Talk:Alfred Kinsey

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver


I understand that articles on Rational Wiki tend to have snark, but they usually have reasonable arguments as well. This one seems to be completely ignoring the fact that Kinsey is despised by Conservatives, and me, in spite of the fact that I don't identify myself as such, because he obtained data for his studies through pedophiles who regularly sodomized their children. Really, I don't see how you can win an argument against that.Ziiv (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can add that as a criticsm section if you like. I think it's fairly well known that his research was obtained through ethically dubious ways - specifically he didn't report people who confessed to paedophilia, though I think it's unclear if he actively went out of his way to find them- although that doesn't so much negate his research as such. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The data was not obtained in a scientifically unsound manner, whatever the moral objections to it. And I put that conservatives do not have any especial objection to the bit about the child molesters; they dislike the whole body of his research and are using that as a handy cudgel to bash it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
If he obtained information about paedophiles by interviewing paedophiles, why not put it in the article? I would have thought that if you wanted to obtain information about these people it would seem to be the most obvious way to obtain it. My assumption is that he did not actively encourage them - but if he did then he should most certainly be condemned for it.--BobNot Jim 15:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't find any info on the total population used in the report but there are frequent references to 9 pedophiles[sic]. One has to remember that the research was conducted in the late 1940s when all but "normal" (1 male, 1 female) sex was ignored, not believed in or illegal. The majority of child research was apparently anecdotal (memories of respondent's own childhood, parental observation etc.). Some mention should be made in the article. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 21:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
TOW says that he interviewed a single pedophile and misrepresented him as 9 pedos. He did also interview prisoners. Maybe that intersected--Brxbrx (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a joke, right?[edit]

Kinsey was a master at cherry picking, but he did little real science if any at all. Most of his research has turned out to be useless from scientific perspectives. You can read about it here and here.

Besides, this article is too long. You make many words but what you want to say could be told in one sentence: "Kinsey beat the conservatives HA HA HA how clever of him... (conservatives are stupid, haha!!!111!!!!)". Omg. -- (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Kinsey did absolutely nothing of value to the scientific community. Perhaps with a consensus, I will make the article reflect that. Sexologist? Get real.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Sucks more than a little. Scarlet A.pngmoral 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Kinsey did absolutely nothing of value to the scientific community. - well, er, what he did was pen the way for proper well researched papers. He also made it 'normal' to be 'abnormal'. so, whilst as a scientist he was crap, as a pioneer he was important. The article is still crap, however. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Judith Reisman[edit]

I am surprised this article makes no mention of Judith Reisman, beloved of WND, who has made a whole career out of attacking Kinsey from the right. On the whole, she is an utter loon - see the Wikipedia article on her, complete with her belief in "erototoxin" chemicals produced by watching pornography, and her ludicrous belief the Nazis started out as a gay rights group. On the other hand, maybe some of her criticisms of Kinsey on the pedophilia issue have some truth in them - even if, maybe not to the extremes to which she takes them? --(((Zack Martin))) 11:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be a joke?[edit]

This article has a huge problem: this blatantly wrong line regarding his sexual studies: "He succeeded admirably and in doing so brought the wrath of the conservatives down upon himself, because conservative Christians do not like people who do their own thinking — and especially despise those who produce actual science that refutes long held, but completely unsupported traditions." His methods have long been criticized in the legitimate scientific community for their small sample sizes; self-selection bias, such as using prisoners and male prostitutes as his samples to come up with his numbers for homosexuals in the general population, which later research thoroughly disproved; ethical issues such as sheltering sex criminals so he could interview them, e.g. a man interviewed in 1944 named "Rex King*," who Kinsey later represented as being multiple people rather than one man; and other problems that invited non-religious criticism, even at the time.

Also, why are Kinsey's original interviews locked away in the archive that bears his name, where nobody is allowed to see them? (see NYT article below) That seems extra-suspicious to me. Why would Kinsey's successors not want his research replicated or peer-reviewed?

The other wiki is more helpful:

Also, there's the NYT article, which is where the part about the sex criminals and the locked-away interviews comes from:

This problem needs to be fixed. Badly. RW is awesome at debunking and tearing down pseudoscience, but this article is a hagiography for a pseudoscience promoter, and was written by someone with an agenda. I know we don't go for neutrality, but still, pseudoscience is pseudoscience, regardless of your political allegiance.

  • It should be noted that this may not have been the man's actual name. This is the name reported in the New York Times article cited above. It was published shortly before the movie was released. I'm also aware that the article is rather old, and that Judith Reisman is a confirmed idiot.

— Unsigned, by: SaneConservative52 / talk / contribs

@SaneConservative52 The NY Times article is locked behind a paywall just like all of their other articles, after you visit their site five times it locks you out. So, your suspicions are apparently unfounded. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@SaneConservative52 On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@SaneConservative52, if you can improve this article with quality references that confirm what you're writing, that would be great. This also goes for any other article. Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)