Advertisement

Objective Science at porn, er, work!

topic posted Fri, October 2, 2009 - 2:13 PM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
Federal fraud: Porn addicts at NSF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 02, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

Remember when the excuse for legalizing pornography was "I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes so long as it doesn't cost me money and harm"?

Now, roughly $6 billion a year from American taxpayers to the National Science Foundation is inadequate for NSF expenses. Why? Too many NSF folks are "porn surfing," hooked on porn, an endogenous drug. This fact should stir questions about the NSF history of bias against honest pornography research.

The NSF Statutory Mission reads, "To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense." Really?

This "mission" is impossible if a critical mass of NSF leaders and staff are pornography addicts. Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, called the situation "inexcusable."

"What kind of oversight is there when they have to shift people from looking at grant fraud to watch for people looking at pornography?" she said. Well, by definition, NSF leaders and workers are themselves using their granting funds to defraud the state while allegedly looking for grant fraud.

NSF says "computer training" and better filters will help. What has rendered NSF impotent all these years? One critic said, "Fire the IT departments and the IT directors for failing to control the resources which they have been entrusted to operate."

Fair enough. Except that those in the computer field are especially susceptible to erototoxins. Just this week the CEO of a major IT company was arrested for lewd and lascivious bBattery on a child via Internet pornography.

The Washington Times reported that NSF pornography use was so massive it "forced the internal watchdog to cut back on its primary mission of investigating grant fraud and recovering misspent tax dollars."

DVD shows how "the father of the sexual revolution" has endangered our children and our culture – "The Kinsey Syndrome"

I suggest NSF fraud and its leaders are the problem, stymieing research that could prove pornography's harm.

When scientists are blocked from real pornography research, our courts and legislatures, now dependent on "scientific data," cannot adjudicate pornography accurately.

In my experience, pornography addiction is a widespread problem in most agencies, while Big Pornography and its government helpers have censored pornography research since the late '70s.

In 1983 my U.S. Department of Justice grant proposal to study Images of Children, Crime & Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler (Grant No. 84-JN-AX-K007) lay unread for two Christmas weeks on our legislators' vacated desks.

When Congress, including their closeted pedophile and pornography-addicted comrades, returned to the Hill, their two-week protest time had elapsed and our study went forward. Big Pornography found legislative hirelings for three congressional "investigations" to try to kill the two-year study. Media assaults and slanders appeared from January 1984 until today.

Most important, once the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography was bushwhacked, mine would arguably be the last honest peer-reviewed pornography study to survive Big Pornography's guardians. Even our few tenured pornography warrior scholars faded away.

Since then, professors, university presidents, psychiatrists, military officers, teachers, governors, mayors, psychologists, sexologists, legislators, judges, scientists, doctors, law enforcement officers, a Nobel Prize winner, filmmakers and the like have been regularly arrested for child pornography and its fallout, child sexual abuse.

Big Pornography and Big Sexology had always been a team. In the last few years, Big Pharma joined up. The fortunes from impotence drugs like Viagra, STD vaccines for the kiddies and other sexually based disorder drugs made the Sex Industrial Complex merger a natural.







And, no wonder. The brain sciences have long established pornography as a natural, endogenous, self-medicating drug. It's users are, in fact, stoned. That is one reason they often do not even realize when they are being observed – Lt. Col. Dave Grossman calls this "tunnel vision."

"On Combat," by Grossman, retired U.S. Army Ranger and Pulitzer-nominated author of "On Killing," and his co-author Loren Christensen is a book for and about warriors. The authors identify the "flight or fight" and sex states of brain arousal. In fear and in sex "your forebrain shuts down and the midbrain, the 'puppy' inside … the same as your dog's brain, reaches up and 'hijacks' the [thinking] forebrain."

Pornographically stoned NSF leaders and workers? One "senior executive" was so self-medicated that he justified months of pornography consumption as a good will gesture. Porn use is addictive. Most NSF workers would tend to know of the addict's consumption. They don't talk for many reasons.

Of course, NSF didn't fire those who were defrauding the state. Why? Despite the truth staring out at them, NSF leaders would be convinced pornography is harmless fun. It's the waste of time that is the problem.

(Column continues below)




The causal links between "adult" pornography and child sexual abuse, kidnapping, homicide, the growing traffic in women and children, rape, incest, sexual harassment in the workplace, divorce, wife and child battery, increased venereal disease epidemics and on and on – these facts NSF officials deny.

If NSF leaders were not the real problem, their 1,200 career employees would not now be on the firing line.

The only reason we have any knowledge of a "6-fold increase in employee misconduct" is that a few "short summaries" by the inspector general "caught the attention of Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee." He launched an inquiry about NSF misconduct.

Sen. Grassley is one of the few legislative warriors who champions equal rights for women and children to a safe environment free of the pornographer's sexual hate propaganda.

Thanks to Grassley, the watching public learned that NSF pornography addictions are "expensive and often went undetected for long periods of time."

Until there is legal action at NSF, we the people will not know who has been defrauding us at the agency.

That seems to be the idea.

www.wnd.com/index.php
posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
  • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

    Fri, October 2, 2009 - 2:40 PM
    I think you are barking up the wrong tree with your theory. Based on what I've seen sexual repression due to religious practices seems to be more a problem then anything. The proof for my theory comes from many places. First the sexual boogyman of evangelical Christians, Kinsey, is a direct creation of Christian sexual repression. His father was a preacher who was against all forms of sexuality and believed sex was only for procreation. Secondly, this study that shows pornagraphic materials and sexual aids sales are actually higher in places where christian moral and family values.
    techliberation.com/2009/03/...tandards/

    Third. States where abstanence only education are taught seem to have higher teen pregnacy and STDs then places sex Ed is taught.
  • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

    Fri, October 2, 2009 - 8:20 PM
    Actually, the hub of porn is the Valley Life Sciences Building at UC Berkeley.

    Not only does it harbor dinosaur skeletons, but a statue of Ardi (a human ancestor who used to walk on two legs to search for sex) has been just unveiled there.

    www.insidebayarea.com/top-sto...13464603

    Those of us who have spent years reading NSF-funded research should re-examine it for porn-induced highs (or lows).
    • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

      Sat, October 3, 2009 - 7:32 AM
      There seems to be no mention of ways in which the researchers would abuse their time if porn were not available.

      Stock trading?

      World Of Warcraft?

      Writing holocaust denial blogs?
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

        Sat, October 3, 2009 - 7:33 PM
        Orange: There seems to be no mention of ways in which the researchers would abuse their time if porn were not available.

        Stock trading?

        World Of Warcraft?

        Writing holocaust denial blogs?"

        I think you are on to something Orange. There is no mention of research concerning the how all of this affect the oxygen consumption of nematodes either. For some reason Dr. Reisman stuck to the pesky facts of the case and the effects of addictive porn in the NSF work place.
        • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

          Mon, October 5, 2009 - 1:40 PM
          I had to be facetious in order to make the point that the guy seems to be crusading against the abuse mostly because it involves porn,
          not because it is part of a larger pattern of abuses of which porn is a conspicuous example.

