Talk:Alfred Kinsey

Article Woefully Insufficient in Including Issues of Concern

The page as it stands underrepresents the problems that have been identified with the Kinsey 'research'. These issues need to be included, eg; 'The most disturbing and hotly debated part of Kinsey’s research is chapter 5 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male titled, “Early Sexual Growth and Activity.” Kinsey gathered data from people who can only rightly be called child molesters. Describing the source of some of his data on small children he said, “Better data on pre-adolescent climax come from the histories of adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys’ experiences.”[1] Kinsey then goes on to say that “9 of our adult male subjects have observed such [pre-adolescent] orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal; and from them we have secured information on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self masturbation, or who were observed in contacts with other boys or older adults.”[2] This disturbing description of child molestation is accompanied by a statistical chart that documents the observation of pre-adolescent experiences in orgasm for children between the ages of 2 months and 15 years old. Later on in the book, Kinsey discusses masturbation and says, “Of course, there are cases of infants under a year of age who have learned the advantage of specific manipulation, sometimes as a result of being so manipulated by older persons; and there are some boys who masturbate quite specifically and with some frequency from the age of two or three.”[3] Another chart in the male report titled “Speed of Adolescent Orgasm” records the length of time it took for children to reach climax and includes the notation, “Duration of stimulation before climax; observations timed with a second hand or stop watch. Ages range from five months of age to adolescence.”[4] Perhaps the most painful reading in the male report is the description of children who supposedly experienced orgasm, a description supplied from adults who had sex with children, describing the children “groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)” and also children who “will fight away from the partner.”[5] This final description sounds like a terrified child being molested. [1] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 176- 177.
[2] Ibid., 177.
[3] Ibid., 501.
[4] Ibid., 178.
[5] Ibid., 161.
[6] Further: https://www.thevoid.uk/void-post/secret-history-kinseys-paedophiles-yorkshire-television/ added per EFFP @ 07:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

37.228.200.153 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you making your own objections, or are you quoting sources? Who are you quoting when you write 'The most disturbing and hotly debated part of Kinsey’s research is chapter 5 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male...? The article states that

Kinsey said he also interviewed nine men who had sexual experiences with children and who told him about the children's responses and reactions. Little attention was paid to this part of Kinsey's research at the time, but where Kinsey had gained this information began to be questioned nearly 40 years later.[26] It was later revealed that Kinsey used data from a single pedophile and presented it as being from various sources. Kinsey had seen the need for participant confidentiality and anonymity as necessary to gain "honest answers on such taboo subjects".[27][28] Years later, the Kinsey Institute said that the data on children in tables 31–34 came from one man's journal (started in 1917) and that the events concerned predated the Kinsey Reports.

What are the published sources that express the concerns you raise and how should the article be changed to better represent those concerns? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, WP:ONEWAY applies, so paranoid rants about Kinsey being child abuser or fraud are banned from Wikipedia. That's it folks: paranoid conspiracy theories vs. mainstream science. Kinsey belongs to mainstream science. And nobody pretends that he was a saint, but no evidence has been ever produced that he was a pedophile. If he were, the FBI would have known about it, they were not amateurs and he was a target for surveillance.

From the horse's mouth: "The_Void delivers the information you won't find in the mainstream media."

