I know so little about Kinsey, and the trialer doesn't give a lot of hints about the movie itself, still, it certainly could be good...
Hobbes Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
you have questions, we have answers.
not about the movie, of course.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, the mud she's a gonna fly in this thread.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Liam Neeson... *fangirl squee*
Even with the horrid bedhead 'do. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, here's the ***Warning, very explicit*** mud Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Liam Neeson... *fangirl squee*"
Oh my goodness. I am such a pathetic fan of Liam's. Did you see him, young, in that Irish boxing movie, Olivia?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wow, talk about a rabid dog....
I guess they don't like him much.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If the report that pooka linked to is true, Kwea, then there wasn't too much to like about the man.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow! That report pooka linked to is really shocking! I had no idea!
FG
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Elizabeth, No, actually. My Liam education is sadly lacking. The man has been in a LOT of stuff. From the quality of some of it, I wonder if he ever says "no" to a project. "Gun Shy" *shudder* I mean really. Sandra Bullock was pretty cool, but the story was just lame. Except for the visual of a shirtless Mr Neeson on a table full of watermelon, it was pretty much a wash.
Scott R-- I find that what a single group with an adgenda says about a person is rarely the whole truth. I could be wrong, of course. But this IS a movie thread, Movies are rarely the whole truth, either. Bottom line, I don't really care. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Isn't Liam Neeson one of the actors famous for showing it all in many movies?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
NO. That's Ewan McGregor
Liam was Schindler in Schindler's List, Qui-Gon JInn in Phantom Menace, Michael Collins in , er, Michael Collins, Also the title role in Rob Roy. Gonna be in the new Batman movie, too.
He has a great voice. And he's TALL.
Edit: P.S. I don't know of a movie where he ever 'showed it all' Though I haven't seen everything he's ever done. He does make the H list frequently.
[ July 15, 2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Whenever I see this I always read kwsni: Let's talk about sex, which really throws me for a loop. I think it's because of skimming through the kamacon thread and associating Hobbes and kwsni because they'd be rooming. Woah nelly.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
In reading the article linked by Pooka, one should also bear in mind that in 1940 pretty much all primary source data gathered about homosexuality had to come from "perverts", "deviants", and "sex-offenders" since by definition anyone who had first-hand knowledge of homosexuality was all of the above.
IF what the author claims about experiments involving children is true, that is indeed shocking and indefensible. However, that does not relegate all scientific data on human sexuality taken in the past 60+ years to the trash bin as this author claims. Kinsey, while probably the most famous, was not the only person doing research in this field. What about Masters & Johnson? What about current or recent (last 20-30 years) research? What about more objective data that can be gathered today, now that more people can talk about sex without being label a pervert or deviant?
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
CyberDan - Did you also have the Salt 'n' Pepa song stuck in your head?
Damn you, eh Hobbes! I'll get you if it's the last thing I dooooooooo!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Frisco, I've learned that the gap between when you assume you'll get me, and when you'll actually get me is enormous. That's why threats like this are so unimportant. What you threaten me with will have absolutley no effect on myself, and my posting habits. Beat that with a stick.
Hobbes
[ July 15, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Okay, here's the ***Warning, very explicit*** mud
And what an unbiased site. Top featured stories on the front page:
Is Art Necessary for the Christian?
Presidential Legacies: Ronald Reagan & Other Greats
Faith & Academics
and an article on the Christian Leadership Ministries' new website
Nope, no obvious bias there. Not even a bit questionable how they compare Kinsey to the Nazis. They are correct in that plenty of groups directly oppose and debate not only Kinsey's studies, but studies that have come since then from the Kinsey Institute. In fact, the most popular way to attack something that has come from the Kinsey Institute in a more recent study, that completely post-dates Kinsey himself, is to make those personal attacks on Kinsey. I give them points for consistency. Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
Do I get to pick which stick? Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
No.
Hobbes Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Justa -- well, even if you totally cull out the editorial-ness of the article, put aside the authors already-formed conclusions -- the question remains -- just how did Kinsey get that data on children? The data is there, in his reports. So it was part of the experiment, whether you are for or against it. So how did he glean that data, and at what expense?
FG
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have the same serious reservations about pooka's site. It's obviously in the best interest of moral conservatives to denounce findings which show that 'deviancy' is 'normal'. However, in the interest of objectivity, I was unable to find any refutation of the claims on the net.
I also agree with what KarlEd said.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Um, Farmgirl, even if you can prove that the article is correct on the account of the children, there still exist reams of other data, not just from Kinsey but from many scientists who came later, whose data is argued against by attacking Kinsey. So, the thing I'm pointing out is that if you want to question Kinsey's methods, by all means look into the methods and see what can be officially determined. However, when it's something published as a character attack with sparse factual content to actually back up the claim (and plenty of supposition and inferential statements), you're going to have to come up with a little more to even begin to sound convincing to me.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Fair enough, Justa.
