Stunner! Alfred Kinsey paid my father to rape me: Subject of 'research' goes public with horrific

reply to post by getreadyalready


I total agree with you. As I read the story--my stomach turned. Just trying to imagine them coming up with the plan and then including other loved ones. Then to be so methotical and scinetific about it all. Like no emotions or considerations for your child-flesh and blood.

No worry, says Kinsey (allegedly), all in the name of Science.

Sad.

"Science" capital S isn't a God.

Nothing is done in the Name of Science.

Science means knowlege - literally. Currently this knowledge accumulated with the practice of sciencific methodology means that this knowledge is gathered in a way which is methodical, logical, and testable.

Kinsey's data fails to meet some of these criteria.

Is the information originally being looked for useful? Yes. It would have been.

I contend that some of his data was good. And much of it failed to met good protocol and strict scientific criteria.

Bad data is worse than no data.

Yes, Kinsey’s research into child sexual response fails to meet scientific criteria. In the absence of any information to the contrary, it will have to suffice. Suffice for what, you may ask. Good question! It’s difficult to conceive of a situation in which this information has any legitimate value. Obviously, it is valuable to pedophiles, but that is not legitimate in today’s society. Perhaps it is valuable to a pediatrician charged with treating a victim of child sex abuse, or perhaps a child exhibiting precocious sexual behavior. Such a physician might desire more reliable information to help his patient, but we do not permit the gathering of such information. He’ll just have to settle for what we do have, and that is the tiny bit collected by Kinsey. Had Kinsey done his research two decades earlier in Nazi Germany, he would have been free to experiment to his heart’s content on unlimited numbers of Jewish children, as well as the children of Poles, Communists, mentally unfit persons, etc. We might now be debating the ethics of publishing and using his results, but their scientific validity would not be in doubt.

Supposing that Ms. White’s memory is accurate, I cannot conclude that Kinsey paid her father to rape her. No father is going to be persuaded by money to rape his own daughter. A more likely scenario is that her father was already raping her and confided that fact to Kinsey. Perhaps Kinsey then agreed to pay for movies to eliminate the subjectivity of the father’s reports. Perhaps he even provided the camera.

If those truths could be verified in a courtroom today, Kinsey would likely be convicted of complicity in child rape. Our courts do not recognize a “scientific immunity”; even journalistic immunity has been eroded nearly into nonexistence. Journalists have been imprisoned for failing to reveal a source; the same would apply to Kinsey. The threat of imprisoning the researcher might result in imprisoning one child molester, while all other child molesters continue to do their own “research” in complete secrecy. The scientific and medical community would then be deprived of what little data it has, just so that one criminal might be locked up.

I saw the movie, Kinsey, starring Liam Neeson. One scene depicts an interview with one of those child molesters. This one presumably-fictitious man, played by William Sadler, kept a diary of his own exploits that filled several library shelves. He boasted of raping many children and infants. If such a person existed and was turned in to authorities, the cost in lost research might be justified. Locking up one such person would make a significant dent in crime; but if there is one, there must be others equally bad, who would no longer talk to researchers.

They can and do get that sort of data from convicts.

Basing your assumptions on bad data as a foundation isn't helpful. 2+2 does not equal 95, and if you built the rest of your assumptions from this base fact everything you've done is a pile of trash.

Data from extermination camps would not be more useful - assuming that you got correct "behavioural" data from a concentration camp scenario is ridiculous. Anatomical data - that doesn't change so sure you could use it. But BEHAVIOURAL data? Are you serious? Any such data would only be applicable to evaluate how good of an actor a child is in a personal or complete-gene-family survival situation.

Practical finds a way without needing to pretend practical allows for a lack of ethics. Being too lazy to do it right on one level which is so important doesn't bode well for the rigorousness of the rest of the methodology and its outcomes.

reply to post by Aeons


Your concentration camp analogy is the problem with the research as whole.

1. If we are to classify sexual acts with children as "rape" or "molestation" and diagnose a number of mental illnesses associated with them, then any "research" would be under coerced situations by the children and predatory behavior by the adult. Therefore, ANY sexual act with a child would be similar to your concentration camp analogy, the data would be useless, because the child would ALWAYS be in survival mode in the presence of a predator.

2. It is also useless, because most sexual responses, especially orgasms, require some mental participation. Certain physical responses could be entirely mechanical, but they would not result in an orgasm. Electrical stimulation could result in "involuntary" muscle spasms resembling the orgasm, but they would still not be sufficient as data into sexual responses, because they are involuntary!

The only useful thing that I can think of would be in counseling victims and determining physical characteristics of different forms of abuse in different age groups. This data is already amply available from ER docs. medical records, and existing cases. No need to harm more children to obtain that data.