Touring the Kinsey Institute


Ms. Heiman broke it to you? Roffles!
Did they have any pictures of Rex King?
Did they show you any of Dr. Fritz von Balluseck's research?
It's very cute how nervous you seem. Good luck, Dan.
Tijuana Bibles!
Tables 30-34 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male report observations of orgasms in over three hundred children between the ages of five months and fourteen years.
Former and current directors of The Kinsey Institute confirmed that some of the information was gathered from nine pedophiles and that Kinsey chose not to report the pedophiles to the authorities, balancing what Kinsey saw as the need for their anonymity against the likelihood that their crimes would continue.
James H. Jones's biography, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, describes Kinsey as bisexual, and experimenting in masochism. He encouraged group sex involving his graduate students, wife and staff.
"Oh, and did you know that the Kinsey Institute sponsors Pedophilia?

"'There couldn't have been any research if we turned them in,' he said. 'Of course we knew when we interviewed pedophiles that they would continue the activity, but we didn't do anything about that.' Providing such absolute assurances of anonymity was the only way to guarantee honest answers on such taboo subjects, said Gebhard."
Dan, you can be such a pussy some times...
Dr. John Bancroft, who was Director of The Kinsey Institute from 1995 to 2004, admits without hesitation that the man who provided the data for tables 31 through 34 undoubtedly sexually exploited the children whose behavior was chronicled. "The question is," Bancroft continued, "why was Kinsey not totally open about his man being the only source for those tables? Obviously, I can't answer that. I don't think he said anything that was untrue. My hunch is he probably thought people would not take these data seriously enough. Although why it should make any great difference whether it was ONE pedophile or THREE is debatable.
And the difference between a researcher not turning in a criminal and a priest taking the same (in)action is....??????????? Oh, right, "god" will judge the dude who tells the priest, while the researcher just provides us with information useful for understanding our world and perhaps **PERHAPS** reducing the incidents of such crime in the future. Good golly, why would we want a few people to get away with crimes (for now) for THAT!!!????!!!
In their book, Reisman and Eichel state:
Kinsey's research was carried out on a non-representative group of Americans--including disproportionately large numbers of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists--and involved illegal sex experimentation upon several hundred children, masturbated to orgasm by "trained" pederasts. It has become the "scientific" basis for the official doctrine of sex education in the United States. Shocking? Yes. True? Demonstrably.

Bancroft characterizes this statement as "quite an effective mixture of fact and nonfact, or altered fact. All those first points she made of course are generally accepted. Yes, he did have an unrepresentative sample. Yes, he did over-sample--in particular, men in penal institutions.

Kinsey's primary method of data collection was to administer surveys — consisting of about 350 very personal questions — about sexual behavior to as many willing participants as possible. After collecting the sexual histories of thousands of individuals, Kinsey painted a portrait of the nation, a portrait that he said was based on an accurate cross-section of America. But as the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow [a friend of Kinsey's] pointed out, most people will not fill out a voluminous survey composed of intensely personal questions. Consequently, an inordinate percentage of such respondents will be people of easy virtue who engage in aberrant sexual behavior. This is an outcome-skewing factor that was even more significant fifty-five years ago, when people were much more reluctant to discuss these matters than they are today. What this means is that it was difficult to develop a clear picture of the average person's sexual behavior through such research, even when you tried.

But Kinsey didn't try.

Maslow offered to help him adjust for the aforementioned factor, but when Kinsey discovered that doing so would not yield the results he wanted, he refused and terminated his friendship with Maslow.

It gets even worse, though. While Kinsey made no effort to correct for incidentally skewed data, he purposely skewed data and made every effort to make it appear correct. Amazingly, outrageously, unbelievably, fourteen-hundred of Kinsey's male subjects were prison inmates and SEXUAL OFFENDERS who he classified as normal. Why? Kinsey's rationalization was that the only difference between these reprobates and average men was that the former got caught. But this is what you could call a circular justification. He used an anomalous sample, extrapolated its characteristics to the population at large, and then labeled the sample as normal because it was reflective of the sample-based conception of the population at large.

Kinsey repeated this scientific fraud when he studied women, once again drawing conclusions from a sample of unrepresentative females, such as prostitutes. It's no wonder then, that Kinsey steadfastly refused to publish the data upon which his conclusions rested or reveal the questionnaire he used to compile that data. It's also not surprising that highly-esteemed contemporaries in the scientific community viewed Kinsey's work as invalid. One example would be the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, which wrote that Kinsey "questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior." The fact is that Kinsey's methods were so shoddy, they prompted the 1999 Intercollegiate Review to rank Kinsey's book as the "third worst book of the century."
@many named troll - While yes, it's morally dubious at best to allow a pedophile to roam free, how else do you suppose to get truthful answers to awful subjects? Pedophiles in jail or charged have every reason to lie.

It's horrible, but how else do we understand first, so that pedophilia can be treated and/or eliminated? It's no (or VERY little) comfort to any children abused by the pedophiles, but it's an awful choice that would, in time, lead to many fewer children being abused. What's best? Stop 1 (or three or four...) pedophiles now, or potentially hundreds/thousands more later?
As shameful as the scientific fraud is, it pales in comparison to Kinsey's blatantly immoral and criminal behavior with respect to children. Kinsey conducted research that supposedly demonstrated that young boys — as young as two months of age — could experience multiple orgasms. He claimed that the maximum number observed in a twenty-four hour period was 26 climaxes . . . in a thirteen-year-old and a four-year-old. Now, to again quote the Intercollegiate Review, "So mesmerized were Americans by the authority of science, with a capital S, that it took forty years for anyone to wonder how data is collected on the sexual responses of children as young as five."

