spectator.org
Kinsey Institute to Remain at Indiana University Despite Disgusting Past and Present
The Kinsey Institute celebrates Indiana University’s decision to retain ties despite a 2023 state law barring tax dollars subsidizing the controversial group. The decision to keep the sex-research outfit as part of the university seems to rely on accounting gimmicks that leave one to wonder whether the school flouts or follows the law.
Kinsey Institute Director Justin Garcia characterizes the law as based on “unfounded accusations‚” “debunked conspiracy theories‚” and “misinformation campaigns.”
Fraudulent research actually birthed the Kinsey Institute; its long-ago reliance on pedophiles to provide “data” on child sexuality threatens to kill it — or at least its state subsidies.
In 1948’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male‚ Kinsey and co-authors describe a 5-year-old brought to “climax” 26 times in 24 hours by someone characterized as a “trained observer.” Adults described as a “partner” or a “scientifically trained observer” — never a pedophile or a child molester — preyed on children as young as 5 months old. In pushing the idea of humans as sexual from birth‚ Kinsey’s Male volume cited “sobbing‚” “violent cries‚” and “an abundance of tears” as proof of orgasm in small‚ preverbal children.
The disturbed Indiana University professor interpreted from these signs of discomfort that the children “derived definite pleasure” from the experience. Strangely‚ or maybe not so strangely‚ the reactions tracked with how Kinsey “derived definite pleasure” from self-inflicted torture — and thereby one understands why Kinsey could never examine human sexuality through anything but a dark‚ distorted lens.
Garcia hints at this only to knock it down by lamenting in the Indianapolis Star the “lurid‚ unsubstantiated claims erroneously lobbed against the institute’s founder‚ zoologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey.” But even Kinsey’s sympathetic biographers‚ James H. Jones and Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy — as well as his employees at the institute — confirmed claims that went far beyond “lurid” to some word not yet coined.
Kinsey masturbated from childhood until the end with swizzle sticks‚ toothbrushes‚ and pencils inserted in his penis. Gathorne-Hardy acknowledges‚ based on eyewitnesses who worked for the institute‚ that Kinsey habitually punctured his penis until the point of “nothing left to pierce.” He reasons that this “helped him surmount his childhood trauma.”
Was his bathtub self-circumcision without the benefit of anesthesia also an adaptive means of therapy?
“Skillfully‚ he tied a strong‚ tight knot around his scrotum with one end of the rope dangling from the pipe overhead‚” biographer James H. Jones wrote of Kinsey in his last years. “The other end he wrapped around his hand. Then he climbed up on a chair and jumped off‚ suspending himself in midair.”
To each his own — until the individual sets out to make his own‚ in a sense‚ everybody’s.
The sexual impulses that controlled Kinsey also dictated the manner of his research and what he reported about human sexuality. Kinsey partook in sex with interview subjects‚ severely pressured Kinsey Institute staff and wives to join in swinger activities‚ and paid a friend $500 to pose as the institute’s statistician. He attributed horror over adult-child sex to cultural conditioning‚ placed rape in scare quotes as a means of dismissing most claims of it‚ and took a tolerant view of incest.
Pushing the idea that nearly all sex comes without negative consequence clashes with the reality of one who waged a lifetime’s war against his own genitals to the extent of developing orchitis and sporting a perforated penis. Certainly the violence he unleashed on his penis and testicles suggests a more conflicted‚ less sunny view of sexuality than he let on in his Male and Female volumes. One imagines Kinsey and America would have been better off if he dealt with his own issues by laying on a couch and telling another fellow with letters next to his name about his childhood. He instead took the path of changing the world rather than himself.
“Despite his claim of cool disinterest‚ Kinsey was nothing of the sort‚” Jones wrote. “He had definite ideas about how people should behave sexually‚ and these preferences were only too transparent in his writing. Anything but a bloodless treatise‚ the male volume was packed with special pleadings‚ thinly disguised opinions‚ and polemical stances‚ all designed to challenge conventional morality and to promote a new social ethic.”
To this end‚ he deliberately stacked his cohort with people leading sexually adventurous lives.
Rather than rely on proven sampling techniques‚ he padded Sexual Behavior in the Human Male not just with prison inmates but a certain incarcerated substratum. “At the Indiana State Farm we had no plan of sampling — we simply sought out sex offenders and‚ after a time‚ avoided the more common types of offense (e.g.‚ statutory rape) and directed our efforts toward the rarer types‚” admitted Paul Gebhard‚ Kinsey’s successor and the longest serving director of the institute bearing his name.
As with the Male volume‚ 1953’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Female omits African Americans and preposterously skews the sample group toward Easterners‚ the nonreligious‚ and young people. He sought out prostitutes to interview and reclassified them as “married” women as a means to smuggle them into his results.
It resulted in a picture of sexual behavior more resembling Kinsey than the norm. There is safety in numbers.
And there is safety in crying “academic freedom” in dodging very disturbing and very true‚ if also very old‚ charges of research fraud‚ profound ethical failings‚ and activism masquerading as scholarship. Post-George Floyd‚ even Planned Parenthood eventually stripped the name of its racist founder Margaret Sanger from an annual award. Post-#MeToo‚ Indiana University strangely retains its connection to one who downplayed rape to the extent of mocking it and regarded a child rapist who contributed so-called data to his first volume as a hero. If the institute now performs‚ as its director claims‚ “credible” work‚ then why continue to associate with such a thoroughly discredited charlatan?
Garcia never addresses any specific charge — a tactic employed by the institute for years in ducking the late Judith Reisman’s highlighting of pedophilia masked as scientific research in the initial Kinsey Report — in either his Indianapolis Star article or a university press release. Instead‚ the group’s director vaguely insists‚ “The Kinsey Institute is no stranger to misinformation.” Indeed‚ Alfred Kinsey established the institute now bearing his name for that very purpose. He sought to deceive people by holding a mirror to his private behavior and telling Americans that they saw their reflection.
It saddens if not surprises that the people so committed to honoring the Kinsey name remain devoted to his means. The university should not serve as a safe space for unchecked propaganda. In brushing under the rug legitimate concerns about‚ among other issues‚ Kinsey relying on molesters to determine if the children they preyed upon enjoyed their rapes‚ his modern-day IU acolytes become the anti-intellectual philistines that they inveigh against.
READ MORE:
Biden Takes It Back: ‘I Shouldn’t Have Used Illegal’
Haley’s Political Future Is Nonexistent
The post Kinsey Institute to Remain at Indiana University Despite Disgusting Past and Present appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
News Feed (Home)
Popular Posts 
Events 
Blog 
Market 
Forum 
Headline News
VidWatch
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
Bitchute
