiking trail and take a dump while all the boys "watched the poop" come out. I never thought anything of it, just always had to take a dump right before hiking or something and that tree had a perfect toilet seat made out of a horizontal forked branch about 10 ft from the ground.
I moved and was 11 I think and at least once a week, my neighbor who was 1 year older than I, we would go over to this girl's house (who was 9 I think) down the street and ask her if she wanted "walk around". And like clockwork each time, we'd cut across this old field with a run down abandoned house in it. He'd always herd us into the detached falling apart garage and act like there would be "cool" stuff we might find in there. But it was always the same, after digging through trash and junk he'd point out an old 5 gallon bucket and ask if the girl needed to pee or anything and that we would be fine "watching" (as if watching would be some kind of convenience). She'd always decline, but he would always ask and she would always still come "walking" with us anyway. I never really thought anything of it. My mom is "friends" with him and his parents on facebook, but I can't make myself friend the guy plus I quit facebook anyway.

I guarantee you neighbor boy is diddling some kids now.

 

[Real Gay Autist]

book title "The Sexual Lives of Children".

For others' information that link points to the website of 'Ipce' a.k.a. International Pedophile and Child Emancipation, a pedophile and pederast advocacy organization.