          If people are not doing their job, why should I care whether they're looking at porn or playing card games?
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

            Mon, October 5, 2009 - 2:46 PM
            "If people are not doing their job, why should I care whether they're looking at porn or playing card games? "

            You're right, this is an attack on porn. Note the opening statement where Dr. Reisman (she) notes that liberals have defended porn because it is harmless and occurs in the confines of peoples homes etc. . But porn is like an addictive drug and does cost the tax payer and business lots of money in wasted time. In the computer age, it is very easy to view this stuff at work, wasting company time. Viewing other peoples intimacy is morally wrong to me, but whether you agree or not, it is clearly not an innocent endeavor.
            • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

              Mon, October 5, 2009 - 6:22 PM
              So... if they were playing cards instead, would that be OK?
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                Mon, October 5, 2009 - 6:28 PM
                no it would not be. Any unauthorized time idle time while on the clock is a form of stealing, which makes most of the members of this tribe thieves.
                • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                  Tue, October 6, 2009 - 1:03 PM
                  <<Any unauthorized time idle time while on the clock is a form of stealing, which makes most of the members of this tribe thieves. '

                  But what you are not realizing is that quite a number of people don't have enough work to do, myself included. Having too little work to do is a demoralizing factor for a lot of people, keeping busy is in reality a giant factor for employee happiness. Boredom is one of the biggest contributors to work place stress.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                    Tue, October 6, 2009 - 1:09 PM
                    <<Any unauthorized time idle time while on the clock is a form of stealing, which makes most of the members of this tribe thieves. '

                    Ha! The last time I was at a job with idle time we used that time to organize a union. The boss was under the illusion that merely because he owned the business he could keep the union out. The NLRB said otherwise and we had an election and the union won.
                    • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                      Tue, October 6, 2009 - 2:44 PM
                      Also, people who are on salary for 40 hours but have to be present for 50 or more hours without extra pay, and who need 2nd or 3rd jobs to make ends meet might be tempted to use the internet in place of having a personal life of some kind.

                      Employees rarely exceed the ethical examples set for them.
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                        Tue, October 6, 2009 - 4:32 PM
                        "Employees rarely exceed the ethical examples set for them. "

                        what does this mean and how do you arrive at this conclusion? I have both worked for others and worked for myself (currently) and I have seen plenty of examples of abuse. The worst being in union run shops which drive up pay for work a monkey can do, while discouraging productivity. Then we bail the suckers out.
                        • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                          Tue, October 6, 2009 - 5:16 PM
                          >what does this mean and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

                          It was a major point made in the all-day ethics meeting we had when I was hired in insurance.

                          We were told that whatever our superiors did should not be used as a standard if we intended to keep our jobs,
                          but it was also acknowledged that bad behavior is essentially very normal when bad examples are set; that if
                          we should see co-workers behaving badly, we should be concerned about the effect of the behavior, not about
                          whether it was 'normal' or what it was somehow supposed to mean about the essential character of the people observed.

                          Moreover, what kind of ethical example people set is not the only thing that explains whether they get promoted.
                          Your boss may know the job better than you do, and he may be more efficient at it. But that doesn't make him infallible;
                          cover your own ass by not letting what you see make you feel overly comfortable.

                          The ultimate point of the meeting was to clarify that maintaining an ethical workplace was not a challenge because there might
                          be a few bad eggs, but because, under the right conditions, most people will eventually act unethically. We had systems
                          in place to help each other remain compliant, and if someone failed, the system basically failed. Even so, once someone
                          screws up sufficiently, the company has to remove them for liability reasons, not because they have been discovered to
                          be bad or abnormal people; simply because they are not a great fit for the system.
                          • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                            Wed, October 7, 2009 - 8:45 AM
                            You need to read Kinsey Crimes & consequences. The guy was a fraud, a pervert and a criminal who cooked his own findings to fit his hypothesis. Kinsey's lies have hurt millions of people like yourself with false information.

                            Actually that statement is wrong. Kinsey didn't lie about his findings. His observations and interviews just reflected his bias towards sexual freedom. He really only interviewed people he and his team believed would talk freely. Mostly white, college age adults. He was a micromanager by nature and wanted everything done his way. Unfortunately this caused him to scorn random surveysI of the population. Like his scientific opponents told him, it would have been better to survey 2000 people at random then 30,0000 hand picked interviews. His biggest mistake was basing his male masterbation chart on a very disturbed chronic child molester. He also protected this mans identity from authorities which was very bad. Of course he was a product of right wing Christianity. Much of Kinsey's dedication to sexuality and quite possibly Homosexuality came directly from the strong program of sexual repression and religious conditioning that required him to hold hands with other naked boys and pray for salvation anytime he felt like touching himself as a child.(really happened !)it's safe to say that without religion, Kinsey would not have existed in the form he did.
                            • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                              Wed, October 7, 2009 - 2:39 PM
                              Kinsey worked with what was available.

                              In his time, others were not even really doing that.

                              Any good scientist understand that his work will have to be replicated and better scrutinized as situations eventually allow.
                              • Unsu...
                                 

                                Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:19 PM
                                yet his work as have blindly accepted by the education establishment, in spite of well known inconsistences and blatent deception. Kinsey was concerned with science, his goal was to reshape the moral landscape of Americas sexual values.
                                • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                  Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:47 PM
                                  "his goal was to reshape the moral landscape of Americas sexual values. "

                                  Our sexual values cannot be determined by the state, the church or society as as whole. We determine our own sexual values for ourselves. For instance in a free society if you object to homosexuality your one and only option is to not sleep with somebody of the same sex. Legally you are powerless to stop same sex relations or control them in any way, shape or form.

                                  Kinsey just observed and reported his findings. The fact that social conservatives did not like those findings is totally beside the point. If there was any singe factor behind the sexual revolution it was the invention of the pill. The pill made it possible for women to take control of their reproductive lives and forever divorced sex from reproduction. This atmosphere of sexual freedom encouraged gay people to stand up for our rights and further neutralized the influnce of religious control freaks.

                                  The concept of free choice was made stronger by the Roe v. Wade decision which was based on a Constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy was again upheld in 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down all state laws that attempted to dictate what we can do in the privacy of our own bedrooms.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                              Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:16 PM
                              Dragon: Actually that statement is wrong. Kinsey didn't lie about his findings. His observations and interviews just reflected his bias towards sexual freedom.

                              You mean sexual perversion don't you? Like just about everything else you post, you are dead wrong here. Kinsey was a fraudster, as Dr. Reisman documents below.

                              Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution
                              by Judith Reisman, Ph.D.[1]

                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Judith Reisman, Ph.D., President of The Institute For Media Education, received her doctorate in Communication from Case Western Reserve University. She authored the Department of Justice/Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention report, "Images of Children, Crime and Violence" (1989), Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Reisman & Eichel, 1990) and Soft Porn Plays Hardball (1991). She has appeared in scientific journals Ethology and Sociobiology, The New Universities Quarterly (England), The New York University Review of Law and Social Change, and has chapters and citations in numerous academic texts, scholarly books and lay books.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Americans bestow authority-and billions of tax dollars-upon science in the belief that scientists will make important contributions to society. There is the further belief that scientists, in their responsibility and trust, will behave ethically, especially in research that involves human subjects.[2] While the former is certainly historically accurate, such trust in the class "scientists" as honest, humane persons who deserve unquestioned public faith is sustained neither by cross-cultural or American science history.

                              Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.[3]

                              But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments? The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act."


