Talk:Kinsey Reports

Judith Reisman - censorship

Judith Reisman isn't mentioned in the text. Even if you don't like her, she has a page. Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY. She is a WP:FRINGE/PS paranoid conspiracy theorist. She accuses a dead man of child sexual abuse and she does not have a shred of evidence (she claims that all the evidence is locked in the archives of the Kinsey Institute—and of course they never dared to show it to her, they would rather burn it than make it public, I suggest that she calls the cops before they do that). She makes agitation and propaganda with character assassination almost 63 years after he died. Sexologists who live by publish or perish have plonked her almost unanimously (telling them that they are Nazi serial pedophiles does not earn her friends). She has zero papers at PubMed (correct me if I'm wrong). By the titles of her books you shall know that those are paranoid rants. Her explanation for his success: Kinsey plotted because he was a madman, and universities all over the globe followed in his footsteps because academics are members of a gigantic Satanic planetary conspiracy. How do we call that? Systematized delirium. She claims that people who watch porn may no longer plead the First Amendment, for their own good, since porn is toxic and has subverted their cognition. Q.e.d. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss Judith Reisman there. I can see " is an American conservative author, best known for her criticism and condemnation of the work and legacy of Alfred Kinsey. " rather than " a WP:FRINGE/PS paranoid conspiracy theorist". Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not joking. I wish it were a joke. The lady is mad and dangerous for sexual minorities all over the globe. She sells conspiracy theories and hate speech. According to her, homosexuals will revive Nazism in the USA. In respect to sexual morality, the Pope is more liberal than her. Even Pope Benedict XVI would not agree with her, since he disapproves rants (just because he is a conservative does not mean he would be a moron). She thinks that LGTBQ are a wing of the NSDAP and she uses all available means to fight against the Nazi party. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ordeal which is basically confirmed by her obit at Wakefield, Lily (17 April 2021). "Anti-LGBT+ author Judith Reisman, who said homosexuals caused the rise of the Nazi party, dies aged 85". PinkNews. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Reisman was so fringe, that according to her obituary from The Washington Times, For her courageous work, Judith endured the scorn of the media, academia and even conservatives who were afraid of guilt by association. (My own bold letters, not from the original).

Mutatis mutandis, Richard B. Spence wrote about Secret Agent 666: Whether these antics delighted Viereck is uncertain, but if they were not also intended to lampoon and discredit Irish separatism, they certainly should have been. As such, they suited British interests very well.

The obit is right: conservatives who aren't foolish avoided her as the pest. Her allegations were a house of cards and every aware intellectual could see that. Her strategy was bluff, like in Bluff Your Way in Philosophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Basically, Reisman was a ranting, paranoid adept of McCarthyism. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Selective quotation, exaggeration, and outright lies are time-honored tactics of the Right. Judith Reisman has long circulated the calumny that Alfred Kinsey conducted sexual experiments on infants at his institute; she offers no substantiation.

— Judith Levine

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Zoophilia

A recent edit added a brief section on zoophila. Not in of itself at all inappropriate, but I would note that rather than including a percentage-of-population figure for the estimate, as Kinsey's report did, and as all the other sections of this article do, it gives an absolute number - eight million. Normally, I would simply replace this with percentage figure estimates, citing a better source (e.g. Laws et al Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment which discusses Kinsey on zoophilia in greater detail [1]) but I suspect I would immediately be reverted, since the contributor responsible for this has been spamming the same source across multiple articles, seems entirely unaware of the controversy over Kinsey's figures, and appears to be under the impression that this specific number - eight million U.S. citizens, for a 70-year-old estimate - is somehow of critical importance to any current discussion on zoophilia. Either that, or there is some sort of conflict of interest here, though given the contributors self-evident lack of subject-matter knowledge, this seems unlikely. Anyway, I'd like to hear from other contributors: is the 'eight million' figure appropriate, or should we follow the rest of the article? And which source should we be citing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Andythegrump continues to hunt my edits because he only wants to allow percentages and disallow total numbers instead of coming to consensus such as allowing both.Foorgood (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the nonsense I've been having to deal with over multiple articles. From someone who apparently thinks that, seventy years after the event, Kinsey's research "still considered to be trustworthy", [2] and therefore we have to provide an exact number for an arbitrary, unspecified, point in time, in a context where percentage estimates are both more meaningful, and more consistent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bloomsbury book source says "Although the research indicated that about eight million US citizens had engaged in zoophilia, this can only be a mere fraction of the actual number, as one has to take into account that many people would conceal such experiences" https://www.google.com/search?q=million+zoophiles+america&client=ms-android-uscellular-us-revc&prmd=vin&sxsrf=ALiCzsbp394V7EzVmB8ObUuN-ZEjEXBM3g:1669911438830&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3i_jw6Nj7AhVPlmoFHVliBhgQ_AUoBnoECAMQBg&biw=360&bih=627&dpr=2Foorgood (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Hence me pointing out that your claim that Kinsey is seen as 'trustworthy' is untenable. There are have been good arguments presented variously suggesting his estimates regarding sexual behaviour in general might be wildly wrong, in either direction. Compiling data on human behaviour which is not only widely regarded as deeply morally objectionable, but also illegal in many legislations, is always going to result in uncertainty. Raw number estimates, even when not referring to seventy-year-old research, need to be presented in a manner that doesn't make them seem more authoritative than even the researchers themselves would consider appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have already agreed to presenting the figures with a great disclaimer on the criticism of their accuracy.Foorgood (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't have 'disclaimers'. Or at least, they shouldn't. If recognised reliable sources question earlier research, their reasons for doing so should be laid out in detail, not merely alluded to. And you have still to explain why exactly you are so insistent on spamming multiple articles with an arbitrary number obtained by multiplying a 70-year-old estimate by the then U.S. population. Why is it so important that the result of this bit of arithmetic be included? It adds no information. The original estimate is given. Kinsey's result. His estimates were his conclusion. Questioned since, but at least in some contexts worth discussing. As the results of research from long ago, since disputed. Not definitive numbers. Estimates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This article already discusses the criticism at length. But while you only believe percentages are noteworthy, I as well as the Bloomsbury publishing source feel the total estimates are worthy as well.Foorgood (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Kinsey considered such 'totals' noteworthy? Does he even give them in his original reports? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Kinsey Reports are a primary source for the purposes of this article. Relaying any figures from them should be based on reasonably recent secondary sources, and I agree that percentages are preferable. Most likely those secondary sources will have plenty of worthwhile commentary, critique, and/or contextualization of Kinsey's figures. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

@vandals: The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association basically endorse Kinsey's conclusions. If he merely were a prevaricator, how do you explain that his view is still scientifically correct in 2022? As a pioneering work, he did not have to be altogether correct, but preponderantly correct does the job. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

sexual behavior of the human male 1948 chapter 5 early sexual growth and activity

why is there no reference to this in the article nor any mention of pedophilia? 142.127.6.108 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The consensus of biographers, including Kinsey's FBI file, is that Kinsey neither was a pedophile, nor did he support pedophilia. The film director Roman Polanski had to flee for decades for having sex with a minor, why do you think Kinsey would have got leniency?

Thinking that a notorious conspiracy theorist knew better than the FBI and the National Academy of Sciences is ridiculous. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)