This "documentary" is bullshit. Kinsey may have researched pedophiles (he researched all kinds of sex), but he sure as hell didn't encourage pedophila or instruct anybody to scientifically document it. This is sexually repressed, reactionary nonsense. Do you know how much light Kinsey had on him after this book came out? If the prudes could have busted him then, they would have. The damn "witnesses" in this movie seem to be more interested in pedophila to me. They love talking abou it.
Learning anything about human nature is valuable; however, Kinsey did not endorse or participate in any of the illegal immoral "sexual" practices referenced in this "documentary".
Endorse the behavior? He encouraged it. By today's laws, he would be an accessory to the crime (pedophilia-related crimes). Encouragement is all it takes under the law. He also,at minimum, would get Misprision of felony (AND had films of children in sex acts and adult-with-child sex). His 'coding system' shows an intent to hide his findings.
And if you look at his research? it is FLAWED! Any professor using such unscientific methods in a publication would be de-tenured.
Where are you getting this information? The coding system was used in an attempt to placate various respondents, even though they were anonymous anyway, not to hide pedophilia, for god's sake. And I don't see how direct interviews and gathering empirical data is flawed. You sound just like the hysterical repressed individuals who wanted Kinsey shut up for good. Why didn't they bust him for these offenses years ago, if they were true? God knows, they tried at every turn.
Did you watch the entire series of videos? Part of the US government wanted access to the files. Mr. Paul Gebhart openly stated they would destroy files before they let authorities view them. He said they had an emergency plan in place that would at minimum destroy the "key" codes that deciphered the notes and files. Now, he is still a vital member of the institute, why would he threaten to destroy files? Because the FBI wanted to look at them? A law enforcement agency?
Responding to your second point: : NO, I AM NOT REPRESSED. You might be shocked what I do for a living.
I believe Dr. Kinsey did start an important dialogue about sex. Was he involved in criminal activity? I believe yes. Was a great deal of his data sets inaccurate? I think so.
Using a Pedo's notes as your sole source is hardly using scientific method. His own colleagues felt that chapter did not belong in the book because it wasn't scientifically done.
I would need more than this series of videos as proof that Kinsey or his researchers were involved in pedophilia. How about checking out the FBI archives to see if there ever was an active investigation of Kinsey for any of these charges? That might be a good idea, don't you think? Btw, the answer is no, I didn't watch all the videos, just enough of them to make me sick; after that I stopped. I can't believe after all these years people are still trying to do this to Kinsey.
Even if you LOVE Dr. Kinsey and think he could do no wrong, this video is very interesting.Three of his main researchers (and Dr. Kinsey's friends) are interviewed in depth. This isn't edited to make the men look bad. They interview the men in a very congenial way. None of them DENY any of the 'rumors.' They give their scientific reasons for what they did. The head of the institute is interviewed and he openly acknowledges the instances and also says it was for the greater good.
Very interesting, sure; most sensationalism is. Look, he was investigating human sexuality in depth and without prejudice, in an entirely open way. That embarrassed and offended a lot of people then and still does now, only god knows why. Some of the people with whom he worked were also not fond of his style of investigation or of him personally. Let me ask you again: if there had been many episodes of molestation or other impropriety, why was no one indicted by the law?
Are you implying that Rex King (Mr Green) never existed?The child chapter was not scientifically valid. It should not have been in the book.
They need to remove prisoners and prostitutes from other data sets as well. I don't like the idea of using Indiana alone for his surveying.Indiana had to be one of the most sexually repressed states in the 30's and 40's (as now:)~ Anyone willing to talk sex in Indiana in 1935 would have been a "deviate" in that state.Use New York AND Indiana.
No, I'm not implying that someone didn't exist. I believe children's views on sexuality and reproduction is important and such a report would not have been valid without them. As for Indiana, the man was trying for a median cross section of America; that was entirely the point of the research. And I ask again: if something inappropriate or damaging to children was actually perpetrated by Kinsey's people, why was no one ever indicted? Apparently a lot of people "knew" something.
I think I touched on this before. By today's laws, he would be an accessory to the crime (pedophilia-related crimes). Encouragement is all it takes under the law. He also,at minimum, would get Misprision of felony . Mr King is dead.
I don't think asking a pedofile what children thought of his sexual abilities is scientific. It is biased by his warped sense of perception that the children 'want' him.Studying the children in a real scientific environment with peer review is scientific.