                              The Science Crime & Fraud Context
                              Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are modern cross- cultural examples of totalitarian regimes which produced highly educated scientists who served their leaders without question-but with frightening and disastrous results. As cruel as were the actions of key scientific brutes like Dr. Joseph Mengele, just as instructive is the evidence of wholesale collusion by colleagues, universities, colleges and higher order think tanks. Thousands of state and private professional and pedagogical clubs and agencies were aware of the inhuman and unethical scientific activity, but rarely was there a protest made. Instead, their educated colleagues obsequiously bowed and jealously coveted association with the chosen scientific barbarians.
                              But, it has not only been totalitarian governments which have produced unethical scientists. Our own nation-a government designed to be of and by and for the people-was betrayed by our fantasy of non-judgmental, objective science. (It is only the trust in scientists as a "special" moral population that permits our nation to approve of fetal and DNA experimentation, as well as other forms of God-like tampering.) For example, consider the Willowbrook school scandal:


                              Pappworth published Human Guinea Pigs, a detailed recitation of experiments reported in reputable journals in which subjects were exposed to a variety of risky procedures not intended to benefit them. In chapter after chapter, he described the insertion of catheters and biopsy needles into important organs of the body (bladder, kidney, heart, liver) and resulting meningitis, shock, liver damage and cardiac arrest. The subjects of these procedures were newborns, infants and children (both healthy and diseased), pregnant women, prisoners, patients undergoing surgery, the mentally disabled, the aged, the critically ill, and the dying...[revealing] little concern on the part of investigators for their subjects ....experiments which involved injecting hepatitis virus into mentally retarded children at the Willowbrook State School in New York.[4]
                              Part of the problem is that the establishment press remains amazingly silent in the face of the most vile domestic scientific barbarisms. The Willowbrook school scandal and similar inhumane scientific abuses reflect but a few of the unprosecuted science felonies to reach the public. For example, examine some cites from Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948 by Frank Kofsky (1995):

                              Beginning in the late 1940s, under programs authorized by Truman, the U.S. government deliberately dropped radioactive material from planes or released it on the ground in a dozen experiments after World War II....Eight of the tests occurred in Tennessee and Utah in an effort to create a battlefield radiation weapon. In four other tests, radiation was released into the air in New Mexico....In at least four of these 12 experiments, radiation spread beyond the planned boundaries of the test....[5]
                              [And] All the tests were conducted between 1948 and 1952. The implication is clear: so vile were these "experiments" that even the Eisenhower administration could not stomach their continuation.... Nineteen mentally retarded boys who thought they were participating in a science club in the 1940s and 1950s were actually fed radioactive milk by scientists who wanted to learn about the digestive system, the Boston Sunday Globe reported." The "scientists" in question were affiliated with such ruling- class institutions as Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; their too-trusting subjects came from the Fernald State School....
                              [On radiating expectant mothers to see what the results would be] The figures in the Boston Globe's initial stories, however, proved to be far short of the mark, for the number of expectant women actually dosed with radioactive materials during these "experiments" probably numbered in the thousands. . . .several of the children exposed to the radioactive iron during their mother's pregnancy died....Army spokesmen acknowledged that 239 populated areas from coast to coast had been blanketed with bacteria between 1949 and 1969. Tests involved covering areas of Alaska and Hawaii and the cities of San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, and Panama City in Florida. Some tests were more focused, such as those in which bacteria were sprayed onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike or into the New York City subway system.
                              "Distinguished scientists," writes Leonard A. Cole, "testified at the hearings that the tests were inappropriate and dangerous....the incidence of illnesses suddenly increased in some areas near the tests.[6]
                              The other part of the problem is, without an informed public directing its own community af-fairs, science historically serves its funders. Scientific patrons tend to be a small, powerful elite, which is necessarily subversive of a self-governing republic. If the medical, or the harder science experiments cited here are difficult for Americans to come to terms with, these aberrant experiments at least adhere to scientific form and are possible to replicate and validate or repudiate. However, the public does not understand (nor do scientists seem to understand) that the softer social sciences are largely not science, but rather what Professor Hobbs termed, "scientism." Human behavioral experiments without the limits of scientific protocol are easily manipulated and have frequently been misused by those in positions of trust to undermine the American way of life in the second half of the twentieth century.
                              Who, by now, has not heard of the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments? If some American scientists could knowingly allow men to die slowly of syphilis, if others could infect pregnant women and endanger the lives of their unborn children, if still other unethical scientists could inject healthy and mentally retarded children with hepatitis, could not some American scientists teach pederasts and pedophiles techniques for sexually abusing children for "science"? Looking candidly at the facts of American scientific felons and the commonality of collegial collusion through silence or support, could scientists-who often feel unconstrained by Biblical standards or fears-not deceive a plebeian public about the percentage of men engaging in illicit sex, and those who are homosexual? Could scientists, together with philanthropic, pedagogical and legal colleagues of like mind and sexual proclivity, now strategize to use their considerable influence in the latter half century to change America's attitudes and sex crime laws to favor their own personal interests?


                              The Historical Context
                              Truman took office in 1945 and shortly thereafter released the atomic bomb. Kofsky's documentation suggests that Kinsey's revolutionary report was a welcome public diversion for Truman's administration. However, while the A-bomb took the lives of thousands and did untold damage to Japan for generations, "Kinsey's Bomb" has taken the lives of millions and is fomenting the disintegration of the local school, university, and public control, nationwide.
                              The 1945 A-Bomb: World War II ended in 1945 after America, under scientists headed by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, and like a modern Prometheus, dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In an instant, all of America was reeling, as both joy and anguish hit the nation with the force of that nuclear blast. Emotion rode high, for along with the immense relief that "it worked" and the brutal war was ended, came the quaking realization that while God had created the earth, science could now destroy it.

                              On the one hand, Americans were awed by Oppenheimer's ability to end the worldwide threat of war. On the other hand, our faith in ourselves as the world's savior was shattered by both the nuclear scare and ensuing newsreels of burning Japanese children, subverting our sense of moral integrity and who we really were as Americans. Aided by an army that now dispensed condoms, Yankee soldier-saviors of Europe and Asia broke the promises of their Puritan homeland. GIs returned home to wives and sweethearts in 1946 with the highest rate of venereal disease since the original VD epidemics of World War I. Yet, the overwhelming VD epidemic which raged overseas was quenched in the U.S. as young lads overflowing with penicillin waited for the marriage bed to carnally embrace the "girl next door."

                              The 1948 A-Bomb: Three years later, after decades of clandestine preparation and a relentless publicity campaign, Dr. Kinsey launched what was then called "The Kinsey A-Bomb" on America's now fragile sense of moral virtue. Wrapped in Oppenheimer's flag of science as the final authority, Kinsey's fraudulent sex science statistics seemed to "prove" middle America to be a nation of sexual hypocrites, liars, cowards and closet deviates, despite the fact that all of Kinsey's data were repudiated by the then current public health data. While the Armed Services found skyrocketing VD and illegitimacy rates abroad, we found no such domestic rates for these disorders or for abortion, rape and other sex crimes and sexual disorders. Wrong or right, the fighting men might be misbehaving overseas but by and large they were not doing over here, what they were doing over there.

                              Despite the common sense fact of low rates of illegitimacy and VD, despite personal knowledge of faithful and virtuous family and friends, mainstream America was dramatically shaken by Kinsey's data. The popular press hawked Kinsey as a diversion from Truman's ominous cold-war warnings, heralding the astonishing scientific findings-that 98% of men and roughly half of women had premarital sex, 95% of American men were legally sex offenders and 10% or more of men were largely homosexual. And, while no one noted that 317 infants and children were "tested" for Kinsey's child sex data, educators repeated his conclusions-that children were sexual from birth, hence school sex education, Kinsey style, should be mandated.

                              The question anyone should be asking is: How did Kinsey get the statistics on childhood sexuality... that were to revolutionize the schoolroom, courtroom, pressroom, and bedroom? More succinctly put, did the Kinsey team participate in the pedophile abuse of 317 infants and children?

                              Below is a reproduction of... "Table 34. Examples of multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males. Some instances of higher frequencies" (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948). How were these figures gleaned?