I never said that Wikipedia should strive to represent the views of editors. Rather what I said is that since Wikipedia strives to represent views in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable secondary sources, editors who let their views bleedthrough into their editing are a bigger problem when their views are outside of the mainstream then when their views are within the mainstream. For example if an editor is a Nazi who believes whites are the superior race, when they try to force this view into our articles, this is a significant problem. By comparison, if an editor believes that there is no such thing as a superior race, it's far less of a problem when their editing to articles is biased by this particular view. It's not because there are few Nazis on Wikipedia, and most editors are not Nazis. It's because sources overwhelming reject Nazi idealogy. The fact that our editors also overwhelming do so is great, but was never part of my point. The rest of your commment supports this, so I'm not even sure why you're challenging me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Those who proclaim that the diagnoses from DSM-5-TR stand or fall by the morality of someone who died 66 years ago have some sort of mental retardation. He died 65 years before the book was sent to printing, and the team who wrote it were not somehow possessed by his spirit, they were not brainwashed people, under the mental servitude of a guru. People who drafted anti-Kinsey legislation 50 years after his death were simply put mentally insane. While Kinsey won in respect to mainstream science, their theories were rejected as paranoid claptrap. Even the conservative-dominated SCOTUS would rule such laws as unconstitutional. Even thoroughly conservative judges don't side with sheer lunacy, in its vain attempt to relitigate the scientific orthodoxy. ALEC declaring mainstream sexology a pseudoscience is pretty much like Stalin declaring genetics a pseudoscience. And like the Nazis acting against "Jewish Physics". tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about there. The issue referred to is the concerns that have been raised numerous times that Kinsey used horrific accounts of child abuse as 'evidence' of child-sexuality. The other issues you are discussing seem to involve arguments with an earlier editor. (For some reason my previous attempt to post this response was deleted without explanation....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.153 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And in response to the person with the quote from 'TheVoid'- the pertinent part of the link is to the Channel 4 documentary - a very large mainstream and reputable UK media organisation (& thus outside the US political partisan binaries that seem to muddle the positions taken by factions of editors here on the Kinsey wikipedia page). The website 'theVoid' itself is irrelevant. The link was added to enlighten those who might be under the misapprehension that criticism of Kinsey's methods and findings (especially the particular ones referred to above) are largely the preserve of the American 'right'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.153 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yup, there is criticism of Kinsey which does not originate in Judith Reisman's paranoid rants. But to this day I have seen very little of it around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The two reports were morally objectionable from their beginning to their end, according to the official US morality of that time, and according to the laws of the land and time. And Kinsey's purpose was to scientifically research morally objectionable behavior that took place in reality. Reisman noticed that some of the stuff that was highly objectionable in Kinsey's time was no longer objectionable in the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s (e.g. premarital sex, oral sex, anal sex, etc.). So, she decided to pick pieces which are still regarded as objectionable, and construct a paranoid delirium about world domination conspiracies around those pieces. So, there is no denying that he researched objectionable behavior, simply because scientists have to know the truth about the reality. That's also a ground rule of modern liberal democracies: scientists investigate the truth. Reisman completely forgot that this a ground rule of our societies, she thought she can dodge this rule through moralistic preaching. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw the documentary:

Reisman and the victim do not have evidence, since they have no access to the archives;

The Kinsey Institute cannot positively say she wasn't a victim, since the evidence is a disordered mess. That is, they can make no positive statements of such letter existing or not existing inside the archive, because it is practically impossible to locate it, if it would exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

You watched the documentary and bring up Reisman (again...). But that isn't the issue. The contents of Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male showing how Kinsey describes child abuse as evidence of the 'sexual behaviour' of the children subjected to it. Some are five year-olds. Some are screaming (he himself describes them as screaming while being abused, but interprets screams of little two yr-olds getting r*ped as evidence of enjoyment).

All this is given above in the citations from the book

For some weird and suspect reason you're evading these points... ~2026-34634-99 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

(shd be 'The contents of Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male showing how Kinsey describes [....etc] are.' i.e - the contents of the book are the issue.) ~2026-34634-99 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

So? WP:CITE WP:SECONDARY, like any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a reply to you. I don't want to personalise this, but your contributions on this talk page are erratic, rant-like, at times you appear to be arguing with yourself from two different standpoints, while at other times exhibiting a monomania about Reisman, and introducing other, eg, political etc., issues in ways that are irrelevant to the talk threads. Anyone who wants to can read them through and form their own opinion.

This is, rather, to place on the record with a view to addressing the issues regarding Kinsey's book and methodologies, and the stark ethical concerns that have been raised about them (in non-fringe sources, & from qualified people speaking from outside areas of either political or religious bias) for the main article page.

So, to this end

• Another contributer, above, has detailed citations of the relevant parts of Kinsey's book that are very insufficiently dealt with by the article. They are of course alluded to in the article in a skeletal way, so they are already recognised - therfore giving them the further proper treatment that they demand is not 'secondary research'.

• Here is the documentary referred to. It was, as stated, made in the UK and broadcast on a mainstream news outlet that every British person knows is anything but right-wing or conservative (for anyone still dishonestly maintaining that this matter is a bogeyman of the religious/conservative Right....)