Oh, man, pedophilia laws were in place in Indiana in the 40s and 50s, and as high profile as that report was, Kinsey certainly knew that if he or his team had done anything wrong during the research, their asses were cooked. Nobody indicted anyone for anything, and believe me, some people definitely wanted to. As for interviewing pedophiles themselves, he interviewed all sorts of different people; he had to, otherwise the results would've been invalid.
this isn't science..Kinsey was reacting to his uptight upbringing and was unwinding like a coil..but he had enough of his upbringing in him to try and mask his obsession with sex in some kind of respectable garb..
I believe that children are sexual being from birth, however they are not old enough for consent so this guy should be in jail not being interviewed as a free man .
this is just FUCKED UP!!!!! meanwhile freeple turn away and ignore or ridicule what has and is happening to CHILDREN....WHO THE HELL CARES WHO IT IS THAT'S DOING IT????..the person recording it is just a fucking sick
(1/2) Yes, Hil0, you have a fair point. He didn't force anyone to have sex with kids, he only researched behavior that was already taking place. But what you have to understand is that university professors need to be held to a higher moral standard than your average Joe. They are in a position of authority and can't take advantage of that. Medical doctors are protected by confidentiality clauses EXCEPT in the case of child abuse. Scientific researchers should be held to the same standards.
What truly makes me sick is all of you passing judgement on others in this highly terrible fashion.
Noone new much about these matters back in those days. He used information that already existed anyway. I really don't see any harm in that. He just tried to do science, in the way he thought was right. And he happened to be wrong. That has happened loads of times during the development of science.
that is sick how can he be sayin children are sexual beings from birth when they arent even fully developed man thats sick how r they callin this science my insides are coiling up its makin ma skin crawl these people were sikos n gettin away with it in the name of science like they were curing cancer or summat
You don't have to be "fully developed" (whatever your interpretation of that is) to be a sexual being. Instead of bleating about sick this and sick that (a rather worn out cliché in these threads) it would be of more use if you did some research in the area of child sexuality. By the way, the word is "summit" - although I fail to see how that fits with your sentence.
On the accusations made about the intentions/agendas of those involved creating this work; any real arguments would be helpful.
Regardless, given the testimony of Kinsey's own colleagues alone, as portrayed here, isn't it clear that criminal acts were deliberately cloaked using the veil of science?
How can you turn a blind eye to this, for any reason. Those are serious criminal offences that are being hidden for some greater good, which isnt good at all. It serves no purpose. Even if discovered the child is a sexual being the child is vulnerable to predators. The child doesnt have the intelligence to consent. Its disgusting and it proves to me the orientations of the people who educate and govern us. Its enough to make you believe in the devil.
I have no idea who "quasibeth" is, but I am the producer and director of this film.
I am not - and never have been - a "shock jock": I have been a television documentary producer and author for 30 years. Many of my films have won major international awards.
Slightly off topic but have you had anymore involvement in the Franklin story Mr Tate and do Yorkshire TV still own the footage of Conspiracy of Silence?
Dr. Reisman doesn't have any formal training in this area at all.
She has a PhD in communications.
Tim Tate (the producer of this film) is a shock jock who has been totally discredited in the UK after creating one of the largest and most harmful "witch hunts" in modern UK history.
Dr. Reisman has personal animus towards Dr. Kinsey due to her own personal history. On the other hand she supports Eugene Abel, who has done exactly the same thing to obtain information on pedophiles.
Ok, points noted, but a comment such as "We are all in agreement that pedophilia is heinous" is neither productive nor relevant - as you do not speak for everyone. Maybe you can expand a little on why you "loathe pedophiles" and what the definition of a pedophile is to you.
No, I do speak for everyone. We are all in agreement that pedophilia is heinous. I loathe pedophiles. If you are one, then I loathe you.
These are relevant statements. I have no idea why you find them to be controversial. The problem with Reisman is that she is ignorant about child molestation as a subject (even though she represents herself to the public as a specialist on the subject). Why don't you learn more ? Google:
prevention child molestation eugene abel nora harlow
You've made your moral views clear, but morality is no substitute for science. You seem to complain about bad method. Is your concern about how you do morality or how you do science? No one who claims to be scientific would ever speak for everyone. If your claim is about morality, personal clarity tells you nothing about other people's opinions. If you want to know what other people think, turn down the volume on your own opinions. I don't think you listen very well.
Morality is based on personal opinion, nothing more. Science, in the most part, follows established principles and documented research. I'm not saying the ethics of this study are acceptable, but morality does not enter into this. I find it ironic that thousands of children are dying or killed every day in the world yet few people voice their opinions on that in the same way they do in these threads.