                              AGE NO. OF
                              ORGASMS TIME
                              INVOLVED
                              5 mon. 3 ?
                              11 mon. 10 1 hr.
                              11 mon. 14
                              7 38 min.
                              9 min.
                              2 yr. 11 65 min.
                              2.5 yr. 4 2 min.
                              4 yr. 6 5 min.
                              4 yr. 17 10 hr.
                              4 yr. 26 24 hr.
                              7 yr. 7 3 hr.
                              8 yr. 8 2 hr.
                              9 yr. 7 68 min.
                              10 yr. 9 52 min.
                              10 yr. 14 24 hr.
                              11 yr. 11 1 hr.
                              11 yr. 19 1 hr.
                              12 yr. 7 3 hr.
                              12 yr. 3
                              9 3 min.
                              2 hr.
                              12 yr. 12 2 hr.
                              12 yr. 15 1 hr.
                              13 yr. 7 24 min.
                              13 yr. 8 2.5 hr.
                              13 yr. 9 8 hr.
                              13 yr. 3
                              11
                              26 70 sec.
                              .8 hr.
                              24 hr.
                              14 yr. 11 4 hr.


                              Kinsey's Research on Child Orgasm
                              Dr. Alfred Kinsey's research on child orgasm is described in Chapter 5 of his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).[7] Some of the observations are summarized in Tables 30-34 of the book. The numbers of the children in the five tables were, respectively, 214, 317, 188, 182, and 28. The minimum ages were, respectively, one year, two months, five months, (ages of children not recorded for Table 33), and five months. The tables identify sex experiments; for example, Table 32 speaks of: "Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm; Duration of stimulation before climax; Observations timed with second hand or stop watch."
                              Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices? And did he actually use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34? In his book, acting as the on-site reporter, Kinsey did not clearly describe his own role. However, Kinsey's close colleague, C. A. Tripp, made a revealing statement in a 1991 televised interview by Phil Donahue:


                              [Reisman is] talking about data that came from pedophiles, that he [Kinsey] would listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches, knew how to record their thing, did careful surveys....[T]hey were trained observers.[8]
                              Two questions cry out for an answer: What was the nature of the training given to these "trained observers"? And, who "trained" them? Perhaps Dr. Tripp or others can answer these questions. A 1991 book review in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet, noted:

                              [T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are the imperfections in the [Kinsey] sample and unethical, possibly criminal observations on children....Kinsey...has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.[9]
                              Tripp is not the only former Kinsey colleague to admit that actual pedophiles were involved in the Kinsey Institute's child sexuality studies. A taped telephone interview with Dr. Paul Gebhard, former head of the Kinsey Institute and Kinsey co-author, also confirms this fact:

                              Interviewer: "So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?"
                              Dr. Paul Gebhard: "Ah, they do if we tell them we're interested in it!"

                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Interviewer: "And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to...."
                              Dr. Gebhard: "So, second hand or stopwatch. OK, well, that's, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many."

                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Interviewer: "These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal."
                              Dr. Gebhard: "Oh yes."[10]
                              Molesting Children in the Name of Science
                              In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Dr. Kinsey reported that the data on the 317 children came from "9 of our adult male subjects."[11] However, Dr. John Bancroft, current Director of the Kinsey Institute, contradicted this claim. After examining the data, Dr. Bancroft indicated that the data for Table 31 came from a single adult male subject.[12] There are a number of other instances where Kinsey's published claims about numerical or factual data-claims with important implications if true-are now believed to be misleading or false.[13,14,15] A review of Kinsey's original data, claims and possible involvement is long overdue.[16,17]
                              Kinsey's "trained observers" tested babies "5 months in age," for repeated orgasms via:


                              ...empirical study and statistical procedures... which resulted in...reported observations on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrust and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys, ranging between infants of 5 months and adolescence age.[18]
                              Orgasm was defined as follows:

                              Extreme tension with violent convulsions: ...sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body... gasping... hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching...violent jerking of the penis...groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).... hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject.... some...suffer excruciating pain and may scream ...if the penis is even touched....some...before the arrival of orgasm, will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.[19]
                              Lester Caplan, M.D., Diplomate, the American Board of Pediatrics, reviewing Kinsey's Chapter 5 (as above) said, "One person could not do this to so many children-these children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly,"[20] especially if, as Dr. Gebhard notes, a cinema record was being made.[21]
                              Child interviews were unusually long. Kinsey said after two hours, "the [adult] becomes fatigued and the quality of the record drops."[22] Still, Kinsey reported 24-hour orgasm "interviews" of a four-, a 10- and a 13-year-old;[23] a four-year-old for 10 hours; a nine and 13-year-old for eight hours; and so on.[24] Dr. Gebhard's taped phone interview further details some of these techniques.[25]

                              Dr. Kinsey even reported that some observers "induced...erections [in the children]...over periods of months or years,"[26] but that the Kinsey team interviewed no "psychotics who were handicapped with poor memories, hallucination, or fantasies that distorted the fact."[27]

                              What kind of men were they, this Kinsey team? The question remains: Who did these experiments? As noted, the Kinsey team reported on a cadre of "trained observers." In Kinsey's own words...


                              Better data came from adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys' experiences. Unfortunately ....[only] 9 of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal....on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self- masturbation or....with other boys or older adults.[28]
                              There are serious questions which must be answered by the Kinsey Institute directors-for Kinsey's is arguably the most influential model for scientific sex taught to the nations' schoolchildren today. The proposed Congressional investigation is critical for that reason alone. How did the Kinsey team know that an 11-month-old had 10 orgasms in one hour? (See Table this article.) How did they verify these data? Where were the children's parents? Have attempts been made to locate the children? Who were the subjects of Table 34?[29,30] Certainly these were not the children pictured in the publicity photographs which were distributed to the press and the gullible academic world, such as the little, braided girl of roughly four years, sitting with "Uncle Prock" in innocent play.
                              Further, Dr. Gebhard claimed in a letter to me, that they did no follow-up on these children since it was "impossible or too expensive."[31] Later Gebhard said Kinsey was correct, some children were followed up and "we do have some names" of the children.[32] There is still no answer to the question, "Where are the children of Table 34?" It is finally in the hands of Congress to determine what really happened at the Kinsey Institute.

                              H.R. 2749, the Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995, is a bill to determine if Kinsey's two principal books on human sexual behavior "are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing." Clearly a useful step would be the gathering of facts on the work of Kinsey and his colleagues and a public disclosure of these facts in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Congress is in a strong position to carry out this kind of fact-finding as a precursor to legislation. An attempt should be made to answer certain questions that bear directly or indirectly on H.R. 2749:


                              Did Kinsey and his colleagues behave in an ethical fashion in the way they collected and published data from human subjects, especially children?
                              Apart from the ethical considerations, did they analyze and publish their data correctly from the scientific point of view?
                              Were federal funds solicited, used, and accounted for appropriately?
                              Do the answers to the preceding three questions indicate any violations of federal law?
                              If the information collected and published by Kinsey proves, on examination, to be badly flawed or to involve fraud or criminal wrongdoing, what are the implications for the use of this information in science, education, law and public policy? Specifically, to what extent should the federal government[33] fund or recall the dissemination and use of this information?

                              Kinsey's Figures on Homosexuality
                              With the above in mind, it is shocking that, almost overnight, following release of Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (and a succession of earlier private, public relations briefings at the Kinsey Institute for favorable interviewers), books, articles, films, news clips, cartoons, radio, TV, and front-page stories appeared coast to coast as part of a publicity campaign to institutionalize Kinsey's claims. Americans believed "the most famous man for ten years" that primitive, sexually permissive cultures were happier than were Mr. and Mrs. Jones.
                              However, without question, any "scientists" who reprint and encourage production of data on child sexuality which have been taken from child sex offenders engaged in "manual or oral" sex with babies and children, are not scientists but propagandists-indeed guilty of admitted criminal sexual conduct, by the descriptions in their publications, whether the sexual offender(s) were identified and prosecuted or not. To trust anything these men or their disciples produce is to put one's faith in those who use the language of science to accomplish personal, criminal, and/or sexual interests. Hence, whatever Kinsey's claims of homosexual percentages and normality were, these become, pragmatically, as invalid as his child sexuality data.

