Political Crossfire Forums

[Jezebel]

I had crushes on guys through most of my school years but I had a couple of crushes on girls in high school including my best friend. I've never had a relationship beyond friendship with another woman and I probably never will but the attraction is there, just not strong enough to overwhelm my heterosexual tendencies. If the right woman came along and I was single. I'd consider it. I'm probably slightly the heterosexual side but almost in the middle. I'd be romantically involved with a person of either sex if they have a personality I am attracted to.

[Melchior]

John Galt wrote: Mechoir, this iswhere the 10% myth came from I wastalking about in another thread, this Kinsey fellow, who used pedophiles in his research (317 children were abused to be exact). Here we go...

"Table 34. Examples of multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males. Some instances of higher frequencies" (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948).



Wow, isn't that interesting? HOW'D YOU FIND THAT OUT YOU SICK BASTARD? Apparently there is a video on it: Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, The Children of Table 34.

Anyway, like I said, he alsocame upwith the 10% myth. Or, more accuratly, his research has been construed to come up with that myth.I will debunk it here for you, using an amicus curie filed in support of the plantiffs in Lawrence v. Texas (by 31 homosexual activist groups, including the Human Rights Campaign; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; and the People for the American Way Foundation):

"The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian."

Of course, its "4 million" men and "2 million women" only if you include the 60 million children in the country when you multiply the number by 2.8% and 1.4%, respectivley. So in reality its a small number.

Of course, if we are to belive Kinsey, children are homosexual too. Maybe even 5 month old infants, like he experimented upon. OK OK, he didn't do experiments on them. But he gathered data from pedophiles who used stopwatches.

Anyway, back to the scale. Kinsey again used questionable data. He interviewed people in prision.

Ever watch Oz? Yeah we know what happens in prision. Lemme guess, around37% of the males had homosexual experiences! That's what Kinsey found. But a random sample of the general populous (not people in prision) in 1994 by the U of Chicago found that 2.8% of males have had homosexual experiences... hmmmm...

Point is this Kinsey fellow has very questionable data and his conclusions should be heavily scrutinized if not immeditely thrown out. This means the scale and the 10% number.

Here's the brief... you need something like LexisNexis to read it though me thinks, I can't find it on free internet sites... its on page 16, footnote 42.....

Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Pride At Work AFL-CIO, People For the American Way Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Society of American Law Teachers, Soulforce, Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston, Equality Alabama, Equality Florida, S.A.V.E., Community Center of Idaho, Your Family, Friends and Neighbors, Kansas Unity and Pride Alliance, Louisiana Electorate of Gays and Lesbians, Equality Mississippi, Promo, North Carolina Gay and Lesbian Attorneys, Cimarron Foundation of Pride Movement, Alliance for Full Acceptance, Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah, and Equality Virginia. Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003)

Whoa.... John Galt, what a thread killer. :shock:

I didn't know about this, and I honestly don't understand why someone would make a recent movie about Kinsey if this was true.

But I still like the idea of sexual orientation being a spectrum, what do you think about that? Regardless of the source...

(How about a separate thread for Kinsey?)

[DarthDuncan]

John Galt wrote: DarthDuncan wrote: That's interesting. The scale makes sense to me. Kinda like Gay Fantasy #3, if you've read Am I Blue, by Bruce Coville. The fantasy is that everyone who is gay turns blue so that they don't have to hide. And what's interesting is that there are different shades saying that there are alot of people who are unsure or have minor feelings towards the same sex. I realize that's a tad off topic but it supports the scale.

A gay fantasy book supports the scale? That's exactly like saying "This is true because he said so." It's pointless and detracts from the discussion. What would be interesting if maybe a scientific study that did not invovle pedophiles or prisioners was used to come up with the scale, what would that result in? Well something quite different. Maybe the scale still exists but it does not exist to look like each section is equal. "Heterosexuals" make up 95% of the population and the scale is dividedin the remaining 5%. That's according to the studies I've sourced already here above, which were used to argue alongside the plantiffs in Lawrence v.Texas. PLANTIFFS.

If you had payed attention it just supports the different degrees of the scale. I even said that it was a little off topic. You don't have to be an ass about it. Also it's not a book on gay fantasies. It's about a boy who is beaten up by a bully because they think he is gay, then he makes a friend who is gay that teaches him a lot and on of the things he teaches him is gay fantasy #3. Somehow the fantasy becomes reality and shows the different shades. Anyway, if you actually read it correctly you would have realized that it was a valid comment. So before bashing someone you may want to actually be right. And how do you know that pedophiles were used in the scale? Or prisoners for that matter? Also the homosexual population is alot larger than you think. Definately larger than 5%.

[PrinceJunius]

Quote: But children are not openly gay or identifiy themselves as lesbians.

Just because you can't identify yourself as gay or straight as a child doesn't mean you aren't. Children lack the sex drive to give a crap, so it practically impossible for them to identify themselves as any sexual orientation.