"Secret History" Kinsey's P*d*philes (TV Episode 1998) - IMDb

Yorkshire Television production for Channel 4, produced and directed by Tim Tate, aired August 10, 1998. Featuring interviews with Kinsey team members Paul Gebhard and Clarence Tripp, Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft and several of Kinsey's biographers.

(The personnel who worked with Kinsey, some of whom were at time the film was made still involved with the institute, give interviews admitting in their own words, the contentious issues that have been disbelieved by editors here, it should be noted).

Available on a few sites, but not uploaded by either Channel 4 or the makers, eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVC-1d5ib50

These two - the citations from S*xual Behaviour in the Human Male & the documentary film - together should be quite enough by themselves or as a starting point to address the deficiencies in the article highlighted by several contributors here over the years.

It's an ongoing issue and needs attention ~2026-34574-08 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The solution is rather simple: WP:CITE WP:RS written by qualified people.

What I do know:

• Kinsey wrote mainstream science;
• Reisman wrote pseudoscience;
• the mainstream criticism of Kinsey is that his statistics are a tad wanting.

That's what I know. I did not read every mainstream source about Kinsey, outside of what I said I know above. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You have this block in your head that keeps introducung Reisman. What are you even talking about?

She is irrelevant. Nothing in the documentary film - a major and notable demolition of a central part of Kinsey's work - originates with her, rests or relies in any way on her claims, and nor does the methodology and damnning contents of the book.

The book itself damns Kinsey, the documentary gave his colleagues right-of-response and they confirmed that they had used collaborative material drawn from serious sex offenders (who were exceptionally active & aberrant even for child abusers), revealing the situation to have been worse even than the book suggested. The child abuse material of their activities was presented in the book as the sexual behaviour of children. Kinsey's colleagues and collaborators in thee film confirmed all this, gave further details, and laughed about it. His published biographers, also interviewed and set the events in the context of their work on his life.

Not an iota of this has anything to do with your Reisman deflection, which you'vs been using here for the last four years or more, as far as anyone reading this page can see.

I genuinely don't know of you're doing it to block the required expansion of the criticism section of the article, or if she has become an animus in your head or something and you can't help it.

The material is presented here as a precursor to applying the necessary changes to the adticle, open to anyone to take up. As you know, significant changes introduced without some step such as this are typically swiftly deleted by territorial editors. ~2026-34890-25 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

All you have to do is WP:CITE WP:RS, instead of lecturing me.

That is WP:CITE mainstream WP:SECONDARY sources, instead of peddling your own analysis of Kinsey's book. Your own analysis is rejected by website policy (WP:OR).

You stated this was discussed in non-fringe sources, & from qualified people speaking from outside areas of either political or religious bias. Which are those sources? You're merely handwaving that such sources exist, instead of citing them, including page numbers.

And they were laughing because they found the objections risible. Yeah, buddy, higher educated people laugh at many arguments made by people without academic knowledge. They weren't laughing because they were perverts.

So: do you regard yourself as a simpleton, or do you regard yourself as loving science? That decides your interpretation of the documentary. The documentary shows two sides in conflict, and you decide to root for one of those sides. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The academic knowledge that made them laugh when they were asked about Kinsey using statistics made by an abuser who timed himself m*st*rbateing infants using a stopwatch?

Or the higher academic knowledge that led them to believe and publish his claims that screajingbtoddlers were really experiencing orgasm when they were being r*p*d ?

Or the academic knowledge that made them laugh when asked why they included the accounts of a prolific serial child abuser who had in excess of 300 victims?

Or the higher academic knowledge that made them laugh when the interviewer queried why they didn't bring the matter of an active child sex offender they were collaborating with to the attention of thr police (his activity was found out to be both concurrent with and continue after the study)?

None of these things are even legal, let alone conside4dd standard ethical practice in the social or behavioural sciences, then or now.

Sides? You're the only one who appears to see this article as a battle of sides. The matter at hand is the refining of an article to make it comprehensive and accurate as required (the sources are those of the documentary Gebhard, Tripp, Bancroft and Kinsey's biographers.)