                              Kinsey fathered not only the sexual revolution, as Hugh Hefner and others have said, but the homosexual revolution as well. Harry Hay gave Kinsey that credit when Hay read in 1948 that Kinsey found "10%" of the male population homosexual. Following the successful path of the Black Civil Rights movement, Hay, a long-time communist organizer, said 10% was a political force which could be melded into a "sexual minority" only seeking "minority rights." With Kinsey as the wind in his sails, Hay formed the Mattachine Society.

                              But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders."[34] As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast.[35] This group of social outcasts and deviants were then redefined by the Kinsey team as representing your average "Joe College." With adequate press and university publicity, the people believed what they were told by our respectable scientists, that mass sexual perversion was common nationwide-so our sex education and our laws must be changed to reflect Kinsey's "reality."

                              Following the release of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,[36] the then Kinsey Institute Director, Dr. June Reinisch, initiated a "CONFIDENTIAL," international, 87-page mass-mailing of accusatory materials calling upon recipients to repudiate "Judith Reisman's accusations." One of the accusations Reinisch wanted repudiated was the fact that Kinsey's 10% to 47% or more homosexual data were fraudulently generalized to the "general public." (Kinsey's homosexual figures were exposed as wholly false in 1948 by Albert Hobbs et al, as well as by several other scientists then and since.) In her letter to past Kinsey Director and Kinsey co-author Dr. Paul Gebhard, Reinisch denies the Kinsey team's culpability for the child sex abuse data and states that the Kinsey team never did "conduct experiments." She asks Gebhard's aid in discrediting me. She adds:


                              Further, with regard to sampling and the generalizability of the findings to a broader portion of Americans, throughout both volumes Kinsey very clearly identifies exactly which data from which groups he is referring to when drawing conclusions. He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public.[37]
                              Unfortunately, Dr. Gebhard wrote back to Reinisch on December 6, 1990 that she was wrong and that Kinsey did use "the gay community," pedophiles and prisoners to generalize to the population at large. Gebhard writes:

                              In your recent letter of December 3, which I gather was sent to a number of individuals as well as me, you refuted Judith Reisman's allegations about Kinsey and the Institute. However, I fear that your final paragraph on page 1 may embarrass you and the university if it comes to Reisman's attention. Hence I want to warn you and relevant university officials so that some damage control might be devised. The paragraph ends with this sentence: "He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public." This statement is incorrect. Kinsey did mix male prison inmates in with his sample used in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male....
                              As to generalizing to a wider population, in his first volume Kinsey did generalize to the entire U.S. population. See, for one example, the tables on page 188 and 220 where he clearly extrapolates to the U.S.....
                              I am distressed that neither you nor your staff seem to be familiar with Kinsey's first book nor with The Kinsey Data and consequently produced the erroneous statement in your letter.[38]
                              Conclusion
                              Kinsey is a powerful example of one's personal orientation affecting one's science and the moral shape of society. What could be the motive of Kinsey's fraudulent data, which often found up to even half of average American males homosexual? Quite possibly, it amounts to Kinsey's wishful thinking, which he quantified in order to recreate others in his own distorted image. Was Kinsey himself a closet homosexual, pedophile or pederast?
                              In the past, science fraud has taken place for economic and political reasons-but with Kinsey, was his "science" rather the outgrowth of personal morality and sexual proclivity? If that were true, he has certainly not been the last. In recent years, the world has seen other "men of science" (Hamer, LeVay, Pillard et al) whose work lacks objectivity and who seem to be justifying their own lives with their [questionable] findings. Were these scientists making claims about beetles, fauna or supernovae, there would be less cause for alarm; however, the travesty is that-in a culture in which science is the preferred religion (a no-fault religion) and scientists its high priests-these men's words are being received as "gospel" (no matter how little factual basis they have) on a subject as important and wide- sweeping as human sexuality. Unfortunately, the scientific world and the western world at large has all too eagerly embraced Kinsey's work.

                              No matter what Kinsey's own sexual orientation, scientists and laypersons alike must acknowledge that he engineered a study of child sexuality which was unthinkable. The Kinsey Institute's data on child orgasms are, at best, a human concoction or, at worst, the results of child molestation. In either case, the Kinsey Institute is guilty of criminal activity and their findings on all subjects are suspect and misleading. Too, science must be re-evaluated, for Kinsey's work has hijacked an entire body of science for almost half a century, leaving behind untold damage to families, relationships and human souls.

                              The control of sexuality information has for too long been in the hands of the Kinsey elite-unethical scientists, men without moral conscience or honor, who fathered a bastard sexual revolution. It should come as no surprise then to those on our campuses and in the halls of legislative, judicial and educational power, that as our nation has followed Kinsey and his disciples, we too have become increasingly coarsened to conscience and honor. It is clear that sexual aggression, brutality and hedonism have greater sway in our society post-Kinsey than was the case pre-Kinsey.

                              No matter what Kinsey's own sexual proclivities and biases, after WWII Kinsey began to move in concert with a cadre of revisionist educators, lawyers and other professionals who determined with their sponsors to forever alter the American way of life through its educational system (the future) and the legal system (the standard of judgment). Prior to the Kinsey Reports, American law held that not only were sodomy, adultery, fornication and the like transgressions, those who committed such acts were themselves unacceptable. Post-Kinsey, these once-criminal acts and their actors began moving toward acceptability. The new law system used Kinsey as its primary and only scientific authority, and pointed America in a downward direction, promoting today's entire panoply of sexual deviances more common to the Pre-Christian era.

                              In the upheaval of the post-World War II period, Kinsey, for his part, refashioned the way humankind looked upon sexuality and separated this most powerful of human acts from its labor-intensive procreational function, pronouncing true human sexuality in the new human nature to be free, self-fulfilling and recreational.

                              Kinsey lives and reigns today in classrooms across America. The Ten Commandments may be out of our classrooms, but the Kinseyan-based "One in Ten" project is in, and "prima nocte"-the medieval practice of an overreaching government taking a young person's innocence, modesty and virtue (as depicted in the film Braveheart)-is a pervasive and accepted practice today in the schools of our American village.

                              Kinsey sold his soul to win his place in time, but now is the time to take back America's soul which has been led astray by fraudulent and criminal science. It is soon fifty years since Kinsey foisted his hoax upon a trusting and moral American people. The American standard was right all along. Let's pull the curtain back and call for a proper investigation of Kinsey's fraudulent investigation into human sexuality. Write and call your political representatives now to begin the debunking and defunding of Kinsey and truth will restore social virtue once again to our nation.

                              Author's note: Since the establishment media has largely censored this information, if you have or desire any information on Kinsey, the use of his materials, or his role in your life or the lives of others, kindly call the 800 number listed. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, The Children of Table 34-a Family Research Council video of the Kinsey fraud (30 min.), and the Reisman & Johnson Report (comparing homosexual and heterosexual personals or "In Search Of" ads) can be obtained via First Principals Press, 1-800-837- 0544.


                              Endnotes
                              [1]The Institute For Media Education, Box 7404, Arlington, Virginia, 22207.
                              [2]Science Magazine editorial, January 9, 1987.

                              [3]See Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement, ed. Mark Thompson, Stonewall Inn Edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 22, 59-60, 102, 164.

                              [4]The Lancet (April 1971), as taken from the Department of Health and Human Services' "Protection of Human Subjects" report, FR 52880, November 23, 1982.

