Alfred Kinsey

Author:
James A Watkins
Updated:
Mar 14, 2019

Alfred Kinsey

The Sexual Revolution is hailed by Liberal Atheists as the greatest advance for mankind since the wheel—or at least since penicillin. Alfred Kinsey is the man to whom we owe much for these changing mores.

According to this view, Kinsey freed us from "ignorance, hypocritical condemnation of sexuality from religious intolerance, and misguided prejudice, that condemned most people to be totally ignorant about the most basic knowledge about human sexuality." Such a statement makes me wonder how the human race ever survived before Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Report.

Another Liberal Atheist claims that Kinsey "freed Americans from superstition, myths, and misinformation," because "he rightly treats sex as animal behavior above and beyond moralizing."

As with most evils, this evil began with a series of huge lies. The biggest was about Kinsey himself—that he was a conservative Republican family man. He was in fact a sadistic, masochistic, homosexual child molester who had no experience in the study of human sexuality. Kinsey was a zoologist whose only previously published work was a study of the gall wasp. He died of orchitis, caused by his years of constant, brutal, masochistic masturbation methods.

The Kinsey Report

Alfred Kinsey published his first book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948; followed by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953. Combined, the two became known as the Kinsey Reports. Among other affronts, the Kinsey Report claims that 95 percent of the men in the "Greatest Generation" were secretly sex offenders.

Kinsey wrote that his "studies" had revealed that 10 percent of all men were homosexuals—a false figure that is still quoted today by the homosexual movement in order to persuade society of the normalcy of homosexual behaviors. The truth is about 2 percent—a gigantic difference.

Alfred Kinsey also reported that babies only a few months old were able to enjoy sexual pleasure. How could he possibly know this? His methods were simple: He recruited pedophiles to molest hundreds of babies as part of his "research." Kinsey's own charts and graphs show that genital, anal, and oral sexual abuse experiments were conducted on children—on babies.

Kinsey claimed that he himself had witnessed 26 orgasms experienced by a four-year-old child within a period of 24 hours. He also described reactions of other children during his experiments: their screams, the way they writhed in pain, and those who went into convulsions. The notes from the Kinsey Report claim that these reactions were also orgasmic—that they came from pleasure not pain. He made this claim because the children were too young to speak for themselves, because they were too young to talk. My question would be, "Were they too young to remember?" Alfred Kinsey was a sexual psychopath.

ALFRED KINSEY ON THE COVER OF "TIME" MAGAZINE

Alfred Kinsey Fabricates His Research

The conclusions of Kinsey's research are fabricated. During interviews he used the well known psychological method of only rewarding and reinforcing the answers he was looking for, while disapproving of answers that did not advance his desired results. This form of mental manipulation is more powerful than most people realize.

75 percent of his research data was secretly thrown away because it did not match his desired results. Only 14 percent of the men he interviewed were sexually normal. 200 of his subjects were sexual psychopaths like him; 1,400 were pedophiles; and hundreds of others were male prostitutes or those who practice homosexual behaviors. Very few normal women would even speak with Kinsey about their sexuality—this was the early 1950s, when the vast majority of women still maintained a sense of propriety about themselves.

The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is the world's largest organization of pedophiles. Kinsey is their hero, the man who provided the "scientific" basis for the normalcy of their beliefs.

The Legacy of Alfred Kinsey

Alfred Kinsey viewed human beings as nothing more than animals. If human beings have no soul, no spirit, no afterlife, no God—then whatever desires we feel as mere animals must be right and should not be suppressed no matter how deviant or perverse they may be to others. Satanists have exactly this same creed.

Kinsey was on a mission to destroy traditional morality. He sought to devalue what was most precious to human beings: love, marriage, and children. One look at the sex education programs in our public schools—and our amoral society—tells us his mission has been a sensational success.

My primary source for this article is the book The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian.

Scroll to Continue

reader-review-of-how-to-solve-your-own-murder-by-kristen-perrin

business-magic-turning-ordinary-customers-into-raving-fans

Comments

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 14, 2019:

Sharilee Swaity ~ You are welcome. I must apologize for not responding to your comments. I must have missed the notification somehow.

Thank you very much for coming by to read my article. I totally agree with you comments and I appreciate your warm compliments.

