Since John Adams believes we should have access

[Gavin in Va Beach]

I thought this column at WorldNetDaily offered some interesting insight into America's sex obsession. Lot's of info about the sicko research done by Alfred Kinsey (appropriate too, since a movie about him starring Liam Neeson is about to come out) and it does get kinda religious at the end, so reader beware if 'religious stuff' makes you uncomfortable. Some excerpts-

 

"Weeeeeeeeeeeee are the chaaam-pions, mah frehhhhh-und …"

 

To triumphant strains of the "Queen" rock anthem, the paunchy, middle-aged male actor is jumping up and down in an ecstatic victory ritual – in slow motion yet, to immortalize the transcendent moment – delirious over his new-found sexual potency, thanks to Viagra.

 

"Oh no, not on Fox News?!" Click. "Let's see what else is on."

 

A middle-aged man and woman, presumably naked, lying in his-and-hers bathtubs on a mountain bluff, are cozying up to each other to the tender strains of jazz guitar music, while the announcer poses the towering question of our age: "When the moment is right, will you be ready?" For Eli Lilly & Co., the moment was right during the third quarter of the Super Bowl, when the drug manufacturer paid over $4 million to subject 90 million unsuspecting fans to this 60-second Cialis commercial. (Serendipitously, just a few minutes earlier pop singer Janet Jackson had warmed up the viewers by baring her breast during her strategically naughty half-time show.)

 

In the fierce battle for market share in what Wall Street analysts project will be a $6 billion-a-year market by 2010, Lilly spent over $100 million launching its competitor to Pfizer's Viagra, the market leader. To further penetrate the mass mind, Cialis's marketers even met with sitcom writers and Broadway producers to induce them to incorporate the sex-drug into their scripts.

 

Click.

 

An attractive brunette talking directly to the camera asks viewers if they "want to know a secret?" In this racier and more aggressive TV commercial than those of Viagra and Cialis, market underdog Levitra, made by GlaxoSmithKline, presents prime-time viewers – including millions of innocent children – with a sultry seductress reveling in how the drug's effectiveness has increased her partner’s desire to "do this more often."

 

"For him, Levitra works," she coos. "Just look at that smile."

 

Click, TV off.And all across the nation, from sea to shining sea, children look up at their parents and ask, "Daddy, what's 'an erection that lasts longer than four hours?'"

 

Such ads are inundating not just TV, but radio, the Internet, newspapers, magazines and mailboxes nationwide. They've become part of today's "mainstream" cultural landscape, along with Cosmopolitan and clones with their "Hot Sex Tips!" and in-your-face cleavage screaming from every grocery checkout in the country, not to mention ever-more-explicit TV and movie fare, ubiquitous spam e-mail messages hawking supplements to enlarge one's private parts, salacious condom demonstrations in public school classrooms, Howard Stern, MTV, swimsuits, the fashion industry, cars, children's toys – you name it, and it's been sexualized.

 

Many people seem to think having sex with children is a good thing, as 100,000 websites now offer illegal child pornography, reports Internet Filter Review. Worldwide, child porn generates $3 billion in revenues every year. And culturally, adult-child sexuality is creeping, ever so artfully and gradually, into the public consciousness.

 

For instance, in the 2004 movie "Birth," Oscar-winner Nicole Kidman plays Anna, a young widow who thinks her deceased husband has been reincarnated – into the body of a 10-year-old boy. Thus, one scene depicts Kidman tenderly kissing the boy on the lips. Another scene has her asking the boy – played by 11-year-old Cameron Bright – if he has ever had sex. In still another scene – which elicited boos from the audience when "Birth" was first screened at the Venice International Film Festival – the boy slowly undresses in front of Kidman before joining her in the bathtub.

 

"The film disturbs some people and it makes them uncomfortable," Kidman admitted in a Hollywood interview, according to the New York Post. "It's meant to do that, but not in a way where you're trying to exploit a young boy."

 

Well now, what an ingenious way to justify intimacy between an adult female and a male child: The little boy is not your normal kid, you see, but is actually the reincarnation of the woman's grown husband. We, the audience, "understand" her behavior since she's not actually seducing a little boy, but rather, is just being intimate with her husband. In reality of course, she's sexually corrupting a child in front of millions of viewers.

 

How on earth did America get to this point where we're literally drowning in sex and corrupting each other right and left? How can we return to a more innocent time, to a culture of morality, and of real respect between men and women? Is it even possible?