                              [5]Frank Kofsky, Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948, New York: St. Maritn's Press (1995), p. xvii.

                              [6]Ibid., p. xix.

                              [7]Key pages from Kinsey's 1948 Male volume, pp. 157-192, "Early Sexual Growth and Activity."

                              [8]"The Donahue Show," transcript, December 5, 1990.

                              [9]The Lancet, March 2, 1991, p. 547. Emphasis added.

                              [10]Audiotaped phone discussion between J. Gordon Muir, editor of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, and Paul Gebhard on November 2, 1992.

                              [11]Male volume, p. 177: The nine men "have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal; and from them we have secured information on 317 pre-adolescents who were either engaged in self masturbation, or who were observed in contacts with other boys or older adults." The Washington Post (December 8, 1995, p. F1, F4) reports Dr. Bancroft saying, "Kinsey gives the impression that the data came from three or four men, but it was just the one." He speculates that Kinsey "kept that bit to himself because he thought the public might not react well to his use of data from a sex criminal." Elsewhere Bancroft is reported saying, "I have looked at the data on which these tables appear to be based, and I am fairly confident that the data for all 317 cases came from the one old man..." (September 19, 1995, Indianapolis Star, A1, A4), etc.

                              [12]The Indianapolis Star, September 19, 1995, p. 4, col. 1, "an elderly scientist."

                              [13]Activities such as "forcing" correct answers from subjects and suggesting that investigators might find some way to treat the data should they find these answers unacceptable is not science, Male volume, Op. cit., p. 55.

                              [14]Ibid., p. 58.

                              [15 ]Pomeroy, Wardell, Dr. Kinsey and The Institute For Sex Research. Harper & Row, New York (1972), pp. 208-209. "By 1946, he, Gebhard and I had interviewed about 1,400 convicted sex offenders in penal institutions scattered over a dozen states." (On this page Pomeroy notes Kinsey's explanation that all American males are really sex offenders, by law, hence the need to largely eliminate sex offender laws). Kinsey's data included these deviants and prisoners as average American men. In court documents, former Kinsey Institute Director, Dr. June Reinisch writes that Kinsey "never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public" and Dr. Gebhard replied, "I fear that your final paragraph will embarrass you and the university if it comes to Reisman's attention.... This statement is incorrect. Kinsey did mix male prison inmates in with his sample used in the Male volume."

                              [16]See Maslow and Sakoda, "Volunteer Error in the Kinsey Study," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 1952 (pp. 259- 262).

                              [17]Writing in Our Sexuality, (2nd edition), Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co. sexologists, Crooks & Baur, offer a sexological view of the term "direct observation:" A third method for studying human sexual behavior is direct observation. [Original emphasis.] This type of research may vary greatly in form and setting, ranging from laboratory studies that observe and record sexual responses to participant observation where the researchers join their subjects in sexual activity," (p. 64).

                              [18]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 181.

                              [19]Ibid., pp. 160-161.

                              [20]Letter to Judith Reisman from Lester Caplan M.D. (Baltimore, Maryland), Diplomate, the American Board of Pediatrics, reviewing the child data.

                              [21]See exhibit E, Pomeroy's letter to Reisman, para 2, "Some of these sources have added to their written or verbal reports photographs, and, in a few instances, cinema." The Kinsey Institute is on record as possessing a selection of child pornography films and photographs.

                              [22]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 181.

                              [23]Ibid., p. 180.

                              [24]"Was Kinsey a Fake and a Pervert?," The Village Voice, December 11, 1990, p. 41.

                              [25]Op. cit. fn #9.

                              [26]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 177. Moreover, as Lewis Terman pointed out in his critique of Kinsey, "The author lists (p. 39) "many hundred" persons who brought in "delinquent groups: male prostitutes, female prostitutes, bootleggers, gamblers, pimps, prison inmates, thieves and hold-up men. These, presumably, would have brought in others of their kind, but in what numbers they did so we are not told." Terman also notes "a dozen prison populations" included "a state school for feeble-minded, two children's homes, and two homes for unmarried mothers....plus "more than 1,200 persons who have been convicted of sex offenses." (Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male: Some Comments and Criticisms," Lewis Terman, Sexual Behavior in American Society: An Appraisal of the First Two Kinsey Reports, NYC: W.W. Norton & Co., 1955, p. 447).

                              [27]Ibid., p. 37.

                              [28]Ibid., p. 177. Emphasis added.

                              [29]After I asked these questions in 1981, the Kinsey Institute launched a 12-year-long national campaign to undermine my investigation. The 87- page Kinsey Institute "confidential" package mailed worldwide, and especially to those who might interview Reisman on the issue are available.

                              [30]Beyond Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990), the recently released video, The Children of Table 34, narrated by Ephrem Zimbalist Jr., is a very important tool for understanding the way in which the Kinsey data have been used to mislead the nation. This half-hour video documents the history of the Kinsey fraud and establishes Kinsey as the foundation of current homosexual advocacy and classroom sex education and AIDS Prevention.

                              [31]Gebhard letter to me, March 11, 1981.

                              [32]In the Male volume, Kinsey describes the children's trauma (which he saw as orgasmic), claiming to also have data on "a smaller percentage of older boys and adults which continues these reactions throughout life," p. 161. Gebhard also says they have the names, Op. cit. fn #9.

                              [33]In most of their recent news releases, Indiana University denied they received any federal money which served to support Dr. Kinsey's research efforts. [

                              ]However, in addition to other grants, in 1957 the National Institute of Mental Health granted approximately $50,000 per year for three years to the Institute, several years before Kinsey's sex study concluded.[] Furthermore, many millions of dollars from tax-free institutions were diverted to Dr. Kinsey's research during his lifetime, and millions of federal, state and tax-free funds continue to be funneled into the Kinsey Institute.

                              "[I]n 1957, under Gebhard's leadership, new sources of federal and private funding were found....During the 1970s, with funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Kinsey Institute was able to develop an information service," SIECUS Report, September 1985, 6-7.

                              The Official Brochure, Institute for Sex Research, Indiana University (1970) reads, "News of Kinsey's efforts reached the National Research Council's Committee for Research on Problems of Sex when he applied for a grant....in late 1940 [and was awarded] $1,600, the monies being provided by the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation....increased to $7,500....by 1946, reached $35,000....the National Institute of Mental Health awarded the Institute the first in a series of grants which were destined to continue for years and to constitute the major financial support of the [Kinsey] research. In the Customs case a federal district course ruled in favor of the Institute, empowering it to import for research purpose any sort of erotic material and allowing such materials to be sent through the mails...regarded as a landmark in the history of the relationship between science and law." pp. 3, 6. (Emphasis added.).

                              [34]Wardell Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, New York: Harper and Row (1972), p. 208.

                              [35]Ibid. Also see British Broadcasting Company's biography of Kinsey, released on Arts and Entertainment, August 7, 1996.

                              [36]Judith Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House, 1990). The British medical journal, The Lancet, said: "In Kinsey Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two [Kinsey] reports."

                              [37]Letter to Paul Gebhard, December 3, 1990.

                              [38]Letter from Paul Gebhard, December 6, 1990. Both letters are official deposition exhibits.
                              • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                Wed, October 7, 2009 - 5:49 PM
                                Whether what he did was wrong and whether what he found out was wrong are separate questions... aren't they?
                                • Unsu...
                                   