Sharilee Swaity from Canada on February 18, 2013:

James, the man was a complete deviant, and the way he conducted his work is beyond shocking and appalling. I have heard of the Kinsey Reports but was not aware of how corrupt he really was. Thanks for shedding light on this. I remember that another psychologist also did an experiment where he left children alone, and saw the effects. The early roots of psychology are questionable in several ways. Thanks for writing another brave article. Bravo!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 14, 2012:

cynthtggt— You are welcome. Your comments are extraordinary and I appreciate the dialogue.

You write, "it's men also that lay the foundation of thought that brought into fruition our great Western Civilization."

Yes, that is definitely true.

You wrote: "To regard life above sex is men's calling and always was."

Yes, I agree with you. The implication is that the Christian Faith is a great and needful constraint on men's natural (or base) sexual urges, which would be to spread his seed as far and wide as possible according to Darwinists.

Your said, "The illusion men have that women make them moral, and not God"

This is an excellent point. It is ultimately God, to be sure. But women have always tended to make men more moral. Look at the temperance movement when women said "lips that touch alcohol will not touch mine." It worked! Half the men in the country quit drinking. Which was great! Now, can you imagine men saying to women, "Lips that touch alcohol will not touch mine?" I can't. It is well known that millions of men go to church—and millions of children—because their wives want them to. I am sure it happens the other way but I doubt it is nearly as common, that a man has to nag his wife to get up and go to church. Publicly, men have brought more women to God through evangelism no doubt but privately I'll bet far more women have brought men to the Lord than the other way round.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful remarks.

Cynthia Taggart from New York, NY on September 09, 2012:

Thanks for replying. But I disagree with your take that women dictate the morality. Men wear the crown, and women unconsciously seek men greater than themselves, despite what the feminists say. Men have gone the way of Stanley Kawolski, the unsympathic figure in "A Streetcar Named Desire." And it's men also that lay the foundation of thought that brought into fruition our great Western Civilization. To believe that a woman's surrender of herself to a man reduces the mind to pittance, is to reduce even God to meaninglessness. You are wrong on that front. To regard life above sex is men's calling and always was. And I did not say women were "not persons" before the 1960s, I simply believe that feminism rose in response to men's dereliction. God is intent on making our inner world as "Thy will be done as in Heaven." The illusion men have that women make them moral, and not God, is precisely why a great percent of women in some countries suffer genital mutiliation to "purify" them. A woman's crotch is not a man's salvation, only God is man's salvation. A great book called "Intimate Partners" reveals the inner fight for power that destroys marriages, for example, and you ought to read it. Like I said, when men lead, women will follow. If all men's appetites so uncontrollable, why do so many need Viagra?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 09, 2012:

cynthtggt— Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article. Your profile page shows many titles that I am anxious to come over and read, which I will do soon. I have made myself a note to do so. Welcome to the HubPages Community.

I appreciate your kind compliments. Kinsey predated the Sexual Revolution. Your comments dig some deep wells that might be hard to fill in this short space. I understand that the lack of propriety among females today can be defended by "Look at men! They have always been improper!" I am not convinced of this argument. In various decades and époques of Western Civilization it seems to me that the women set the morality. I think there is something about men that is different from women but I know the feminists denied this is so. I never thought a goal to "be like men" was a worthy one for women but a degradation of their true calling in this world as the softness in it and the nurturers of it. It seems to me that most men will do whatever they can get away with sexually and always have but the women of each generation decide what that will be.

I do not buy the idea that women were not considered to be "persons" before the 1960s. I had 12 aunts, a mother, 2 grandmas, 5 sisters, and I have 4 daughters. They have always been considered and felt considered as much "persons" as any men have. The feminist idea was "you don't need a man; marriage is slavery; children will tie you down; be independent." But it did not produce independence. Even Leftists admit it without saying it when they brag that single women vote for Democrats 2 to 1 because they "depend" on government programs to survive. So they have replaced a husband with the State. But they are still not independent.

I love this that you wrote: "What Kinsey and the sexual revolution did was take the experience of sexuality of loving partners and turn it into a collective experience devoid of love, or love between people irrelevant"

Brilliant analysis!!