Morality (or ethics, if you want to call it that) enters into everything - otherwise there is no point criticizing Kinsey or his child molester or any other criminal. What people think about other atrocities is irrelevant to this discussion - and you actually don't know what people think. Furthermore, that Kinsey is commonly glorified may be a reason why ...
sounds like jared leto to me...
FotoKadr 2 weeks ago in playlist Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles
scary what people get away with in the name of sience
leiefilm 1 month ago
They let a grown man sexually abuse a child
Ms90sforever 1 month ago
This "documentary" is bullshit. Kinsey may have researched pedophiles (he researched all kinds of sex), but he sure as hell didn't encourage pedophila or instruct anybody to scientifically document it. This is sexually repressed, reactionary nonsense. Do you know how much light Kinsey had on him after this book came out? If the prudes could have busted him then, they would have. The damn "witnesses" in this movie seem to be more interested in pedophila to me. They love talking abou it.
jerico641 9 months ago
What possible good reason would there be in knowing about Child sexuality? Fucking twisted sick left wing bastards
FeignofCordor 10 months ago
@FeignofCordor
Learning anything about human nature is valuable; however, Kinsey did not endorse or participate in any of the illegal immoral "sexual" practices referenced in this "documentary".
jerico641 9 months ago
@jerico641
Endorse the behavior? He encouraged it. By today's laws, he would be an accessory to the crime (pedophilia-related crimes). Encouragement is all it takes under the law. He also,at minimum, would get Misprision of felony (AND had films of children in sex acts and adult-with-child sex). His 'coding system' shows an intent to hide his findings.
And if you look at his research? it is FLAWED! Any professor using such unscientific methods in a publication would be de-tenured.
bobzeda 4 months ago
@bobzeda
Where are you getting this information? The coding system was used in an attempt to placate various respondents, even though they were anonymous anyway, not to hide pedophilia, for god's sake. And I don't see how direct interviews and gathering empirical data is flawed. You sound just like the hysterical repressed individuals who wanted Kinsey shut up for good. Why didn't they bust him for these offenses years ago, if they were true? God knows, they tried at every turn.
jerico641 4 months ago
@jerico641
Did you watch the entire series of videos? Part of the US government wanted access to the files. Mr. Paul Gebhart openly stated they would destroy files before they let authorities view them. He said they had an emergency plan in place that would at minimum destroy the "key" codes that deciphered the notes and files. Now, he is still a vital member of the institute, why would he threaten to destroy files? Because the FBI wanted to look at them? A law enforcement agency?
bobzeda 4 months ago
@bobzeda
Responding to your second point: : NO, I AM NOT REPRESSED. You might be shocked what I do for a living.
I believe Dr. Kinsey did start an important dialogue about sex. Was he involved in criminal activity? I believe yes. Was a great deal of his data sets inaccurate? I think so.
Using a Pedo's notes as your sole source is hardly using scientific method. His own colleagues felt that chapter did not belong in the book because it wasn't scientifically done.
bobzeda 4 months ago
@bobzeda
I would need more than this series of videos as proof that Kinsey or his researchers were involved in pedophilia. How about checking out the FBI archives to see if there ever was an active investigation of Kinsey for any of these charges? That might be a good idea, don't you think? Btw, the answer is no, I didn't watch all the videos, just enough of them to make me sick; after that I stopped. I can't believe after all these years people are still trying to do this to Kinsey.
jerico641 4 months ago
@jerico641
Even if you LOVE Dr. Kinsey and think he could do no wrong, this video is very interesting.Three of his main researchers (and Dr. Kinsey's friends) are interviewed in depth. This isn't edited to make the men look bad. They interview the men in a very congenial way. None of them DENY any of the 'rumors.' They give their scientific reasons for what they did. The head of the institute is interviewed and he openly acknowledges the instances and also says it was for the greater good.
bobzeda 4 months ago
@bobzeda
Very interesting, sure; most sensationalism is. Look, he was investigating human sexuality in depth and without prejudice, in an entirely open way. That embarrassed and offended a lot of people then and still does now, only god knows why. Some of the people with whom he worked were also not fond of his style of investigation or of him personally. Let me ask you again: if there had been many episodes of molestation or other impropriety, why was no one indicted by the law?
jerico641 4 months ago
@jerico641
Are you implying that Rex King (Mr Green) never existed?The child chapter was not scientifically valid. It should not have been in the book.