I used to babysit a little 4-year old girl who didn't know she was a girl. I would ask her: Are you a boy or a girl? And she'd scratch her head and randomly guess (she said she was a boy). But just because she didn't know what she was, doesn't mean she wasn't clearly a girl. I asked my mom about it, and it's because kids just don't develop a feeling of gender until they're at least 5 years old. Similarly, maybe kids don't develop a feeling of sexual identity until they're around 11 or 12.

Just throwing it out there. And just to make one last comment on Kinsey, I think he was important in that he asked a lot of important questions and revolutionized scientific thinking in the field of sexuality. His methods were just very flawed. The same thing applies to Freud. Important man, flawed research.

[F'losrix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Kinsey's scale refer to sexual behavior? Sexual behavior is not the same thing as sexual orientation. There are gay men who get married to women and fool around with men on the side. Does that make them bisexual? Only in their behavior, not necessarily in their orientation. Granted, a person would have to be at least a weensy bit bisexual to engage in such dual behavior, but it's most likely not true 50/50 bisexuality. It might be more like 70/30 with the behavior flip-flopped in comparison to the actual orientation.

The Kinsey research raises more questions than it answers, and given the skewed sample I think it's been given way too much credence and extrapolated in ways that it never should be.

[John Galt]

DarthDuncan wrote: John Galt wrote: DarthDuncan wrote: That's interesting. The scale makes sense to me. Kinda like Gay Fantasy #3, if you've read Am I Blue, by Bruce Coville. The fantasy is that everyone who is gay turns blue so that they don't have to hide. And what's interesting is that there are different shades saying that there are alot of people who are unsure or have minor feelings towards the same sex. I realize that's a tad off topic but it supports the scale.

A gay fantasy book supports the scale? That's exactly like saying "This is true because he said so." It's pointless and detracts from the discussion. What would be interesting if maybe a scientific study that did not invovle pedophiles or prisioners was used to come up with the scale, what would that result in? Well something quite different. Maybe the scale still exists but it does not exist to look like each section is equal. "Heterosexuals" make up 95% of the population and the scale is dividedin the remaining 5%. That's according to the studies I've sourced already here above, which were used to argue alongside the plantiffs in Lawrence v.Texas. PLANTIFFS.

If you had payed attention it just supports the different degrees of the scale. I even said that it was a little off topic. You don't have to be an ass about it. Also it's not a book on gay fantasies. It's about a boy who is beaten up by a bully because they think he is gay, then he makes a friend who is gay that teaches him a lot and on of the things he teaches him is gay fantasy #3. Somehow the fantasy becomes reality and shows the different shades. Anyway, if you actually read it correctly you would have realized that it was a valid comment. So before bashing someone you may want to actually be right. And how do you know that pedophiles were used in the scale? Or prisoners for that matter? Also the homosexual population is alot larger than you think. Definately larger than 5%.

Because if you read the actual research you will see thatpedophiles who molested 317 children (that was documented) and prisoners were used for his research. While the material is at BEST questionable it isstill betterto source that then gay fantasy #3.

Lot larger than I think? I suppose we'll just have to go on "gut feelings" tofind out what you want to hear. You can't rely onactual documented scientific data that is peer reviewed for your stance. I of course can which is whyI end up sounding like an ass. But I knowI am right as I have facts on my side. You have gay fantasy number 3.

[John Galt]

PrinceJunius wrote: Quote: But children are not openly gay or identifiy themselves as lesbians.

Just because you can't identify yourself as gay or straight as a child doesn't mean you aren't. Children lack the sex drive to give a crap, so it practically impossible for them to identify themselves as any sexual orientation.


EXACTLY.

[SavannahMan]

PrinceJunius wrote: [
Not that I'm crazy about this whole study or anything, but what makes you so certain that the kids had to have been molested in order to get this data? If the parents consented so that their kids could be used as research subjects for studies into child sexuality or whatever, it seems reasonable.

Wow - is that the official NAMBLA position?

I guess we can throw out all those pesky incest laws since obviously at least one parent "consented"

Kinsey has already been thoroughly discredited - his "research" was bunk and only promoted and used by the homosexual activists to perpetuate myths like "10% of the population is gay".

Kinsey was a hack and worse a pedophile and child abuser - no wonder Hollywood admires him.

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: [
Not that I'm crazy about this whole study or anything, but what makes you so certain that the kids had to have been molested in order to get this data? If the parents consented so that their kids could be used as research subjects for studies into child sexuality or whatever, it seems reasonable.

Wow - is that the official NAMBLA position?

I guess we can throw out all those pesky incest laws since obviously at least one parent "consented"

Kinsey has already been thoroughly discredited - his "research" was bunk and only promoted and used by the homosexual activists to perpetuate myths like "10% of the population is gay".