I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful remarks.

Cynthia Taggart from New York, NY on September 05, 2012:

I discovered you only lately and I wish I had sooner. This is a well-written hub and I am interested in reading more of your writings. Not sure what came first, Kinsey or the sexual revolution; but there is a component to the origins of the movement not mentioned. You wrote, "when the vast majority of women still maintained a sense of propriety about themselves," as though "propriety" never had relevance for men. The disregard for women as "persons" has been, even in biblical times, one of the most degrading and exploitive postures man has held against women for eons, which Jesus spoke about and against. I just want to say that when men start to maintain a propriety about themselves, it is certain women will follow. "Sins of the fathers" came before Kinsey and the sexual movement. I don't mean to get too deep here, but I think even Warren Beatty would agree that had he not been what he was in his youth, he would not have become the father and husband he is today. What Kinsey and the sexual revolution did was take the experience of sexuality of loving partners and turn it into a collective experience devoid of love, or love between people irrelevant, but it is men who lead above women in propriety. Women follow what men do, and if a man's only propriety is held at bay by a woman's chastity, then he never loved in the first place at all, not her, not even life itself.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 04, 2011:

fpherj48— Thank you very much for taking the time to read my work. I sincerely appreciate your affirmation and encouragement. I look forward to reading some of your Hubs, which I have made myself a note to do ASAP.

I am with you. I also have been known to be politically incorrect.

I think it a shame that moral relativism is taught to our public school students. I just read a book review the other day about a new work called "Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood." The author interviewed hundreds of young adults and reports that with the lone exceptions of murder and rape, they do not consider ANYTHING to be morally wrong. It is extreme moral individualism. While at the same time they are taught collectivism on economics. Just the opposite of what made America great in the first place.

I am grateful to receive your compliments. Welcome to HubPages!

Suzie from Carson City on October 03, 2011:

James...I have read a few of your hubs and am impressed by each. I am not quick to comment before allowing myself some time to absorb & understand. I have always had the opinion that Kinsey was a freak. Your info however, reconfirms my common sense. Often I will visit the hubpage of a particular commentor, to familiarize myself with him/her (bio, their hubs, etc). It helps me to get a potential handle on their thought process. In this case, I see I have nothing to say to Lady "G," that would assist her frame of mind.

My eyes are burning (to say nothing of my heart) after reading the entire sparring match between you and "Alex," in your Hub on Homosexuals and marriage (rights?) Were my vote to be counted, make it ONE for James. (poor baby,Alex merely wants to be loved and accepted) OK. I love you, now please go away. Thank you.

I enjoy your writing style and skills as well as your subject matters. I will be back. Keep fighting the GOOD fight. We're all in this together.

As for my own purpose in writing....it's selfish....for the sheer fun of it. I don't believe I could tackle a serious and/or controversial matter without getting myself kicked out of the community. I need to do some major work on my political correctness.....right after I convince myself that it's necessary. You see, James, in my world, when someone says or does something immoral, illegal. illogical, unintelligent, unnatural, unacceptable....you get my drift....we don't often respond by offering a platform for discussion, argument, debate, and/or justification. We simply........oops, you see, there I go....almost said something politically incorrect!! Bye for now!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 13, 2011:

Beth100— You are most welcome! Peace and light to you!

Thank you taking the time to read my article. I enjoyed reading your insightful comments. I very much appreciate your gracious compliments as well.

You wrote: "The one thing that perturbs me more than Kinsey is the fact there are still people out there willing to stand up for him."

That also perturbs me. I don't understand it except by knowing that most people do not know the truth about Alfred Kinsey and his "research." Especially if all they know came from that movie.

Pedophilia is pedophilia.

Beth100 from Canada on September 11, 2011:

First, James, brilliant piece!! I remember reading his reports in university and watching the movie when it was released. I never liked anything about this person (though I have a more unpleasant term for him) and his findings were apalling as it is obvious how he came to these conclusions.

The one thing that perturbs me more than Kinsey is the fact there are still people out there willing to stand up for him. Worse, they use religion as an excuse. What gives?!?

Pedophilia is pedophilia. It has no gender. It has no religion. It has only one want. And it is a perverted want that does not survive in any other species in nature. If it isn't found naturally in nature, it should not exist.