 

Maybe the first question we have to answer is: Exactly how and when did we "buy into" wanton sexual anarchy disguised as freedom?

 

Then, on Jan. 5, 1948, a bomb was dropped on America. Indiana University zoologist Alfred C. Kinsey released his book, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male."

 

Today, more than five decades later, Kinsey is universally referred to as the "father of the sexual revolution."

 

The respected National Research Council says the science of sex "can be divided somewhat crudely into the pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey eras."

 

"The history of sex in America," writes Scott McLemee in Salon, "falls into two large, unequal, yet clearly defined periods. The first era belonged to the Puritans, the Victorians. … This epoch of libidinal prohibition lasted until Jan. 4, 1948. The following day, Professor Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana published 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.' Whereupon, as the expression has it, the earth moved."

 

What, exactly, did Kinsey's research reveal?

 

Funded by the prestigious Rockefeller Foundation and based on thousands of interviews, Kinsey had "discovered" that while American men of the World War II "greatest generation" pretended to be faithful and monogamous, virtually all of them – 95 percent – were, according to 1948 law, sex offenders. Specifically, Kinsey claimed that 85 percent of males had intercourse prior to marriage, nearly 70 percent had sex with prostitutes, and 30-45 percent of husbands had extramarital affairs. Moreover, from 10 to 37 percent of men had engaged in homosexual acts, according to Kinsey. In fact, the oft-repeated claim that one in 10 human beings is homosexual – a cornerstone of the "gay rights" movement – comes directly from Kinsey's published research.

 

In endless and graphic detail, Kinsey painted a picture of Americans as being amoral sexual animals seeking constant gratification.

 

If Kinsey had discovered the cure for all diseases, his press coverage could not have been more extensive or enthusiastic. Time magazine, Life, Look and most of the rest of the mainstream press reported that Kinsey – whom they portrayed as a conservative Republican academic and faithful family man – had conducted the most exhaustive and scientific survey ever of Americans' sexual habits. The previously unknown zoologist – whose only prior claim to fame had been his exhaustive and painstaking research into the gall wasp – was catapulted overnight to the status of national hero, in keeping with Americans' post-war near-worship of science.

 

The revolutionary "Kinsey Reports," as they came to be known – including his companion volume released in 1953, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" – rocked the nation's beliefs about itself. But perhaps most shocking of all were his "findings" on childhood sexuality: The Kinsey Reports came to the stunning conclusion that children are sexual from birth, and that youngsters as young as a few months of age have the capacity for a pleasurable and healthy sexual life.

 

Despite the radical nature of Kinsey's findings, he was honored as a heroic scientific pioneer, pushing back the dark boundaries of ignorance and delivering new knowledge that would guide America in a brave, new world of sexual enlightenment.

 

That is, until 1981, when a sole researcher – a Ph.D. and scholar named Judith Reisman – came along and raised the question of "Table 34."

 

"Table 34" in Kinsey's first report purports to be a scientific record of "multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males."

 

Reisman wondered: How did Kinsey and his associates obtain this "research" that infants as young as five months of age enjoyed sex? Child sexual abuse is a felony – how could such research be conducted legally? Why had nobody raised this issue before?

 

Get ready for a shock. According to Reisman, whose heartbreaking findings were corroborated subsequently by other researchers:

 

 

Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal "child sexuality." Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey's research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.

For example, "Table 34" on page 180 of Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" claims to be a "scientific" record of "multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males." Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for "orgasm" by Kinsey's "technically trained" aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 "orgasms." Sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates commonly quote these child "data" to prove children's need for homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual satisfaction via "safe-sex" education. These data are also regularly used to "prove" children are sexual from birth.

 

Whoa! Wait a minute. This seems too horrible to be true. You're got to be thinking, "Why haven't I heard about this before? If this is true, Kinsey would have been arrested and locked up. This must be some hysterical anti-sex researcher jumping to conclusions."

 

Sorry. For the sake of the children "experimented" upon, one wishes that were true. But Reisman is a world-renowned expert and scholar on this subject, has been a consultant to three U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and is sought worldwide to lecture, testify and counsel regarding fraudulent sex science. She is speaking the awful truth here.