I've taken a look, though, at your user page. It presents a case study all of its own I must say. Anyway, you appear to have issues other than just of the personality, and I'm not getting into any further discussion with someone with the psychiatric issues you describe. It's futile for the purposes here, and doubtless not good for you, either. ~2026-34680-70 (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

"Yeah, buddy, higher educated people laugh at many arguments made by people without academic knowledge. They weren't laughing because they were perverts."

Secret History: Kinsey's P*d*philes, @ 18:00 ~2026-34680-70 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

"Yeah, buddy, higher educated people laugh at many arguments made by people without academic knowledge. They weren't laughing because they were perverts."

___

"It was illegal, and we knew it was illegal"

- Paul Gebhard (Kinsey colleague & collaborator), on the use of perpetrator's accounts of c.s.a. as evidence of 'child sexuality'.

Secret History: Kinsey's P*d*philes, @ 18:00 minutes ~2026-34680-70 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

99% of what Kinsey researched was illegal.

You can talk the talk, but you cannot walk the walk. You are just handwaving that there are sources. Unless you cite a specific page, those aren't sources.

You have not been singled out for special treatment: all Wikipedians have to abide by this rule. Put up or shut up.

That is, every Wikipedian has to prove their claims with accurate citations from WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedians are not allowed to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources.

Kinsey's only fault in this is: he received some data, and he published it. Why didn't the FBI bust the university? Because FBI agents were sane people. Some of them read the book, and found that Kinsey committed no crime.

Anyway, you did not produce a single citation for any of your claims. It does not work like that. Do you have problems understanding what a citation is? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The documentary is the source as well you know, timestamps are used for audiovisual materials in place of page citations.

You may imagine that your activity here has conferred some kind of exceptionalism on you, but that's really not the case. You're not an academic, nor even particularly intelligent. So maybe adjust your meds, you seem to be in the vainglory end of your bipolar elliptic cycle. ~2026-34800-32 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The documentary includes a diversity of opinions, therefore it is multi-interpretable. Kinsey's book is multi-interpretable.

It's allowed to state that Kinsey was wrong, but you have to cite experts who wrote that in WP:RS.

The moral outrage came decades after Kinsey's death. The documentary produced a victim who claimed she was sexually abused as a minor at the request of Kinsey c.s. Claim for which she has no evidence. I.e. no evidence that it was ordered by Kinsey c.s.

The documentary produced only one "victim of Kinsey", having no evidence that she was a victim of Kinsey. The POV of the documentary is that there might be evidence hidden inside the archives. Not that they have seen the evidence. The documentary is guessiology about what might lie hidden in the archives. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a separate matter that no-one but you has brought up. Nothing to do with the matter under discussion. All UK broadcasts of that kind present a diversity of opinion as they are responsible reporters, not campaigners.

But the facts of the matters under discussion here were admitted to by Kinsey's institute and colleagues. No alternative viewpoint was needed as the records of the abusewerepublished in SBHM, and none of the living parties who participated with Kinsey felt any need to contradict what was clearly apparent from the tables, etc., in those chapters.

The sole matter of contention was that certain of the latter felt it was justifiable to (i) collaborate with abusers, including an active sex offender, and, (ii) use his detailed records of the abuse he committed on children and their anguished responses as evidence of child sexuality.

You have screeds of text on your user page outlining years of wikipedia editing which you place in narratives of various personal crusades. It's like an insane person's interminable chronicle of self-justification scrawled across the walls of a cell in a madhouse.

Like several ex-religious, manics, etc., you seem to believe attacking some enemy, will strengthen your tenuous foothold on rationality. And like many of them, you just have moved to a new irrationality with a different set of dogmatics -

there isn't an iota of rationality evident in any of your rants here on this specific subject. ~2026-34818-20 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

So? WP:CITE WP:SECONDARY. You can't dodge WP:V through foul-mouthing me.

I don't have to be the pinnacle of human rationality. I just have to be good at what I do. I.e. combating WP:FRINGEy documentaries, in this case. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The documentary was broadcast on an esteemed mainstream UK television station, noted for its comprehensiveness and lack of bias in its reporting (centre-left & liberal, if anything), the standards it has always demanded from the independent producers of poliical/cultural programming it has hosted.

If you don't know this you should refrain from interloping with wild claims about them in contexts where everybody already knows these things. It makes you look like a fruitcake.

The director is a recipient of honours from Amnesty International and Unesco and an esteemed author with an extensive set of recognised achievements.

