|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:45 AM October 16th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Kinsey was a man of his time - and they were strange times. The data of the horrendous experiments carried out by the Germans and the Japanese during the Second World War were "joyfully" received by the excited scientific community as these were data that under normal circumstances would never have been collected. As scientific data these are invaluable and rejoicing in them does not in any way condone the practice of human vivisection etc, which, among many other things, these data referred to.
Similarly, Kinsey's eagerness to receive data from "pedophiles" is understandable, as is his concern that these data not be lost, since such data are invaluable scientific stuff and it does in no way suggest that he encouraged or condoned the practice. We research murderers, feminists, politicians, popstars and whatever without ever thereby condoning or encouraging their aberrant behaviours.
It is an unfortunate aspect of much "feminist" or "female" (or feminized)research etc generally that part of their approach involves an ideological reexamination and assessment of the past. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. Scholars do that all the time. Some of it - very little indeed - is valuable, a considerable amount of it is often quite amusing, most of it, however, is just plain silly. It's very PC, of course, very "hip" and "withit". However, to insist that all modern scholarship - or portrayal of the past as in movies,literature and the arts conform to their revisionist thinking is bizarre indeed and should just be ignored. Just say "no" and when they object, ask them which part of no they don't understand. That might rattle them a bit. There is nothing more amusing and enjoyable to watch than an angry and out of control feminist - from a safe distance, of course!
Wow!
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I didn't make clear in my original post is that i found this on Joe Farah's "WorldNet Daily" Web site. Farah, ever the uber-chivalrous nitwit, obviously supports this woman's efforts to shut down any legitimate study on male sexuality, because of course, female sexuality is the only sexuality that counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:23 PM October 16th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't doubt that Reisman views males as evil, and thus hold males as exclusively responsible for child abuse. Kinsey so-called celebration of sexuality appealed to bored intellectuals in the late 1940s, so they lapped it up even though most of his "research" was bogus. Similarly, Reisman treats males as evil because this is the "dominant paradigm" in academia these days.
There's no substitute for learning yourself. That serious, earnest woman with "professor" in front of her name may not know any more than the average adolescent desperating seeking attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:27 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, my name is paul. I just want you all to know that kinsey was perverted, not a hero. His "research" included criminal experimentation with children. This is also known as pedophilia. He also had no problem with bestiality either. There are other things worth mention, but this should suffice. Our sexuality is a gift from God to us to reflect His Love. It is not given to us to just randomly use for our pleasure. So do real research and find out the truth of these matters before you go attacking someone like Dr. Reisman. No doubt there are women who are sexual predators. There are many more men in this category, however. Kinsey is certainly to be counted among them. Again, he is no hero nor genius. He was a pervert. Is that what you want to look up to? If so, then I have serious doubts of your sanity and manhood. I can be reached for questions and/or comments at paulisrael13@yahoo.com. if you get a chance, check out www.generationlife.org. Thank you and God bless you.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