 

Reisman reveals that in "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,"

 

 

Kinsey defined children's torment ("screaming," "writhing in pain," "fainting," "convulsions") as "orgasms" for infants too young to speak. Who sexually tested these children? Where were the parents? Among thousands of international reviews of the Kinsey reports, no one asked these questions of the man who, as Gore Vidal declared, was "the most famous man for a decade," and who is the one man the homosexual and pedophile movements today thank most for their advances.

 

Where did the childhood sexual data come from?

Reports of childhood sexual behavior were mostly from interviews of adults recalling their early experiences. Parents and teachers were also asked if they had noticed sexual reactions in their children, and some children were interviewed in the presence of a parent or teacher. Among more than 5,000 men interviewed for "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," there were 9 who reported having had sexual relations with children. One in particular, with an extensive sexual history, is the source of the childhood response tables in the Male book. Dr. Kinsey and his staff never conducted experiments with children.

 

Although Kinsey claimed the child-sexuality information came from multiple sources, in 1995 then-Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft insisted it all came from serial pedophile Rex King, speculating that Kinsey might have "invented" the other purported sources for his child sexual response data as a way of protecting King.

 

In fact, not only did Kinsey use data from Rex King – whom Kinsey encouraged, in writing, to continue with his "research" – but also from Nazi criminal Fritz von Balluseck, who was arrested and investigated for the murder of a 10-year-old girl, and ultimately convicted of sexual abuse of up to 200 children. As a Times of London story notes, Kinsey and von Balluseck corresponded, with Kinsey once warning the Nazi pedophile to "watch out" so as to avoid being caught.

 

Today, writes Crain in the New York Times, as a matter of policy "the institute will not – to the frustration of defenders and accusers alike – answer questions about King, Balluseck or anyone else who may have confided in Kinsey."

 

Selling Sex in the USA

 

 

My vote? Keep 'Saving Ryan's Privates' off the public airwaves and let's start asking ourselves where we are going as a culture and what the fate of Western Civilization may become if we continue down this path of 'sex obsession'.

[Paco]

And all across the nation, from sea to shining sea, children look up at their parents and ask, "Daddy, what's 'an erection that lasts longer than four hours?'"

 

"According to your mother, it's a miracle."

 

(Sorry, dude. It just jumped out at me.)

[John Adams]

Smooches to you and your boy Scott for all the attention in the last few weeks! Love it.

 

So all that about Kinsey has something to do with your support of paying the government to be your nanny? Really, if you have such self-control issues, you have bigger problems.

 

Can't you support your repressive ideals and try to convert people with the power and beauty of your vision? Why would you need to resort to force (televise Barney or go to jail) to get people to follow your ideals?

 

Tsk-Tsk: very non-Christian of you.

[OGTEleven]

Smooches to you and your boy Scott for all the attention in the last few weeks! Love it.

 

So all that about Kinsey has something to do with your support of paying the government to be your nanny?  Really, if you have such self-control issues, you have bigger problems.

 

Can't you support your repressive ideals and try to convert people with the power and beauty of your vision? Why would you need to resort to force (televise Barney or go to jail) to get people to follow your ideals?

 

Tsk-Tsk: very non-Christian of you.

114187[/snapback]

Do you think any of his questions are legitimate? For example, do you think the government should ban making movies that include sexual scenes with 10 year olds?

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Smooches to you and your boy Scott for all the attention in the last few weeks! Love it.

 

So all that about Kinsey has something to do with your support of paying the government to be your nanny?  Really, if you have such self-control issues, you have bigger problems.

 

Can't you support your repressive ideals and try to convert people with the power and beauty of your vision? Why would you need to resort to force (televise Barney or go to jail) to get people to follow your ideals?

 

Tsk-Tsk: very non-Christian of you.

114187[/snapback]

 

Tsk-Tsk: You ASSume I'm a Christian. You would be wrong (But maybe not for long. Religion, or more specifically subscribing to the tenets of an 'organized religion' is a dilemma I wrestle with daily. With an infant son to raise, it has caused me to re-evaluate my position.)

 

Also Tsk-Tsk: You cowardly ignore the main thrust of the posting/article- What has the 'sexualization' of America wrought and instead try to turn in into some quasi-fascist call for censorship on my part. Again, coward.

[John Adams]

Tsk-Tsk: You ASSume I'm a Christian. You would be wrong (But maybe not for long. Religion, or more specifically subscribing to the tenets of an 'organized religion' is a dilemma I wrestle with daily. With an infant son to raise, it has caused me to re-evaluate my position.)

