Sexual anarchy: The Kinsey legacy
This is really disturbing. I couldn’t finish reading it.
by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. and Mary E. McAlister, Esq.
August 24, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Our children are under attack by an insidious and virulent enemy.
On August 17, 2011, more than 50 activists attended a conference for “minor-attracted adults,” i.e., pedophiles, which sought to eliminate the “stigma” attached to pedophilia and to redefine pedophilia as a normal “sexual orientation.” The United States Department of Justice has determined that 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under the age of 12 and that 58,200 children were kidnapped by non-family members in 1999.
So-called “experts” in the field of human sexuality claim that children are sexual not only from birth, but even in the womb and are willing participants in sexual acts with adults.
Children are encouraged to experiment with sex early and often and to engage in sex with members of the same-sex as well as the opposite sex. Sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers are at epidemic proportions, and new and sometimes fatal strands of diseases are being reported. More than 50,000 teens have contracted HIV which has advanced to full blown AIDS and by 1992 more than 7,000 boys and 1,500 girls have died from HIV/AIDS.
How did we get here? How do we stop the madness before we lose an entire generation?
The question of how we got here can be answered by two words: Alfred Kinsey. Even 55 years after his death, Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey continues to profoundly affect American culture. Two of his most ardent supporters, Dr. Carol Vance, Columbia University anthropologist and lesbian activist, and Dr. John Money, an “out” pedophile advocate and pioneer of transgender surgery at Johns Hopkins, have cogently summed up Dr. Kinsey’s legacy – a legacy they consider sexual “progress” but is in reality sexual anarchy.
Speaking at a 1998 Kinsey symposium of fellow sexologists at San Francisco State University, Dr. Vance said, “Biography is the battleground.”[1] Should Kinsey be discredited, she warned, “200 years of sexual progress can be undone.”
Dr. Vance’s statements echo comments made in 1981 by Dr. Money at the 5th World Congress of Sexology in Israel. They also agreed that the information contained in Table 34, below, and the other data chronicling Kinsey’s and his team’s widespread child abuse, described in detail in Kinsey’s 1948 study on male sexuality, would be the undoing of the “Pre and Post Kinsey eras” globally and in the USA.
In fact, Dr. John Bancroft, director of the Kinsey Institute said at the 1998 conference, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of Kinsey’s studies, that he “prayed” that a British television program, “Secret History: Kinsey Paedophiles,” would never be shown in the United States because the public would not understand the “science” involved in Kinsey’s publication of tables 30-34. He understood that should those tables be widely publicized in the United States, then the whole field of human sexuality and human sex education would be destroyed.
This field of human sexuality and human sex education and 200 years of “sexual progress” that these elite “scientists” were so worried would be destroyed is better described as sexual anarchy. This sexual anarchy that has given these scientists and their followers prestige, money, credibility and control over the deconstruction of the Judeo-Christian civil society was crafted by Dr. Kinsey.
A gall-wasp zoologist at Indiana University from 1920 to his death in 1956, Dr. Kinsey is most famous for his earth-shaking books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)[2] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953),[3] funded by Indiana University and the Rockefeller Foundation. Dr. Kinsey said that his mission was to eliminate the sexually “repressive” legal and behavioral legacy of Judeo Christianity. He claimed that this “repressive” sexual legacy was responsible for socio-sexual ills like divorce, rape, illegitimacy, venereal disease, juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and child sexual abuse.
Furthermore, he argued that if we Americans would admit that we really were engaged in widespread licentious conduct, instead of hypocritically denying it, then these socio-sexual ills would be dramatically reduced.
In large measure, Dr. Kinsey’s mission has been accomplished, mostly posthumously, by his legion of true believers–elitists who have systematically brainwashed their fellow intellectual elites to adopt Kinsey’s pan-sexual secular worldview and jettison the Judeo Christian worldview upon which this country was founded and flourished.
The result of Dr. Kinsey’s mission has been totally antithetical to the utopia he predicted. Instead of reducing the socio-sexual ills that he claimed were rampant in pre-Kinsey America, the implementation of the Kinsey worldview has increased extant global sexual trauma while ushering in a host of new ills that are objectively defined as sexual anarchy. Like a cancer spreading throughout the body, sexual anarchy has spread throughout the fabric of society, affecting every aspect of American life and every man, woman and child.
Keep reading, if you dare, especially to see the child abuse chart, which gave me the willies.