Thanks for bringing forth the truth about Kinsey and his pervisions. He has done the harm but with the truth, it can be undone to a degree.

Peace and light.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 08, 2011:

sheila b.— Yes, "Kinsey" was also a movie—more of a propaganda piece actually. After Alfred Kinsey was revealed for who he was in the shocking book by Judith Reisman, Hollywood had to make a film that made him appear like a wonderful man. They completely whitewashed his sins. Shameful!

Thank you ever much for your outstanding comments. I enjoyed reading your thoughts. And I surely appreciate it when you let me know you have read one of my articles and enjoyed it. :-)

sheila b. on September 05, 2011:

Kinsey is another example of how the media misinformed the public. I remember hearing and reading many reports about his books - wasn't there a movie, too? Yet, in my memory, all of the reports were positive, Kinsey was a genius and his research brilliant. Actually, James, it seems much of what I 'learned' in the 50's and onward was just plain false rather than accurate.

I read the comments, see you wrote about the latest push to decriminalize pedophilia - might it be worthwhile to include that in the article? If not, then I hope you'll write a separate one on the subject.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 02, 2011:

lilyfly— I appreciate the update, my friend. Thank you for sharing your letter. I am grateful for your expressions of admiration and affection.

Well . . . I believe the Holy Spirit has the power to "cure" anyone of anything—including homosexual proclivities and urges toward pedophilia. Now this is not an easy or routine thing by any means. The subject must clearly be repentant with a contrite heart and truly want to change and beg God for forgiveness with constant prayer—and much prayer from other saints. In other words, I do not see any person as beyond redemption. But the longer a person wallows in darkness, the more habitual a person is invested in and infest by demonic sin, the harder and more impossible the task becomes. I think it becomes impossible for them to change on their own. But nothing is impossible to God, who made each of us.

Beyond that, I agree that the law is another matter and people must be punished for what they have done according to the law. Child molestation is an awful crime.

With love,

James

Lillian K. Staats from Wasilla, Alaska on September 01, 2011:

I just wanted to update you on my own personal battle against child molesters. I saw a group of church members standing foursquare behind a pedophile and called them on it. I wrote a letter to the editor, and since I don't get that letter, this is not Verbatim;

Recently I listened to a Pastor exhort us to pray for child molesters. Yesterday I saw an entire church standing foursquare behind a pedophile.

I understand the concept of prayer and forgivness for everyone, yet this is the only group I cannot forgive or pray for. Does no one see the dichotomy? That gays are inherently damned, but Pedophiles must be forgiven?

It is my fervent prayer that child molesters are apprehended, and put out of their misery permanently, or bricked away from the sunlight, and life, in perpetuity.

I'm sure the Almighty loves us all, but I am not nearly so holy.

O.K., that actually is almost verbatim.Molestation is a choice. Ahhhggg! Who is running the show now... the devil? Seems like it! Keep going Sir... we need schooling! Much admiration, and affection, lily

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 30, 2011:

Hello, hello,— Your comments are brilliant! Thank you ever much for posting them here.

Yes, the Kinsey Reports never should have been published without checking his research for validity and to discover what a pervert and child molester he was. But the almighty dollar spoke louder than virtue. They guessed right that this subject would be a huge seller—especially a book that approved of whatever deviant practice anybody could dream up. Talk about pandering!

Kinsey should have ended his life in prison. He could have carried on his "research" just fine behind bars, though he would have been the catcher not the pitcher in there.

I agree about Freud too. A quack.

Hello, hello, from London, UK on August 28, 2011:

I think he was a mentally sick man and should been locked up and celebrated a great man. These books or reports should have never been printed. Surely, they must do more harm. Same as Freud. I think the publishers only done it because there was great money to be had. It is disgusting to what level they can stoop. Sex always sells. Yet they reject any decent writer, even without reading their MS. Oh well, that is the world all over.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 25, 2011:

Kaie Arwen— Thank you ever much for reading my twin Hubs on Kinsey and Moody. Heinous is a good word for this man. I, too, am surprised that he still has defenders.