                                  Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                  Thu, October 8, 2009 - 7:36 AM
                                  "Whether what he did was wrong and whether what he found out was wrong are separate questions... aren't they? "

                                  both were wrong Orange, that is the problem. He lied about the percentages of infidelty in marriages, the percentage of homosexuals in the general population and a number of other things which are pointed out by Reisman. He and his subjects committed unspeakable, grotesque and horrible crimes against children. Using his data is like using the data of Hitlers scientists, it is tainted and evil, like Kinsey. He led America into the 60's love fest which exploded the market for STD medication, broken lives, broken marriages and wounded country. His data is used by misfits and perverts everywhere today to justify their sick perverted behavior, some of whom are on this thread. Yet kinsey is a folk hero of the left like racist Margaret Sanger.
                                  • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                    Thu, October 8, 2009 - 7:48 AM
                                    There was no precedent for much of Kinsey's work, so there would have been no way to evaluate it as effectively we can today.

                                    His actions need to be understood in the context provided to him by his society, not simply in terms of what they would mean if they occurred today.

                                    I don't have to agree with his methods or his findings to think that a repressive society ultimately encouraged his doings by not providing him with any real competition.
                                    • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                      Thu, October 8, 2009 - 7:54 AM
                                      www.sexpositiveculture.org/

                                      About us




                                      Founded in 1999, the Center for Sex Positive Culture is a nonprofit, membership-based community center. The Center was a one-of-a-kind organization 10 years ago, and remains unique given its nonprofit status and community center architecture.

                                      It was established in a bold attempt to create an environment that was accommodating to sex positive communities and transformative in all areas of human sexuality, and has succeeded in creating that environment.


                                      Mission


                                      Our mission is to create opportunities to explore and enhance the joy and intimacy of the full range and potential of human sexuality through community building, research and education, and outreach.


                                      Goal and Vision
                                      Our goal is to make a difference in our members' lives by creating opportunities to explore and enhance the joy and intimacy of the full range and potential of human sexuality.

                                      We envision a world where everyone has the freedom and resources to pursue a fulfilling and empowering sex life. We produce experiential events for members to pursue their sexual interests in a physically and emotionally safe environment.
                                    • Unsu...
                                       

                                      Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                      Thu, October 8, 2009 - 8:08 AM
                                      "I don't have to agree with his methods or his findings to think that a repressive society ultimately encouraged his doings by not providing him with any real competition."

                                      what kind of liberal blather is this you are shoving? A repressive society is to blame for the actions of this evil lieing pedophiliac? By your logic all monsters in history can be blamed on others and no one is responsible for their own misconduct. This is precisely why the liberal mind is too ill to be trusted.
                                      • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                        Thu, October 8, 2009 - 8:48 AM
                                        >A repressive society is to blame for the actions of this evil lieing pedophiliac?

                                        People who break the law should be prosecuted and made to serve sentences.

                                        People who unintentionally do bad science should be refuted.

                                        People who do it intentionally should be debunked.

                                        But we should not set the stage for their moral, legal, ethical or other acts of failure.

                                        Failure to honor any of the 14 points is basically en engraved invitation to (here it comes) Hitler.

                                        Failure to supply good science and good scientific standards on an important scientific topic is an invitation to both hacks and quacks.
                                      • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                        Thu, October 8, 2009 - 9:13 AM
                                        yet his work as have blindly accepted by the education establishment, in spite of well known inconsistences and blatent deception. Kinsey was concerned with science, his goal was to reshape the moral landscape of Americas sexual values.

                                        First of all this statement is completely untrue. The scientific community slapped him down hard and disgraced him for his failure to follow the scientific method. If he had done random sampling his data would have been a bit more accurate. However as it is he exposed an undercurrent of sexuality that most were unaware existed. It was there Dan. There was no need to lie or change data even then, gay bars existed. His data is not untrue, rather it reflects the people Kinsey was given access too. Although I'm sure you wished he had,he didn't stand around making notes while child molesters touched children. He just went to prisons to interview men there. The masterbation data mostly came from a journal a pedophile.
                                        Secondly you are completely wrong about responsibility. There is no doubt that the sexualy repressive family life that Kinsey had drove him from studing bugs to sexual surveys. Christianity created Kinsey and you,Dan, and people like you are the ones to blame.
                                        • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                          Thu, October 8, 2009 - 9:35 AM
                                          So to clarify... the problem is not WHAT he studied, or even (necessarily) WHY he studied it, but HOW he studied it?
                                          • Unsu...
                                             

                                            Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                            Thu, October 8, 2009 - 12:26 PM
                                            The problem is the immoral way in which he studied it as well as his complete disregard for science and the scientific method of inquiry. In short he is a liar and a pervert.
                                            • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                              Fri, October 9, 2009 - 7:51 AM
                                              >The problem is the immoral way in which he studied it as well as his complete disregard for science and the scientific method of inquiry. In short he is a liar and a pervert.

                                              Do you agree that what he studied was worthy of study, if not in Kinsey's way, than in some other way?
                                              • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                                Fri, October 9, 2009 - 8:53 AM
                                                "The problem is the immoral way in which he studied it as well as his complete disregard for science and the scientific method of inquiry. In short he is a liar and a pervert."

                                                As most of the things you post, this is your belief, not reality.

                                                Kinsey's problem was that he only spoke to a part of Anerica and used the info he found to apply it to all Americans. With the exception of the male masterbation study, all he did was report the findings that people told him and demonstrated for him. Of course part of the problem with such surveys is that people being surveyed sometimes lie or withhold information. That's why his team interviewed thousands if people to try to correct for it. While the scientific community objects to his methods we definitely admire his courage and determination. Definetly his ability to successfully infiltrate the gay community which, at the time, implimented complex security at gay bars and clubs. Also that by interviewing thousands of people he proved that sex was going on regardless of what people thought. Was he a pervert? Perhaps. That is what praying for salvation with other naked boyscouts will do for you. He went through part of his life believing that your body is shameful, sex is unnatural, and women are dirty. It's only natural that he would rush to make up for lost time once he knew the truth. Anyways, being a pervert does not negate your contribution to society. After all the Bishop who created sodomy laws in the first place was a pervert also.
                                        • Unsu...
                                           

                                          Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                                          Thu, October 8, 2009 - 12:24 PM
                                          "The scientific community slapped him down hard"

                                          Not sure where he was slapped down by the "scientific community" other than ignored scientists like Reisman, but here is the obit in the times:

                                          The untimely death of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey takes from the American scene an important and valuable, as well as controversial, figure. Whatever may have been the reaction to his findings -- and to the unscrupulous use of some of them -- the fact remains that he was first, last, and always a scientist. In the long run it is probable that the values of his contribution to contemporary thought will lie much less in what he found out than in the method he used and his way of applying it. Any sort of scientific approach to the problems of sex is difficult because the field is so deeply overlaid with such things as moral precept, taboo, individual and group training, and long established behavior patterns. Some of these may be good in themselves, but they are no help to the scientific and empirical method of getting at the truth. Dr. Kinsey cut through this overlay with detachment and precision. His work was conscientious and comprehensive. Naturally, it will receive a serious setback with his death. Let us earnestly hope that the scientific spirit that inspired it will not be similarly impaired.

                                          As for his deception:

                                          25 to 48 percent of Kinsey's subjects were in prison and/or were deviant males, of whom 1,400 were classified as sex offenders.
                                          Kinsey classified prostitutes-or any woman living with a man for more than a year-as "married."
                                          Kinsey's 'scientific' findings about childhood sexual behavior came from pedophiles-not "technically trained" experts-as he preferred to call them.

                                          In an attempt to validate homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality, Kinsey sacrificed scientific and intellectual honesty. He sullied his sample with those predisposed to sexual perversion-and then generalized his findings to represent the masses. Now Kinsey's philosophy has become as much a part of our culture as baseball. Yet it continues to confuse ideas about the nature of human sexuality.