Loading ...
[58,200 children were kidnapped by non-family members in 1999.]
This is a selective quotation to scare people and undermines the article’s credibility.
According to the a Dept of Justice report from 2002 (http://tinyurl.com/b5837)
[nearly one-half (48 percent)
were missing because of a runaway/thrownaway
episode. More than one-fourth (28 percent) became missing
as a result of benign explanation circumstances (miscommunications
or misunderstandings between child
and caretaker). Children who were missing because they
became lost or injured accounted for 15 percent of all
caretaker missing children. Less than one-tenth (9 percent)
of caretaker missing children were abducted by
family members, and only 3 percent were abducted by
nonfamily perpetrators.]
Of the 3% abducted by nonfamily perpetrators 115 were [Stereotypical
kidnappings are the particular
type of nonfamily abduction that
receives the most media attention
and involves a stranger or slight
acquaintance who detains the
child overnight, transports the
child at least 50 miles, holds the
child for ransom, abducts the child
with intent to keep the child permanently,
or kills the child. They
represent an extremely small portion
of all missing children]
So your kid is in more danger when he’s being driven to school or being treated in emergency room then he is of being kidnapped.
That’s a very minor aspect of the article, Mont. To disregard the entire thing over that is…is…. ridiculous.
Agreed Betsy: Did the above poster see the forest through the trees?
No, Mont is correct to bring it up, as we all should do when we see such poorly cited and badly spun statistics. I’m used to seeing it from the left, but it makes me sick to see it happen on the right. It’s not infrequent.
I’m not sure it’s fair to include the early HIV statistics. HIV basically came out of nowhere, and was ignored for YEARS because it was mainly found in gay males.
Also, this reads as very (Cue Glenn and hysteric comments) homophobic. I thought even the Ruth institute was of the belief that orientation was no reason to exclude someone from a job or profession, especially a non-religious one like medicine, law and education.
I also find it problematic that the article finds the legalization of contraception a terrible thing. Thats not a place for the law to decide, it should be left up to the individual, their partner and their doctor.
It’s confusing that they lump prostitution in with the sex industry as it’s illegal. Prostitution has not been legalized, and including it in with items that have been made legal is distorting.
Really? Marijuana? We’re getting upset over marijuana? Legalize it already, it’s no more sinful then drinking alcohol. And think of the tax revenue.
Freud claimed children were sexual from birth years before Kinsey. And let’s be honest, lots of little kids play with their genitals. They don’t understand everything going on obviously, and they are not actually understanding of what they are doing, nor are they interested in actual sex, but they do masturbate. Admitting this isn’t wrong or bad, but’s a great way to teach kids about how some activities have a time and a place.
Vaccines are not a bad thing. Lord knows my seventh grade self didn’t look at my hep B vaccines has reason to have sex. In fact, I don’t remember anyone ever saying that or thinking that. And the one or two kids I knew having sex, were doing it before the vaccine was given.
Those are some bold claims about child molestation, and they should be backed up. This article reads less shocking expose and more pearl-clutching church newsletter.
Kinsey was right: a lot of people are uptight about sexual matters. Not sure where that comes from but it is common enough to want to study.
[That’s a very minor aspect of the article, Mont. To disregard the entire thing over that is…is…. ridiculous.]
When an a writer starts with doctored stats to scare readers into agreement – the entire artile becomes suspect. What else has the writer twisted and tweeked to trick people into accepting their warning. When people use the Superbowl/wife-beating stat to support the VAWA – they are also manipulating people. Using lies to frighten people into supporting your position is wrong.
[Did the above poster see the forest through the trees?]
Except if they are not trees it’s not a forest and using lies to convince people differently is manipulative and unethical.
@Mont D. Law
Apparently, the US government considers one abduction too many. That’s why we have the Amber Alert system.
NG, I am surprised by you ho hum response considering your past. I thought at least you would be speaking out against the child abuse data in Kinsey’s work.
It is this data of Kinsey’s that should call into question his body of work, whether or not you like the tone of the author.
Reisman wrote a silly book accusing sex researcher Alfred Kinsey of child abuse. When the Kinsey Institute easily batted down her charges, she sued it for defamation and emotional distress, claiming that it tried to censor her book. Not only was the case dismissed, but it was dismissed with prejudice, which means Reisman could not re-file it.
