Kinsey & sexual liberation

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 01:05.

The politics of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was discussed widely not so long ago, when the Hollywood film about Kinsey was released.

I think Kinsey is worth having another shot at, though, in the light of a university thesis I recently happened across online.

The thesis, by Brandy Renee McCann, starts out as a criticism of the book The Body Project, by Joan Brumberg. From what I can gather, the book asserts that girls were better off when they had a “protective umbrella” of guidance from older women, to get them through their early teenage years until they were emotionally and psychologically mature enough to deal with issues of sexuality.

Brandy doesn’t like Brumberg advocating such a “protective umbrella.” Brandy, you see, believes in a permissive philosophy of sexual liberation, in which individuals are “liberated from any ideologies about sex that inhibit pleasure.”

Which is merely to say that Brandy is a radical liberal, who takes seriously the liberal dictum that we should not be impeded in our individual will in choosing who we are and what we do. Obviously, a sexual morality does put limits or restraints on individual behaviour, so a radical liberal will view such moral codes negatively as external, artificial, socially imposed controls from which the individual will should be emancipated.

Brandy, though, realises that most people are not as radical as she is. So she believes that it’s necessary for people like herself to develop a strategy for sexual liberation which “makes sense to even the most conservative members of American society.”

“No matter our particular sexual ideology, we have to start out where people are. Especially for those of us who practise and believe in a permissive sexual ideology, we need to remember that ultimately our goal is one of persuasion. Therefore, we must cloak our liberation in a rhetoric that makes sense to conservative teens and parents, as well as people who think like us.”

Which then raises the question of how a radical liberal might sell sexual permissiveness to a conservative public. Brandy believes she knows the man with the answers: none other than Alfred Kinsey. It is Brandy’s opinion that,

“We cannot hope to make real social progress by operating in the margins of the social or by belittling the concerns of those who do not think like us; instead, as Kinsey’s life and work shows, resisting a constricting moralism means meeting its proponents on their own terms; it means developing a strategy for sexual liberation.”

Why Kinsey? The argument is that Kinsey was publishing his major works at a time (late 1940s and early 50s) when the American public was concerned with the stability of the family. Kinsey’s strategy was to argue that sexual repression was destroying marriages and that increased sexual permissiveness would therefore be a boon for family life.

Furthermore, Kinsey insisted that his researchers be married and that they present an image of respectability to the general public.

At one level, therefore, Brandy is right: Kinsey did try to market his message strategically to the wider public. But it was not a very clever deception. When Brandy goes on to look at Kinsey’s arguments in more detail, you quickly discover just how alienating Kinsey’s views must have been to a conservative of the 1950s.

For instance, when discussing Kinsey’s work Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female (1953), Brandy tells us that “If good sex made for strong marriages, then Kinsey needed to argue that sexual liberation, sex outside marriage, strengthened the marriage bonds.” Kinsey did, in fact, claim of wives who had had affairs that, “sometimes sexual adjustments with the spouse had improved as a result of the female’s extra-marital experience.”

So we start out with a justification for adultery. But it gets much, much worse. We are informed that “Kinsey believed that nothing causes greater harm to a female’s “marital adjustment” than a sexually restricted childhood and adolescence.” Brandy adds at this point that

“While admittedly, for many people, Kinsey’s claims about adult/child sexual contacts are controversial and/or offensive ... his ultimate purpose is to show that any incurred psychological problem is more the fault of the girl’s culture rather than the activity…”

“Kinsey is really arguing for the sexual child; he suggests that perhaps some people are horrified about sexual contacts between adults and children because they are invested in a picture of childhood in which sexuality has no part ... Unlike his contemporaries, Kinsey’s main argument ... is that many pre-adolescent females do, in fact, have a sex life.”

Kinsey, to put it bluntly, is justifying pedophilia. But there’s more. Kinsey writes further on in his book that,

“The classification of sexual behaviour as masturbatory, heterosexual or homosexual is [...] unfortunate if it suggests that three different types of responses are involved, or suggests that only different types of persons seek out or accept each kind of sexual activity.”