Kinsey was a hack and worse a pedophile and child abuser - no wonder Hollywood admires him.

I think he was referring to the parents' consent for the children to be in the study, not to be molested in the first place.

[00timh]

From what I've read about Kinsey my personal opinion is that this guy was a would be child molester and probably had homosexual tendencies. He used supposedly scientific studies for his perversion for children, and probably found ways to bolster the numbers of homosexual people to make himself feel more comfortable. He was a sick man and should be thouroughly discredited. He mentally and physically injured a lot of children with his "scientific research"

[PrinceJunius]

00timh wrote: From what I've read about Kinsey my personal opinion is that this guy was a would be child molester and probably had homosexual tendencies. He used supposedly scientific studies for his perversion for children, and probably found ways to bolster the numbers of homosexual people to make himself feel more comfortable. He was a sick man and should be thouroughly discredited. He mentally and physically injured a lot of children with his "scientific research"

Just because his methods were unorthodox and very perverse, doesn't mean we should discredit his results based on that alone. What he did is done, and the best we can do is use his results for some good at least.

I happen to agree with some of his findings.

[SavannahMan]

PrinceJunius wrote: 00timh wrote: From what I've read about Kinsey my personal opinion is that this guy was a would be child molester and probably had homosexual tendencies. He used supposedly scientific studies for his perversion for children, and probably found ways to bolster the numbers of homosexual people to make himself feel more comfortable. He was a sick man and should be thouroughly discredited. He mentally and physically injured a lot of children with his "scientific research"

Just because his methods were unorthodox and very perverse, doesn't mean we should discredit his results based on that alone. What he did is done, and the best we can do is use his results for some good at least.

I happen to agree with some of his findings.

There are plenty of other scientific reasons to discredit and dismiss his findings...

www.crisismagazine.com/may2004/kinsey.htm

[John Galt]

PrinceJunius wrote: 00timh wrote: From what I've read about Kinsey my personal opinion is that this guy was a would be child molester and probably had homosexual tendencies. He used supposedly scientific studies for his perversion for children, and probably found ways to bolster the numbers of homosexual people to make himself feel more comfortable. He was a sick man and should be thouroughly discredited. He mentally and physically injured a lot of children with his "scientific research"

Just because his methods were unorthodox and very perverse, doesn't mean we should discredit his results based on that alone. What he did is done, and the best we can do is use his results for some good at least.

I happen to agree with some of his findings.

Using prisoners to find out what the supposed scale is for the general populous isn't legitament science.

[00timh]

PrinceJunius wrote: 00timh wrote: From what I've read about Kinsey my personal opinion is that this guy was a would be child molester and probably had homosexual tendencies. He used supposedly scientific studies for his perversion for children, and probably found ways to bolster the numbers of homosexual people to make himself feel more comfortable. He was a sick man and should be thouroughly discredited. He mentally and physically injured a lot of children with his "scientific research"

Just because his methods were unorthodox and very perverse, doesn't mean we should discredit his results based on that alone. What he did is done, and the best we can do is use his results for some good at least.

I happen to agree with some of his findings. When you put people into situations they would not ever choose to be in, situations which are confusing and are traumatic, peoples's behavior (in this case, children) are not going to be an accurate reflection. His homosexual studies don't bother me and I only think that he may have come up with a higher number because of using prisoners. My problems are exposing children to sexual situations before they are mentally able to understand or comprehend them. Yes, his studies should be totally discredited and while there are enough people who realise that this was a perverse man using the guise of science to satisfy his sexual perversions, more people should be aware of him and his studies so that we hopefully will prevent someone from attempting this again.

[PrinceJunius]

John Galt wrote:

Using prisoners to find out what the supposed scale is for the general populous isn't legitament science.

It isn't legitimate science for the general population, but it is legitimate science for prisoners. That's all I'm saying. Use his findings, but correct them and put them in better context.

[SweetJeebusChrist]

I wonder where I am on that scale...

[John Galt]

PrinceJunius wrote: John Galt wrote:

Using prisoners to find out what the supposed scale is for the general populous isn't legitament science.

It isn't legitimate science for the general population, but it is legitimate science for prisoners. That's all I'm saying. Use his findings, but correct them and put them in better context.

OK,so something like 38% of prisoners have had homosexual contact.

What does thissay about prisons is whatthe scale truley asks, not what doesthis say about society. Of course, oe could ask "are homosexuals more likey tocommit a crime?" but I donot think thatit's homosexuals injail, just a bunchof criminals who are still horny and will rape other men if they can't find a woman. In other words they are heterosexuals practicing homosexuality (they are "homosexuals" by choice.. well, at least part of them are. But the others aren't by and large "homosexuals" by genetic disposition, but because they are powerless to stop rape).

[MasterChefD]

Has anyone seem the movie Kinsey with Liam Neeson? I thought it was pretty interesting. His views on sex and love are certainly not orthodox.