                                          Politicians, judges, and homosexual rights advocates still quote his reports. For instance, the most propagated myth of the homosexual rights movement-that one in every 10 Americans is 'gay'-was reaped directly from Kinsey's data. However, studies since the time of Kinsey have consistently proved this data false. The real figure is between one and four percent.

                                          Sexualy promiscuity and perversion is not "freedom" Dragon, it is slavery. It has led to the AIDS epidemic, rampant divorce, sexual addition, crimes against children and has devasted the American moral landscape. Perhaps you are too young and immature to know this or have seem the results of "sexual freedom" in the lives of those around you. Self control, honoring committments made, putting others first are the marks of mature manly character, not selfish sexual exploration without regard to its effects upon others and oneself.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                    Tue, October 6, 2009 - 4:28 PM
                    get up, sweep the floor, toss papers in the waste basket, do something. Your boss deserves a days work for a days pay, don't you agree Mr. Hard working American?
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                Mon, October 5, 2009 - 6:29 PM
                Let me ask you a question Orange, do you see a difference between playing cards at work and getting intoxicated with drugs or alcohol?
                • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                  Mon, October 5, 2009 - 7:09 PM
                  Looked for, a difference between 2 types of abusive behavior can always be found, whether or not the difference is pertinent to the larger pattern of abusive behavior and its consequences.

                  I cannot condone playing cards at work under normal conditions.

                  My objection to the use of drugs or alcohol, though, would probably be greater, in that these things stand to harm job performance
                  even with a deliberate shift of attention away from the abusive activity.

                  If the case is going to be made that the recovery phase from porn viewing is longer than for card-playing, I would be willing to entertain
                  that angle, in spite of my very great doubts about any difference between recovery times being significant enough to impact productivity.

                  What is implicit in the original article is that porn is somehow special in comparison to other time wasting activities in terms of how it must ultimately affect job performance.

                  I find the implication dubious.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                    Tue, October 6, 2009 - 4:27 PM
                    "My objection to the use of drugs or alcohol, though, would probably be greater, in that these things stand to harm job performance
                    even with a deliberate shift of attention away from the abusive activity."

                    I agree, drugs and alcohol would be greater and the potential collateral damage would be greater as well. The same for porn, which can lead to sexual harrassment and all sorts of work place trouble. So viewing porn at work is worse than playing cards on the computer, although neither are mature responsible behavior in the work place.

                    "If the case is going to be made that the recovery phase from porn viewing is longer than for card-playing, I would be willing to entertain
                    that angle, in spite of my very great doubts about any difference between recovery times being significant enough to impact productivity."

                    Porn is as addictive as a narcotic and has similar effects. I am quite sure that Reisman would be willing to offer numerous studies to that effect, should you email her.

                    "What is implicit in the original article is that porn is somehow special in comparison to other time wasting activities in terms of how it must ultimately affect job performance.

                    I find the implication dubious."

                    I think you contradict yourself here.
                    • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

                      Tue, October 6, 2009 - 5:02 PM
                      There is not necessarily a contradiction if looking at porn happens not to contradict the organization's sexual harassment or other policies.

                      If there is a policy against it, then - yeah - enforce the policy. Fine.

                      As for porn being addictive, that would matter only as much as any other habit-forming behavior that stands to distract from work.

                      I stand by my argument that the post-exposure effects of porn cannot be assumed to be similar to alcohol or 'drugs'.

                      How long, exactly, does one stay porn-intoxicated after seeing porn?
  • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

    Wed, October 7, 2009 - 5:56 PM
    Man, talk about a bunch of hooha over nothing, dannyboy's puritanical ravings about dirty pictures notwithstanding.

    Of course, he pretends three's this big problem at the NSF, because he hates science almost as much as he does Obama.

    So, this all originates from an article in the rightwing Washington Times - byw danny, how do you feel about news that's tailored to fit the political agenda of the reverend Sun Yung Moon, aka the head of the Moonies, who owns the paper? Not exactly christian, is it?

    Anyway, the original article also makes a big hooha about this, but buries this rather important bit of context way down:

    <Documents obtained by The Times through an open records request show the foundation's inspector general closed 10 employee misconduct investigations last year, up from just three in 2006. There were seven cases in 2007. Of the 10 cases closed last year, seven involved online pornography, records show. >

    www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...agency/

    The NSF employs 1700 people, and dannyboy wants you to think there's an epidemic of porn-fueled government waste because of 10 out of 1700 people were wasting time. Or rather 7 out of 1700, and 3 probably conducting satanic rituals in the women's room.

    What idiocy. Look closely folks, and observe the thrashing of a soon to be extinct animal, Homo Dextera Fanaticus-Americanus, as it sinks slowly into the LaBrea tarpits of history, weighted down by decades of failed ideas.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

      Thu, October 8, 2009 - 8:04 AM
      Kelly: "Of course, he pretends three's this big problem at the NSF, because he hates science almost as much as he does Obama."

      And evidence for this "hatred" is found in the fact I quote a scientist, Dr. Judith Reisman who authored the article?

      "So, this all originates from an article in the rightwing Washington Times - byw danny, how do you feel about news that's tailored to fit the political agenda of the reverend Sun Yung Moon, aka the head of the Moonies, who owns the paper? Not exactly christian, is it?"

      This is old and irrelevent news. The story apparently was interesting enough that it was picked up by the huffington post, hot air, fox news and a host of other left/right rags. It is a valid story that you are trying to ignore by smearing the news paper which broke it. Shame on you Kelly.

      Kelly: Anyway, the original article also makes a big hooha about this, but buries this rather important bit of context way down:

      <Documents obtained by The Times through an open records request show the foundation's inspector general closed 10 employee misconduct investigations last year, up from just three in 2006. There were seven cases in 2007. Of the 10 cases closed last year, seven involved online pornography, records show. >

      www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...agency/

      The NSF employs 1700 people, and dannyboy wants you to think there's an epidemic of porn-fueled government waste because of 10 out of 1700 people were wasting time. Or rather 7 out of 1700, and 3 probably conducting satanic rituals in the women's room."

      Dan's Response: Kelly would have us believe that porn viewing at the NSF is a small problem of no consequence. Do you see what I mean about the lunatic left? How can you believe anything they say when they lie through their teeth like that?

      "The problems at the National Science Foundation (NSF) were so pervasive they swamped the agency’s inspector general and forced the internal watchdog to cut back on its primary mission of investigating grant fraud and recovering misspent tax dollars." No one has refuted this statement or anything else in this report!

      "For instance, one senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer and chatting online with nude or partially clad women without being detected, the records show.

      When finally caught, the NSF official retired. He even offered, among other explanations, a humanitarian defense, suggesting that he frequented the porn sites to provide a living to the poor overseas women. Investigators put the cost to taxpayers of the senior official's porn surfing at between $13,800 and about $58,000."

      Reasonable people would understand that there is a problem here and that these cases are representative of a trend. How many porn perverts are not getting caught at work? A lot. And yes, it is costing tax payers money, which is why Grassley is calling for an investigation.

      Look closely folks, and observe the thrashing of a soon to be extinct animal, Homo Dextera Fanaticus-Americanus, as it sinks slowly into the LaBrea tarpits of history, weighted down by decades of failed ideas."

      We are Kelly, we are.



  • Re: Objective Science at porn, er, work!

    Fri, October 9, 2009 - 9:50 PM
    The men who protest most loudly about porn (Dan) on religious grounds (Dan) are usually the biggest closet porn addicts themselves (Dan).

    I don't watch porn so it isn't on my mind and you don't see me talking about it much.

    Dan constantly posts to complain about porn. Porn is on Dan's mind all the time. Why is that? Could it be he is a porno addict and is ashamed of his addiction? Bingo!