Comments on: Upcoming repulsions

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 04 May 2005 11:37:43 +0000

Ther have been plenty of surveys, each widely-trumpeted. I doubt that there are many surprises left to us.

By: tom p

tom p — Wed, 04 May 2005 08:55:07 +0000

What one woulod actually need is research carried out by a team of people, then sexual bias could be discounted (unless they were found to be having orgies en masse, of course).
And anyway, doc, who’s to say what’s normal until large-scale proper academic research (of the sort Kinsey conducted, but better) is conducted.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 03 May 2005 15:53:10 +0000

Not necessarily. But all things being equal it would be preferable. Psychological factors do play a role in research, and one’s own inner life will seem more normal to oneself than it will to others.

By: Bartholomew

Bartholomew — Tue, 03 May 2005 12:16:42 +0000

So we need a person with a “normal” sexuality to find out what “normal” sexuality is, then we’ll know that the research is OK because the researcher can be classed as normal. Hmmm….

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:43:23 +0000

I suppose the point is that some personal sexualities are more normal/typical than others.

By: Bartholomew

Bartholomew — Mon, 02 May 2005 04:54:28 +0000

Whoops:
“These are the know-nothings leading the campaign against the film.”

By: Bartholomew

Bartholomew — Mon, 02 May 2005 04:53:45 +0000

Well, unless the researcher is completely asexual I don't see how the accusation of "bias" based on personal sexuality can be avoided. By the way, Judith Reisman is quoted in the New Yorker as having said "One doesnâ€t measure American sexual habits...Thatâ€s not a science". Meanwhile, Peter Spriggs of the Family Research Council was quoted in the Guardian as saying: "We know the formula for sexual health, which is sex within a monogamous, lifelong relationship...Studying permutations of it is an effort like Kinsey's to change the sexual mores of society, so that what most people consider deviant behaviours look more normal." These are know-nothings leading the campaign against the film.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sun, 01 May 2005 14:41:44 +0000

No-one in their right mind wants research to be discontinued. The more research the better.

The points I had in mind were his allegedly skewed sample (too many prisoners); his 10% figure for homosexuals; and I do think his sexual amorality may have a bearing on the case. How would one argue that it was irrelevant?

By: Bartholomew

Bartholomew — Sun, 01 May 2005 02:46:02 +0000

You can follow the link to my blog.

But, briefly, there are complaints against Kinsey that can be justified: his sample was limited; as a zoologist rather than an sociologist his handling of the data about human sexuality was far too crude; that when he interviewed a pedophile he should have gone to the police (although this argument is seldom heard in relation to RC confessionals).

On the other hand, the anti-Kinsey hysteria makes a different set of charges, most of which are ad hominem or based on the alleged “consequencies” of his research. It is alleged that not only did he interview a pedophile, but that he paid for the pedophile to abuse further (there is no evidence for this); that he had a weird sex life of his own (so what?); and that his research led to the sexual revolution and an increase in homosexuality (I’m doubtful, but again, so what?).

But the most telling point is that none of the religiously-motivated Kinsey-critics want better or more up-to-date research. Instead, they want all such research to be forbidden, and that’s behind the campaign against the movie

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:18:43 +0000

Hi Bartholomew-
Would it be possible to list (briefly, with evidence if at all possible) which of the ‘slurs’ against Kinsey you believe to be justified and which unjustified? Thanks.