 

Also Tsk-Tsk: You cowardly ignore the main thrust of the posting/article- What has the 'sexualization' of America wrought and instead try to turn in into some quasi-fascist call for censorship on my part. Again, coward.

114198[/snapback]

 

On the Christian thing, I apologize. You and Scott seem Borg-like in your affinity for the Christian Right side of arguments (at least the ones that have come up on here regarding sexuality), so I confused your intolerance with his. I correct myself then: you are a non-Christian intolerant, tsk-tsk.

 

You addressed your cumbersome post to my call for the government to get out of the censorship business. So, either you were suggesting some form of censorship, or supporting my position. Based on your article, I concluded the former. By bringing up censorship, I continued the discussion. If you want to avoid the issue of censorship, you are the coward. If you want to discuss sexuality in America, that's a new topic.

 

I don't know why you want to discuss this, however, because we've danced this dance before. You think that homosexuality and tolerance of the same leads to some sort of slippery slope that ends with pedophilia and incest, even though you have gay friends and all. I disagree. If you want to go over this again, I'm not really interested, and I'd think that you wouldn't be either. If you are, maybe someone else can engage you in this.

 

If you want to do censorship, which we haven't done before, let's do it.

[John Adams]

Do you think any of his questions are legitimate?  For example, do you think the government should ban making movies that include sexual scenes with 10 year olds?

114193[/snapback]

 

What do you want to talk about? Gavin and I have played this game before. I don't have the time to respond to the hodgepodge of exerpts from someone's article that seems to conclude something pretty dubious (that the Kinsey report is to blame for all manner of ills).

 

Pedophilia is bad. You want to know where I think the government does have a role: kids vs. adults.

 

If someone makes a movie of kids and adults having sex, they broke the law, a good law.

[RkFast]

Im really struggling to see how ANYONE can say putting PORN on public TV is a worthwhile endeavor and if banned, is indicative of a neo-fascist state.

[Thurman's Helmet]

Since when was the mainstream media interested in those who had sex with underage people (unless they were Catholic Priests of course)

 

Keep up the charade boys!

 

Signed,

Roman Polanski

Woody Allen

Fatty Arbuckle

Jerry Lee Lewis

The dude from Good Charlotte thats bangin Hillary Duff

[OGTEleven]

What do you want to talk about?  Gavin and I have played this game before. I don't have the time to respond to the hodgepodge of exerpts from someone's article that seems to conclude something pretty dubious (that the Kinsey report is to blame for all manner of ills).

 

Pedophilia is bad. You want to know where I think the government does have a role: kids vs. adults.

 

If someone makes a movie of kids and adults having sex, they broke the law, a good law.

114310[/snapback]

I asked a question. You answered. That was a surprise because you haven't done much of that lately.

 

I thought my question was pretty clear so I interpret your "What do you want to talk about?" line as some sort of shot. That part was less than surprising.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Our sex obsession is an obsession of limits, NOT the other way around. As I have said many times before, Europe seems to have put sex in its proper perspective, while we continue the age-old 'condemn it and make it bad like the boogey-man' tack. People take notice because things have to be either supressed, boycotted, or flaunted here when it comes to sex. Very sad indeed; We'll never learn, and so the combination of European rational civility combined with American capitalism will never materialize, forming the close to perfect society...

[John Adams]

I asked a question.  You answered.  That was a surprise because you haven't done much of that lately.   

 

I thought my question was pretty clear so I interpret your "What do you want to talk about?" line as some sort of shot.  That part was less than surprising.

114333[/snapback]

 

If you have a question you want answered, and I read it, I'll try to answer it. If you feel like I've ignored you when you made a good point, either I didn't see it, or someone else said what I would have said. Please link me to times when you feel I've recently ignored questions, and I'll get on it.

 

I asked "What do you want to talk about?" because you said "Do you think any of his questions are legitimate" without specifying the questions. I didn't have time to respond to that entire article, so if you want to talk about something specific besides the one Q you asked, let me know.

 

If you want to imply that my post was inadequate because I didn't address all of the questions, that's your business. I'm sure you don't agree with every line in posts by Blzrul and Mickey, but by not responding to them all, I don't assume anything about you, except that maybe you have a life.

[OGTEleven]

If you have a question you want answered, and I read it, I'll try to answer it.  If you feel like I've ignored you when you made a good point, either I didn't see it, or someone else said what I would have said.  Please link me to times when you feel I've recently ignored questions, and I'll get on it.