Brandy’s own take on this comment is that,

“Kinsey not only wants the public to de-pathologize homosexuality, but also wants to question the supremacy of a heterosexual identity ...

“Kinsey turns psychoanalysis on itself by suggesting that those who advocate any particular stable sexual identity are no doubt suffering from a pathology.”

There is not only a justification of homosexuality here by Kinsey (himself bisexual), there is a refusal to even accept the category of “heterosexual” as an acceptable identity.

If this weren’t enough, there’s still more. Kinsey in 1953 was discussing “sexual experiences with animals”. We are provided with the following Kinsey quote:

“In discussing this matter in our volume on the male ... we pointed out that there is no sufficient explanation, either in biologic or psychologic science, for the confinement of sexual activity to contacts between females and males of the same species.”

Brandy then tells us that,

“Kinsey wonders why more people do not have sexual contacts with other species. As far as females goes he says that frequently girls are ‘kept away from breeding animals by their parents’ ... Kinsey uses the low incidence of female human contacts with animals as an excuse to attack the institutions that keep sexual knowledge away from young women.”

So we have a book in which Kinsey justifies adultery, pedophilia, sex with animals and the abolition of a heterosexual identity.

Given the explicit and radical nature of his work, I don’t find Brandy’s thesis credible. It is difficult to believe that Kinsey succeeded because he argued for sexual liberation strategically to conservatives. It’s unlikely that a conservative public would have accepted arguments for bestiality or pedophilia just because it was claimed that they would benefit family life.

So why did Kinsey succeed? Why was he accepted by Indiana University as a leading researcher? Why did Hollywood make a respectful film about him? Why are there American graduate students who look to him as a role model?

Personally, I think it has more to do with the fact that the American establishment was (even in the 1950s) and is liberal, rather than traditionalist conservative in its politics. Kinsey may have pursued the logic of liberal first principles to more radical ends than mainstream liberals, but he was working within the general framework accepted by the establishment.

In other words, if the accepted aim of politics is an individual freedom, understood to mean the liberation of individuals from unchosen, traditional forms of identity or external codes of behaviour, then Kinsey would appear to be a “progressive” working in the right direction, even if he was thought to be taking things too far.

My own view is that we will always have the Kinseys pushing us in a certain direction, with society in general lurching into more radically liberal forms of behaviour and then reeling (part of the way) back again, until there is a stronger non-liberal presence within the political class, to challenge the overall course of development.

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by jlh on Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:15 | #

Nice analysis, Mark. I found an interesting discussion of Kinsey in the Reese Commission report from 1954, in which one of the witnesses testifies as to the intents and purposes of Kinsey and where he got his funding. find it around page 200 or so in the first of the 1000 page sections. It’s a long download but worth looking at.


2

Posted by Amalek on Wed, 18 Jan 2006 02:49 | #

Kinsey was a pervert, bully and colossal charlatan. His exposure by Dr Judith Reisman is one of the heroic tales of lone endeavour against conventional (pseudo)-scientific wisdom—comparable with Derek Freeman’s skewering of Margaret Mead, another hot gospeller of licentiousness.


3

Posted by http://lifestudies.org/weblog/2005/11/kinsey_sexua on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:18 | #

I have uploaded the translation of the remaining part of Section 1, Chapter 2 of The Insensitive Man. In this part I illustrated how sexual science and sex therapy have ignored the idea of post-ejaculatory emptiness. I think the…



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Real cost of reproduction up a factor of 5 during the last 52 years
Previous entry: Nick Griffin and Mark Collett

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 04 Nov 2024 23:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 04:15. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:57. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:40. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:27. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:37. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:54. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:23. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:59. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 23:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:50. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:52. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 23:57. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:11. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:28. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:24. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:26. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:49. (View)

affection-tone