They need to remove prisoners and prostitutes from other data sets as well. I don't like the idea of using Indiana alone for his surveying.Indiana had to be one of the most sexually repressed states in the 30's and 40's (as now:)~ Anyone willing to talk sex in Indiana in 1935 would have been a "deviate" in that state.Use New York AND Indiana.
bobzeda 4 months ago
@bobzeda
No, I'm not implying that someone didn't exist. I believe children's views on sexuality and reproduction is important and such a report would not have been valid without them. As for Indiana, the man was trying for a median cross section of America; that was entirely the point of the research. And I ask again: if something inappropriate or damaging to children was actually perpetrated by Kinsey's people, why was no one ever indicted? Apparently a lot of people "knew" something.
jerico641 4 months ago
@jerico641
I think I touched on this before. By today's laws, he would be an accessory to the crime (pedophilia-related crimes). Encouragement is all it takes under the law. He also,at minimum, would get Misprision of felony . Mr King is dead.
I don't think asking a pedofile what children thought of his sexual abilities is scientific. It is biased by his warped sense of perception that the children 'want' him.Studying the children in a real scientific environment with peer review is scientific.
bobzeda 4 months ago
@bobzeda
Oh, man, pedophilia laws were in place in Indiana in the 40s and 50s, and as high profile as that report was, Kinsey certainly knew that if he or his team had done anything wrong during the research, their asses were cooked. Nobody indicted anyone for anything, and believe me, some people definitely wanted to. As for interviewing pedophiles themselves, he interviewed all sorts of different people; he had to, otherwise the results would've been invalid.
jerico641 4 months ago
tables 31 to 34 need validating and updating
jradetzky 1 year ago
The proof is out there! Kinsey is a vile paedophile! Normal people would not have allowed that abuse to go on without reporting it.
Absynthe12 1 year ago 2
this isn't science..Kinsey was reacting to his uptight upbringing and was unwinding like a coil..but he had enough of his upbringing in him to try and mask his obsession with sex in some kind of respectable garb..
hillarychapman1 1 year ago 2
I believe that children are sexual being from birth, however they are not old enough for consent so this guy should be in jail not being interviewed as a free man .
nambypamby34 1 year ago 3
this is just FUCKED UP!!!!! meanwhile freeple turn away and ignore or ridicule what has and is happening to CHILDREN....WHO THE HELL CARES WHO IT IS THAT'S DOING IT????..the person recording it is just a fucking sick
lilmissheidi 2 years ago
omg......
29martian 2 years ago
(2/2) If you want to go about your business while knowing full well that there's someone out there molesting hundreds of children, be a garbageman.
AVargyas 2 years ago
(1/2) Yes, Hil0, you have a fair point. He didn't force anyone to have sex with kids, he only researched behavior that was already taking place. But what you have to understand is that university professors need to be held to a higher moral standard than your average Joe. They are in a position of authority and can't take advantage of that. Medical doctors are protected by confidentiality clauses EXCEPT in the case of child abuse. Scientific researchers should be held to the same standards.
AVargyas 2 years ago
What truly makes me sick is all of you passing judgement on others in this highly terrible fashion.
Noone new much about these matters back in those days. He used information that already existed anyway. I really don't see any harm in that. He just tried to do science, in the way he thought was right. And he happened to be wrong. That has happened loads of times during the development of science.
Hil0 2 years ago
that is sick how can he be sayin children are sexual beings from birth when they arent even fully developed man thats sick how r they callin this science my insides are coiling up its makin ma skin crawl these people were sikos n gettin away with it in the name of science like they were curing cancer or summat
asmaprincess 2 years ago
You don't have to be "fully developed" (whatever your interpretation of that is) to be a sexual being. Instead of bleating about sick this and sick that (a rather worn out cliché in these threads) it would be of more use if you did some research in the area of child sexuality. By the way, the word is "summit" - although I fail to see how that fits with your sentence.
nzmedic 1 year ago
@nzmedic no i meant summat british street slang for somethin
asmaprincess 1 year ago
Ah. My apologies. The little semantics of language always get me!
nzmedic 1 year ago
though this particular study lacks morallity and validity it did not have much to do with the sexual revolution.
the main points that were made were that in medical science people admited to masterbation from as soon as they hit puberty.
think about it...
when did you first masterbate?
when was your first wet dream?
these arte the things that lead to open sexuality and they would have been there without kinsey.
documentation of child molestation should be restricted to police files.
superchang847 2 years ago 3
@superchang847
I mostly agree but could you please learn to spell!
mainsqueeze1977 1 year ago
this is not science, everyone that participated in this should be arrested if still alive
AlphaKillaX 2 years ago 20
@AlphaKillaX It's a uncommon science indeed, but the psychology behind this behaviour or sexual perversion still needed to be studied.
TheSjpatrik 1 day ago
fuck this kinsey guy, bitch should of get shot in the head, sick bitch
AlphaKillaX 2 years ago 2
On the accusations made about the intentions/agendas of those involved creating this work; any real arguments would be helpful.