 

I asked "What do you want to talk about?" because you said "Do you think any of his questions are legitimate" without specifying the questions. I didn't have time to respond to that entire article, so if you want to talk about something specific besides the one Q you asked, let me know.

 

If you want to imply that my post was inadequate because I didn't address all of the questions, that's your business. I'm sure you don't agree with every line in posts by Blzrul and Mickey, but by not responding to them all, I don't assume anything about you, except that maybe you have a life.

114377[/snapback]

The example I used was the answer I was looking for. You answered it.

 

The unanswered links:

 

Link

 

Link2

[Mickey]

Research into human sexual behaviour did not begin with and more importantly, end with Kinsey. Even if you discount all of his research, you have to come to terms with 54 years of research since, much of which confirms some of his findings.

 

"Dr." Judith Reisman by the way, has her own agenda. First of all, she has no training in human sexuality or any related studies. Her PHD is in communications, not medicine or psychology. She leads a campaign called "RSVP America" which stands for "Restoring Social Virtue and Purity in America." Her criticism and accusations against Kinsey are by no means universally accepted. For example, the diaries from pedophiles Kinsey accumulated were all dated prior to the start of his research. Therefore, the incidents described in those diaries, as awful as they were, took place long before and hence had nothing to with, Kinsey's research. The guy was a freak who basically made a study of his own perversion. In his work, Kinsey made it clear that some data was collected from pedophiles who had illegal contact with children. He never hid that information. What he did do for reasons few understand is say that the information came from 9 such pedophiles when the vast bulk of it came from that one freak.

 

In any event Reisman is sponsored by a number of conservative goups and has been a tool for their agenda for years. It has been their goal, long before having any proof to justify it, to discredit Kinsey. It is no surprise that they eventually published research that validated their pre-ordained conclusions.

 

I don't claim to have the final answer to this controversey but your post seems to imply that she is an objective, dedicated scholar who simply stumbled on this startling information. That is not the case. Not even close. At the same time there are legitimate questions to be asked about Kinsey and his research and that shouldn't be lost just because Reisman may be an academic hack.

 

In response to some of the more valid criticisms of Kinsey's research, mainly that he had a sample where people with sexual issues were over represented and therefore led to skewed results, his data was revisited by Gebhard and Johnson. Just for example, 25% of Kinsey's male respondents were or had been in prison. 5% were male prostitutes. Gebhard and Johnson scrubbed the data of these and other sample contaminants and published the results in 1979. They were not significantly different than Kinsey's original numbers. By its very nature, it is almost impossible to get a truly random sample when it comes to surveying sexual behaviour so even Gebhard and Johnson can't swear to the perfection of their data. Neither can "Dr." Reisman however.

 

Kinsey is often pinned by the right with outlandish claims that he never made. For example, Kinsey never claimed that 90% of the population is homosexual or that women enhance their ability to reach orgasm by masturbating but he is often accused of having done so.

 

Funny, sex is everywhere you look so the right concludes America is dangerously sex obsessed. When every movie at the drive-in was a war movie or a cowboy shoot 'em up movie, no one was worried that we were therefore violence obsessed. Drive-ins? I know, I am one old fart.

[John Adams]

The example I used was the answer I was looking for.  You answered it. 

 

The unanswered links:

 

Link

 

Link2

114503[/snapback]

 

I responded to both because you seemed to want me to. The reason I didn't respond substantively to both of those posts was because I agreed with them for the most part.

 

For the first, arguing quantum mechanics and that maybe just our methods are imperfect didn't seem like it was related to our discussion so I let it drop, but of course, you're right. I never agreed with UConn James beyond a certain point, so I think you and I were in agreement.

 

Regarding the polical link RE "third rail," I also agree with most of what you said, but didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. We just reached different conclusions on who we could support.

[OGTEleven]

I responded to both because you seemed to want me to. The reason I didn't respond substantively to both of those posts was because I agreed with them for the most part.

 

For the first, arguing quantum mechanics and that maybe just our methods are imperfect didn't seem like it was related to our discussion so I let it drop, but of course, you're right. I never agreed with UConn James beyond a certain point, so I think you and I were in agreement.

 

Regarding the polical link RE "third rail," I also agree with most of what you said, but didn't vote for Bush or Kerry.  We just reached different conclusions on who we could support.

114706[/snapback]

I appreciate the replies. Thanks. (And not just because you mostly agree.)