You don't have to wonder for long, however. Dr. Judith Reisman, who has been a longtime Kinsey critic, received the answer from an actual member of the Kinsey team. This accessory, named Paul Gebhard, stated that Kinsey's men used "manual and oral techniques" to produce the desired effect.
Kinsey relied on consultants — in the form of pedophiles — to gather added information on the sexual responses of children. One of these men was a notorious child-molester named Rex King, who was responsible for the rape of over eight-hundred children. This predator related to Kinsey numerous stories about his child rape in graphic detail, information that Kinsey considered to be merely "scientific research."
Another one of these men was Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, a Nazi pedophile who contributed to Kinsey's research between 1936 and 1956. While on trial in a case that involved the murder of ten-year-old Loiselotte Has, it was revealed that Von Balluseck was regularly sending Kinsey details of his experiences with children. The court even discovered letters that Kinsey mailed to the Nazi encouraging him to continue his "research." In fact, so enthusiastic was Kinsey's correspondence with the child molester and so egregious his indifference to the plight of the man's victims, that the presiding judge, Dr. Henrich Berger, frequently expressed outrage at Kinsey for not reporting Von Balluseck to the authorities.
@too-many-posts-troll on abuse: Without defending Kinsey, I'll point out that mores and attitudes change throughout time. This includes what constitutes abuse. It rarely does anyone good to look at history though today's lenses only.
I think I missed the part where someone endorsed Kinsey.
welcome to IU! can't wait for the talk tonight :-)
ps: there's good beer and food at uplands, if you're looking for a place to go. Runcible spoon is good for breakfast.
So... someone hates Kinsey, and, unless those quotes where lifted from the NYT, em dashes.
Knock 'em dead, Dan!
Good luck, Dan.

"I'm going to have to stick to the facts and stick to what I know to be true and can prove. So it should be a very short talk."

Truer words.... maybe sharing the stage with actual researchers isn't such a bad thing, lol.
@20 --- There's an institue named after him so he sounds pretty endorsed from that angle...
Wouldn't the plural of vulva be vulvae?

I appreciate what you are saying.
I find it arrogant when people judge the founding fathers and Lincoln based on current attitudes.
And I realize you are not defending him;

Kinsey was not that long ago-

The victims of Kinsey's child rapists are still mostly living.
I suspect child rape was illegal and frowned upon even in the 40's and 50's.
Kinsey took pains to hide the connection to the rapists so he was aware that he was violating the standards of the time.

I don't think it is ancient enough history to forget or sweep under the rug.
Dan should be less star-struck and insist that the name of the Institute be changed or none of the "world's best sex researchers" can come hear his little schtick.
Neighbor Chris @ 27,

Both are correct plural forms.
Those puppets are inaccurate. Where are the teeth?
wow somebody was waiting a long time to dump that on us huh?

You might want to know that academic research on sex offenders is a thriving field worldwide, independent of other areas of sexual research.

Sorry to spoil your chicken and egg story when you clearly waited a long time for just the right moment to hatch it.

not at all.
a troll must be adaptable and quick.
opportunity knocks.
google answers.

(You might want to know that Child Rape is not and never has been academic research. Sorry to spoil your chicken shit story)
@32 yeah the copy-n-paste troll pops up now and again.

& we be like: "ok we get it, you have some perceived slight & plenty of "righteous" indignation but not much else, so stfu already, no internetz for you today, just go take your meds. It's a gonna be ok little man"
which blew me away because I couldn't believe that the Kinsey Institute would demean itself by working with the likes of me.

I simply do not understand why you talk about yourself this way.
how do you feel about Child Rape?
@35 - Dan Savage just doesn't take himself seriously. its something everyone should be able to do is laugh at themselves.
I for one, am glad that Dan chose not call them moose knuckles, meat flaps, camel toes or kitty kurtains.
Absolutely LOVED hearing you speak at IU tonight! Thanks for coming & educating us Hoosiers : )
Absolutely LOVED hearing you speak at IU tonight! Thanks for coming & educating us Hoosiers : )
Hey Dan, perhaps you could do the same kind of Q&A you do with the college kids!
Sheesh. There's only one way to deal with trolls. Ignore them. They live by the parasitic attachment of other people's energy in rebutting them. Ignore one and *poof*, up they go in an implosive puff of smoke.

Or, at the very least, they'd wander off somewhere else in search of happier hunting grounds.
#37. I definitely think you're right. But he takes his work seriously, and he's damn good at it, and that's why Kinsey wants to work with him. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they want him. And it shouldn't surprise him.
@37 You can be such a sycophant. Dan has said over and over he gives ADVICE and that's it.

A scientist he most assuredly ain't. His reasoning is based on opinion, and he pulls out science only when it fits his opinion. And his internal consistency is all over the place (IOW, there isn't any).

I read him constatly because he's funny and sex-positive, but he's a one trick pony.
come on-
have some koolaid....
perhaps if you put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly and squeeze you eyes really shut tight it will help.
Alfred Kinsey pretty much invented the field of scientific sex research right here at IU

Hey! What about some love for Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis?
Now I know that all I have to do to piss you off is send you pictures vulvas.
haha, #48, yeah, he pretty much played his hand there, didn't he?
Pardon my Godwinian faux pas, Allegedly, but we still use, today, research conducted by the Bayer corporation on living Jews used as pinkies (and often dying as same) during the Third Reich. It's not to say we should use this data (or shouldn't), but we have the data and do. Despite the Frankensteinian traditions of media, very few attrocities are committed for science! as opposed to for morality, for avarice or for greed.

In the meantime think about the human pinkies, next time you pop an aspirin.

Dan, did they have penis puppets to desensitize folks to penes?
I'm so jealous. I would love to tour that place.
I'm confused.
Are you defending the Kinsey Institute by comparing it to Nazis?