Regardless, given the testimony of Kinsey's own colleagues alone, as portrayed here, isn't it clear that criminal acts were deliberately cloaked using the veil of science?
Dutch19474853 2 years ago 9
@Dutch19474853
Thats the main point for me.
How can you turn a blind eye to this, for any reason. Those are serious criminal offences that are being hidden for some greater good, which isnt good at all. It serves no purpose. Even if discovered the child is a sexual being the child is vulnerable to predators. The child doesnt have the intelligence to consent. Its disgusting and it proves to me the orientations of the people who educate and govern us. Its enough to make you believe in the devil.
outofslumber 7 months ago
I have no idea who "quasibeth" is, but I am the producer and director of this film.
I am not - and never have been - a "shock jock": I have been a television documentary producer and author for 30 years. Many of my films have won major international awards.
MrTimTate 2 years ago 4
Slightly off topic but have you had anymore involvement in the Franklin story Mr Tate and do Yorkshire TV still own the footage of Conspiracy of Silence?
burlearth 2 years ago
what a sick bastard I thin I'm going to go puke now i'm seriously physically ill
Know wonder my grandfather raped mother and me if this the kind of shit being done covered up
sweetrachel 2 years ago
I loathe pedophiles
Everyone does
Kinsey made a terrible mistake over 50 years ago.
Judith Reisman has her own agenda now that she wants to promote.
What can it possibly be??
We are all in agreement that pedophilia is heinous.
quasibeth 2 years ago
You make some very subjective comments. On what basis do you make these? Do you have any formal training in this area?
nzmedic 2 years ago
Dr. Reisman doesn't have any formal training in this area at all.
She has a PhD in communications.
Tim Tate (the producer of this film) is a shock jock who has been totally discredited in the UK after creating one of the largest and most harmful "witch hunts" in modern UK history.
Dr. Reisman has personal animus towards Dr. Kinsey due to her own personal history. On the other hand she supports Eugene Abel, who has done exactly the same thing to obtain information on pedophiles.
quasibeth 2 years ago
It is hypocritical of her to attack Kinsey, even though he clearly used bad judgement in the publication of this data.
This "documentary" is highly inflammatory and exploitative, which is exactly what Tim Tate was hoping to achieve.
quasibeth 2 years ago
Ok, points noted, but a comment such as "We are all in agreement that pedophilia is heinous" is neither productive nor relevant - as you do not speak for everyone. Maybe you can expand a little on why you "loathe pedophiles" and what the definition of a pedophile is to you.
nzmedic 2 years ago
No, I do speak for everyone. We are all in agreement that pedophilia is heinous. I loathe pedophiles. If you are one, then I loathe you.
These are relevant statements. I have no idea why you find them to be controversial. The problem with Reisman is that she is ignorant about child molestation as a subject (even though she represents herself to the public as a specialist on the subject). Why don't you learn more ? Google:
prevention child molestation eugene abel nora harlow
quasibeth 2 years ago
You've made your moral views clear, but morality is no substitute for science. You seem to complain about bad method. Is your concern about how you do morality or how you do science? No one who claims to be scientific would ever speak for everyone. If your claim is about morality, personal clarity tells you nothing about other people's opinions. If you want to know what other people think, turn down the volume on your own opinions. I don't think you listen very well.
nzmedic 2 years ago
And science is no substitute for morality!
Skipping over how sloppy Kinsey's science was even in other areas.
mainsqueeze1977 2 years ago
Morality is based on personal opinion, nothing more. Science, in the most part, follows established principles and documented research. I'm not saying the ethics of this study are acceptable, but morality does not enter into this. I find it ironic that thousands of children are dying or killed every day in the world yet few people voice their opinions on that in the same way they do in these threads.
nzmedic 1 year ago
Morality (or ethics, if you want to call it that) enters into everything - otherwise there is no point criticizing Kinsey or his child molester or any other criminal. What people think about other atrocities is irrelevant to this discussion - and you actually don't know what people think. Furthermore, that Kinsey is commonly glorified may be a reason why ...
mainsqueeze1977 1 year ago
Quasibeth, there are several people in this film that are not "in agreement that pedophilia is heinous" but think this is all a joke.
mainsqueeze1977 1 year ago
a propaganda video from crazy judith reisman (the erototoxin lady).
Oh goodie!!
google: The Kinsey Institute - Response to Controversy - 2003
quasibeth 2 years ago
This is Nazi science!
alonelychild 2 years ago 2
@alonelychild I luv Nazi science
jradetzky 1 year ago