And I was only personally concerned with his methods, not with the data itself or with any other sex data from that era.
Farmgirl
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Well, as far as I knew (and CT's link seems to confirm it), neither he nor his co-authors ever touched children in the indecent manner that pooka's article implied. This is why I found the first link to be incredibly ridiculous in not only its bias, but its lack of touch with reality or basis in fact.
Posted by WantHimNot2Write (Member # 6509) on :
My sex is man because of the wiener, say its not so.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
You forgot the "/random unrelated remark" tag.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I actually had to wade through a lot of junkier sites to locate it. Hearing about this is part of why I stopped listening to Dr. Laura, because it was just too depressing to think this stuff might be true. But I emailed Hobbes repeatedly to delete this thread when it was first languishing, and when he didn't I felt obligated to present the input I am aware of.
So who has Kinsey's book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male ? Are those charts accurate or not? That is the only question of importance to me. I wouldn't expect the site to be unbiased, I did label it as mud after all.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Thanks, CT, for your link! You rewl!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You e-mailed me? I didn't get it, sorry.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I've recently changed to gmail, but that one is in my account now, I've checked my other (hotmail) account and noticed any e-mails from you (or any other Hatracker for that matter) in there. Where did you send it?
Hobbes Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Why did something that Kinsey do make you stop listening to Dr. Laura? It would seem to me that she would be appalled at how those statistics were obtained.
But one thing: I'm curious as to why Kinsey trusted the diary of a pedophile that the Kinsey Institues seems to imply they acquired and then studied. Pedophiles project a lot of their own feelings onto children. The fact of the matter is that no matter how you slice it, that data was obtained only because children were harmed. Unless the obtainers of the data were trained observers, the data is suspect. And the idea of trained observers of or participating in pedophilic acts is abhorrant.
Before completely lambasting the article pooka posted, note that this article refered to several sources for its information. We would have to go back to the source to see how accurate the representation was.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hobbes, I used the link in your profile, which is to a gmail account. I guess my client might not work right. But I don't mind if you still delete this thread.
I think it was on a pro-Kinsey site that he was quoted as saying "any behavior that exists in a species is normal for that species." But to be a part of the species you have to have the ability to reproduce with it. Some behavior will tend to limit one's opportunity to do that, and can't really be called a part of the species behavior.
At the same time, doesn't such an allowance make uptightness just as permissable as moral flexibility?
P.S. The Dr. Laura tie in had to do with public forums being denied to unpopular ideas by the means of advertising pressure.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hmmm, defaintly didn't get it. Sorry though, I'm not sure why you want this thread deleted but I basically don't delete any threads in which someone has responded.
Hobbes Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I wasn't just lambasting pooka's link for its complete misrepresentation of the facts, which it does. But for a better explanation, read the link CT gave. It explains how even the most quoted author in pooka's link has been adequately debunked. Accusing Kinsey of fiddling with the naughty parts of children and comparing him to Nazis is pretty much enough to prove to me that the author had no intention of representing the truth.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I DID read the link that CT gave. More measured, sure... but the fact of the matter is that there is a table of data listing the occurance of multiple orgasms in children. How does one come by that data without engaging in pedophilia?
quote:fiddling with the naughty parts of children
Come on, do you realize how demeaning that is to both children and normal sex? How flippant it sounds, how insensitive to those children who have experienced sexual abuse?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Are those charts accurate or not? That is the only question of importance to me.
Sheesh. I've been reduced to quoting myself.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Why does it matter if the charts are accurate? Is there data there that we should apply? Is there anything in that chart that helps the adult male have a healthy sexuality, or the male child have a healthy self concept?
Perhaps the better question is: were those charts completely fraudulant and made up, or based on actual observation? One of the few cases in which I hope the data is fraudulent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One obtains that data by discussing with others who have engaged in pedophilia.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You're becoming offended just to be offended now. Neither Kinsey nor any of his co-authors ever touched any child inappropriately. However, when faced with the fact that the authors in pooka's link are completely lying about the factual nature of this, you are going to be offended because I said that the author in pooka's link was full of shit? There is nothing funny about molestation, yet you approve of an author accusing someone of it when it's been proven in fact that he didn't, despite the inflammatory book claiming it or not (which it did, also falsely)? So, is making flippant mentions of molestation only offensive to you when it is not accusing someone you might disagree with? It sure does a great job of getting off the topic of the accusations' validity.
You know, I read a book about how Mormons are an evil cult who are trying to undermine Christianity, but just because someone put it to print it doesn't mean it is true. Let's keep that last part in mind, please.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And especially given the widely variant intervals of measurement, I'd bet the data was collected anecdotally, just like huge swaths of the rest of Kinsey's data (makes sense, don't it?).