This attention provides an opportunity for long-time anti-Kinsey crusader Judith Reisman to put forth, once again, her opinions on Kinsey and on the Institute. Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children’s sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman’s lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman’s case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).
Bottomline, Reisman has a hard time backing up any of her wild claims with any hard facts. But then again, we have a Ph.D. working outside their filed of expertise. Reisman’s graduate work is in communications.
Dr. Reisman has a page that addresses this, The Kinsey Cover Up. Here is an excerpt:
So, Bob, did you base your information on a copy of the law suit briefs, motions and rulings, or simply on something Kinsey reps have said?
[Apparently, the US government considers one abduction too many. That’s why we have the Amber Alert system.]
This in no way negates my point. Articles that use doctored stats to fearmonger on one point are unreliabe as a whole.
Mont, I see your point, but that still doesn’t mean everything else in the article is false.
“Prostitution has not been legalized, and including it in with items that have been made legal is distorting.”
Prostitution is indeed legal in Nevada, for example.
[Mont, I see your point, but that still doesn’t mean everything else in the article is false.]
How do you know that without checking every single data point? Once the writer starts to play fast and loose with the facts how do you know what else is fudged or exagerated or simply not true? Without investigating every claim, tracking down every number, querying every source you don’t. The tendency to massage data to support your point of view in the hopes no one will check means anything not checked is suspect. Writer’s that do this depend on creating fear in accepting and incurious readers to make their points.
@Deb
If the article actually had this information in it, possibly. All I got from the article was that any decent undergrad program would have failed it for not citing sources, rambling and not connecting information well.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Wow Glenn. One US state, which has practically allowed brothels since the 1800s.
More importantly, any prostitution that happens outside the regulated brothels is illegal and still prosecuted. My point stands.
Yes, Reisman does address this, but like all her allegations, she does not back up any of her claims with haqrd facts, or real research.
How many times must her shoddy work be discredited by those who actually work in the medical field?
First, I had asked if you based your information on a copy of the law suit briefs, motions and rulings, or simply on something Kinsey reps have said. You say “she” has no hard facts, but where are “yours?”
Second, she provided photocopies of court documents that proved her claim regarding the case. She has a letter from the court offering the right to conduct the case without prejudice, for example.
Dr. Reisman supplied hard evidence that you are ignoring.
[Dr. Reisman has a page that addresses this, The Kinsey Cover Up. Here is an excerpt:]
I checked the link & it doesn’t provide what you are claiming it does. What we are looking at again is selective presentation. There are no copies of court documents, there are GIF images of selected pages of court documents.
If you have a link to the complete documents, particularly the 2 dismissals I would be interested in having a look. Until then you can’t back up your assertion that the dismissal with prejudice was not based on the merits of the case.
First, as I stated to Bob Barnes, where is the evidence for your side?
Second, the photocopy at http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/law9.gif shows the court gave her a 15 day window to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice and proceed, or have the court mandatorily dismiss the case with prejudice.
Thus, Dr. Reisman’s version of events, that is was about not having money to continue the case, has strong photocopy evidence to support it. That is more than can be said for the opposing version.
Granted, the photocopied document does not state what the conditions for “voluntary dismissal and proceed” were, but it seems very unlikely the court would have offered a voluntary dismissal without prejudice with the intent to proceed if it already determined the case had no potential merit.
My post responded to your previous claim. You had said, “the federal Constitution…makes no reference to Christ or Christianity at all.”
On that point, the claim was false. The Constitution refers to Jesus Christ where it says, “the year of our Lord. ” The reference to Sunday also implies a recognition of Christianity.
By itself, it presumes government was representing a Christian culture as opposed to a non-Christian one. Its a link in the chain of evidence that America is Christian nation.
With regard to other links in the chain of evidence, some of the strongest proof comes from the Continental Congress.
The Continental Congress authorized May 17,1776 as a day of humility, fasting, and prayer to God for obtaining forgiveness though the merits of Christ for the nation:
In December 1777 they mentioned God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost when they issued a Thanksgiving proclamation,
References with photocopies linked here
As you can infer from these excerpts, Christianity was very strongly endorsed by the government, especially when we add the fact nearly every state constitution specifically endorsed Christianity.
The Constitution privileged Christianity indirectly by leaving all power over matters of religion with the states, which were decidedly Christian.
The above post on early American Christianity was intended for another Ruthblog.