Alfred Kinsey

American sexual deviant, who gave us many misunderstandings around gender and sex.

American sexual deviant with a degree in biology (specializing in wasps), that pioneered American sexology and using lousy methodology created many misunderstandings around gender and sex.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2019-01-11

Facts[edit | edit source]

He was an activist and Entomologist, that let his sexual proclivities drive his interests (and results) as a "researcher" in the field of sexology.

Alfred was bitter at Social Sexual norms and constraints of his Devout Methodist parents, and how religion had stifled his bisexual and other sexual proclivities. He later became atheist and actively campaigned against these constraints and norms. (Hardly the uninvested/neutral party many of his supporters claim).

Many terms and ideas we have today about Gender fluidity, bisexuality, even terms about transgenderism can be traced back to Kinsey, and his study in the gay scenes of the mid 1900's.

He studies that many relied on as "data" was really him taking informal polls over self selected deviants, and then projecting that as norms. He "studied" prisoners (pedophiles and other sexual deviants), he convinced students to let him watch them have sex, and things that are far beyond ethical norms.
- You don't have to participate in serial murder to study serial murderers -- Kinsey appears to have been more a method actor, using his research as an excuse to fulfill his desires. Of course some of this appears to be a society shocked by his reporting and imaginging in things that weren't there. But with his boundary pushing and things we know clearly were beyond ethical norms, it is not hard to imagine him going further than he recorded, or that some of the claims have some validity.

His criteria for what defined gay or bisexual was basically, anyone that had a sexual dream that involved a same sex partner, or having ever played "Show me" or doctor as a child. A standard so loose as to be absurd. And his conclusions that 20% of females or 10% of males were homosexual was gross over-estimation.

He showed his student materials with people having sex, went well beyond fact based questioning in interviews, had sex with his students (Clyde Martin).
- There is a hot debate on whether Kinsey monitored, or participated in Sex with Children. (The infamous Table 34). Data in the table does things like count orgasms over time, in chidren in young as age 4. Which begs where did he get that data. Some claim that it was from memories or discussions with pedophiles. But the table notes "timed with a second hand or stopwatch" -- which doesn't imply that. Wikipedia and other places consider it slander to even bring the question up (and not defend Kinsey). But you have things like Kinsey's co-author (Wardell Pomeroy) claiming things like they uncovered, "many beautiful and satisfying relationships between fathers and daughters", or the possibility of, "loving sexual relationships between children and animals”. ^[1]
- There is also later defense of Table 31, which also has statistics on pedophelia.

His personal views was that the worst part of childhood sexuality was the lack of training, or that adults reactions to it were worse than the act. (Including adult-child sexual interactions as well as child-child... or as his Co-Author conjectured, Child-Animal.

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

Imagine this -- let's pretend that there was no direct observation being done on children, and Kinsey was not a creeper/pervert, he just worked with them. But that's also not science, that's hersey -- and doctoring of data to mislead the public based on what a sexual deviant/criminal told you, is not really good science.

If there was (or wasn't) direct observation being done on children (whether voluntary, or just having the pedophiles record), then that's still not good data -- because you're looking at groomed children, and not normal sexual development or averages.

You're kind of wrong either way -- because if only a small subset of children are sexualized, and you're studying that subset, and project that as norms on the superset, it's crap science. Any real scientist, statistician would know that.