He was hardly the best scientist in the world, but he was willing to ask the questions nobody else would, and talk about things nobody else would, and there's a lot to thank him for because of that. If nothing else the raw data and material collected that would otherwise have been lost forever are astounding.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I think we read a different article. I did not get from Pooka's article that Kinsey himself had engaged in pedophelia, but that he had apparently trained pedophiles in observation techniques. CT's report said that the data came from one pedophile's diary.
My statement, which you have not addressed, is this:
For the data on the chart to be scientifically valid, it needs to have been objectively observed. If this chart is based on the diary of a phedophile it isn't valid, because the observer could not have been objective and alledgedly (from what I gather in CT's article) was not recording this for science. The pedophile's own feelings are too involved.
If the data on this chart is valid, it means that the observer must have been prepped or trained to make such observations. It is unclear whether the observer would be a participant or not. Either way, for the data to be valid, it requires the systematic molestation of children.
The data is there. Is it real, or not? Is it valid, or not? Is it disturbing that it exists? Oh yeah.
[ July 15, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Well, the problem with the study is that it isn't data. Not in the truest sense. In much of what was claimed to be data, it was anecdotal material from interviews about kids second- and third-hand. With the kids who were interviewed, it was in the presence of parents or with the parents themselves. Once again, there was little to give those notes the title of empirical data as opposed to anecdotal data.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
What was the point of collecting the ancecdotes?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I already said my link was mud, and not the more colorful word Justa used. Which word I don't think is appropriate for a measured discussion.
I do feel safe in concluding that Kinsey reported sex with an infant (a 5 month old does not sit up or crawl or eat solid food) existed in the species and is therefore acceptable. I don't think that is okay.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
He did not say it was "okay". He said that it was "normal". Murder, thievery, rape and suicide are all "normal" in society, in so far as we probably know someone who has experienced these things or have experienced them ourselves. That does not mean these things are accepted or "okay". We condemn the things we do not want in society and work to eliminate them, yet they still exist.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
He never said that because such things exist that they are okay. In fact, the studies weren't used to try to justify any behavior until gay rights groups over ten years later used some of the studies to make a case. SOME. They were not advocating rape, child molestation, or anything other than homosexuality. So, you are making an incorrect assumption by stating that recording something is the same as advocating it. Phsychological studies research deviant, criminal, and socially unacceptable behavior all the time, but they don't advocate them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If I had information about that, I would report it to the authorities for prosecution. But Kinsey considered that unethical. I'm moving more into the hearsay area here, but my recollection is that he would not cooperate with prosecutors.
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
The word "normal" means a lot more than merely "existing".
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
But it does not mean acceptable, and it did not equate child molestation was either normal or acceptable, no matter what the inflammatory link says.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Yes, it leans more towards commonplace. It does not, however, mean "okay" or "accepted".
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Clarification: homosexuality does not equal child molester. Kinsey said that homosexuality was normal, as in common. Kinsey did not say that child molestation was common or normal. Kinsey never engaged in or encouraged child molestation.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Who said homosexual equals child molester? If that was later on my link, I apologize for that. If it is true that Kinsey only got the data on pedophilia from convicts, I guess he might have outlined it as criminal behavior in his report. If he wanted to be sure that it was clear that he didn't condone that behavior. But my impression of him is that he was just reporting, not judging. My position is simply that objectivity can go too far.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Okay, forget it. Obviously, no one is going to admit that what was just recently being asserted was that Kinsey stated child molestation was both common and okay, even though there is no factual data showing it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You can quote me if you like. Or are you actually new to the board? If so welcome to Hatrack. I said I was not okay with Kinsey saying sexual stimulation of infants was part of human sexual behavior in a value-neutral context. "common" and "okay" both got added in by others.
I realize the chart was not about child molestation but about orgasm in children. He felt felons were an appropriate source for this information. I think he was a both unethical and immoral.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pooka, Justa is the expert in what other people said.
[ July 15, 2004, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
CT, thank you very much for your link.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If it is impossible to collect good data, its better to collect what bad data one can and hope something will still be relevant in the analysis.
Kinsey was creating the modern study of sexuality. He had to deal with situations that prevented him (in many cases rightly) from collecting good data. He settled for collecting all the data he could get, good and bad, and catalogued it all extensively for people to look at in raw form all they wanted. Yes, he tried to draw conclusions, many wrong, from it as well, but we still consider (for instance), Plato and Aristotle geniuses despite the relative ease with which we know holes can be poked in many of their arguments, even by simple observation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Um, Kinsey was trying to be detached and objective in gathering, as scientists are wont to do. If he was studying apes doing those things, it would not seem so contraversial.
Kinsey: hardworking scientific pioneer or sex-obsessed deviant? Meh. I'd say both, depending on what part of his life you happen to focus on. I really don't see the contoversy here.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)