As Dr Samuel Johnson once said: "Such is the state of a man abandoned to the indulgence of vicious inclinations. He justifies one crime by another; invents wicked principles to support wicked practices; endeavors rather to corrupt others, than own himself corrupted, and to avoid that shame which a profession of his crimes would bring upon him, calls evil good, and good evil, puts darkness for light, and light for darkness. "

Sorry to disgust you. I do appreciate the applause! :)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 25, 2011:

WillStarr— I have no doubt that the Catholic priest scandal was all about homosexual predators. How many little girls were molested by priests? Not many. Homosexual predators naturally gravitate toward occupations that will put them in proximity of their prey as an authority figure—teachers, coaches, boy scout leaders, boys and girls clubs, foster fathers, the priesthood, and now horribly: through adoption.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 25, 2011:

Lady Guinevere— Thank you for your comments. I checked out your Hub. It is certainly true that many people have contracted AIDS who have never engaged in homosexual behaviors. Of course, it began with men tearing each others anuses and the virus entered through these tears. That is why its original name was "gay cancer." If a quarantine had been effected early, millions of deaths could have been prevented. It later spread through blood transfusions, heroin addicts sharing needles, and infected men having sex with unsuspecting women—some knowingly.

Kaie Arwen on August 24, 2011:

James- I first heard of Kinsey about a year ago; I was sitting on the front porch, enjoying a nice hot cup of coffee and BANG! The pleasurable afternoon ended. Alfred Kinsey was a heinous man............. evil, twisted............ sick, disgusting........... but I believe I'll stick with heinous. 0:-D

That anyone on here can attempt to defend him astonishes me. Unfortunately, there are still people who can be fooled........... I applaud you once again for exposing the devil's work for what it is. Kaie

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 24, 2011:

drbj— You are quite welcome, my friend. I believe the book I used for much of this material used the book you mentioned as a reference. I remember that from the endnotes. I will get a copy of the Reisman book. I saw her on television today briefly. I want to read her book on Kinsey.

Thank you for reading my little Hub. I am grateful for the compliments. :-)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 24, 2011:

lilyfly— You are most welcome, Lily. It is a pleasure to have you visit again. Your comments never fail to make for excellent reading.

You wrote: "Anything that destroys innocence in a child, is inherently evil."

Amen to that. Just today I saw on the news that a group of psychiatrists had a big meeting on how to remove the stigma on child molesters. Many of them wanted to decriminalize and even normalize sexual relations between adults and children. After the glorification of homosexual behaviors I suppose we should have expected this to be next.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 24, 2011:

Cardisa— This man makes me angry too. Thank you for visiting my Hub. I appreciate your comments. You asked this question:

"How would someone know that a baby enjoyed sex unless they were exposed to sex?"

Exactly. Therein lies the rub.

You also asked: "Didn't the authorities investigate this man? Wasn't there enough evidence in these so called report to lock him up and throw away the key?"

No and yes. He was not investigated until long after his death. There was plenty of evidence to convict him of criminal sexual abuse of children but he got a free pass.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on August 24, 2011:

"Point is: Those priests who had/have AIDS could have had that before they became priests and that doesn't necessarily mean they were GAY either."

I said that the left will go to absurd lengths to deny that the offending priests were homosexual predators who deliberately targeted vulnerable young males, so I want to thank you for going out of your way to prove my point.

Thank you, Lady Guinevere!

Debra Allen from West Virginia on August 24, 2011:

I don't have any beef with that book. I simply asked a question.

With the Freud thing, I was simply telling you that Kinsey didn't originate that thought or that concept. Give credit where credit is due.

From the article in the link it also states: "Just how widespread is homosexuality among priests and bishops? For obvious reasons, no reliable statistics are available. The percentage is vigorously disputed, of course, but one indication of the scope of the problem is that those who argue for the lowest estimate insist that the number of gays in the clergy is no higher than that of the gay population in society at large--as if this were not on its own showing evidence of a profound crisis. "

I also wrote a hub on the subject that not everyone who has AIDS is Gay and they got a really bad rap from people who think or assume that to be Homosexual one has to have AIDS and vice versa. That hub is: https://ladyguinevere.hubpages.com/hub/Not-Everyon...

Point is: Those priests who had/have AIDS could have had that before they became priests and that doesn't necessarily mean they were GAY either.