Your objection to a source because it runs counter to your crusading fantasies does not make it non- WP:SECONDARY . There is no question as to its WP:V except from you. You are tilting at windmills (apparently because you believe you are fighting homophobia in Uganda, according to your statements below....)

Take a step back.

Get help.

See your doctor. ~2026-34881-90 (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is, you see, you're not good at what you do. ~2026-34881-90 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

An anti-paranoid heuristic is not delirium. It is just that previously I only heard such claims from conspiracy theorists.

So, if you want an WP:IS, see https://web.archive.org/web/20150907061945/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/movies/alfred-kinsey-liberator-or-pervert.html

The point with homophobia in Uganda: anti-Kinsey propaganda is far more dangerous than pro-Kinsey propaganda.

The point I'm making: errors get made, and errors get corrected. But you were not following the proper protocol for doing that.

So, yes, I saw that documentary as begging the question that there is evidence. That had to be addressed politely.

My take was far from being unique, see https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/11v3tzu/secret_history_kinseys_paedophiles_1998_005102/ tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The bottom line: Kinsey getting data from that pedophile is already mentioned in our article. So, I don't know what it should get added to the article, based upon that documentary. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the controversy of Kinsey's work

Kinsey's observations of...

1. sex in abused children (absolutely ghastly that he and his foundation were never confronted about this, and had decades to concoct a justification for why he had this data -not to mention how he came in possession of this journal and why he gave it so much bearing in the first place-

2. Predominantly homosexual men as a point of reference for the sexuality of all men (some degrees of separation as it's on a spectrum, sure, but in no way conducive to thoughtful analysis)

3. Early 20th century sex workers who had little to no agency as a point of reference for the sexuality of women.

This is all controversial in the modern day, I have no clue why this article insists that this was only controversial in the 40s and 50s. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is all unsourced. We cannot base the article on your personal views of what is controversial. See WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

what exactly is unsourced? Because I'm quoting information that's already on the article.

or do you want me to source the philosophy/sociology of why all those bad things are actually bad. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Not only that you have provided no WP:RS for your claims, but people in the know claim there is no evidence whatsoever about claim (1) above.

E.g. when Reisman began pushing her paranoid rants, Kinsey was already dead. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"what exactly is unsourced? Because I'm quoting information that's already on the article.

or do you want me to source the philosophy/sociology of why all those bad things are actually bad"

Lmfao again, just like your last reply, point 1 is literally in the article as presented as fact, there's even the response from the foundation.

Give this article the one-over, so I can stop repeating things from the article and telling you you didn't read it lmfao. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You are drawing your own conclusions, which are not present in the Wikipedia article or its sources. Everything needs a source. If you want to write A, therefore B, we still need a source for B. Again, see WP:NOR. You're not going to get anywhere by ignoring Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

A therefore B?

So, controversial subject matter -refer to my points above- (a) is controversial (b) because...

Exactly which bridge do I need to gap, there's not much room for intuitive leaps.

I'm not being obtuse but the only thing I can think of is that you want me to discuss the literal/philosophical why of something being controversial, like there isn't a commonality of language or social norms that would make those 3 things controversial in the field of sexual education.

I have 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's banned as original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

commonality of social norms in regards to what is generally defined as good and bad is original research? Is there any way to block this person? Their only contributions to this is accusing me of being homophobic and replying in a way that shows that they didn't even read the article. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

He isn't the one edit warring against multiple other editors and who has apparently not read WP:NOR, even after being pointed to it multiple times. It is one of Wikipedia's core policies. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

yeah he's just the one accusing me of being homophobic repeatedly 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me give you a reading lesson, pal: repeatedly means more than once. Produce evidence that I have called you repeatedly homophobic. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Because more likely than not it’s AI that is answering you not a person. 2601:280:4401:270:F076:12AD:37A3:5F55 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to write 'continues to provoke controversy to this day' you need a source that says exactly that. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

okay excellent, this is makes sense and is very easy to find, thanks for not personally attacking me and actually helping me understand what to do. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, you will also need to gather agreement on this talk page (WP:BRD) -if you continue to edit the article over the objections of others you will certainly be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Kinsey Institute did concoct a justification. Reisman's wild guesses won't do, she spewed a paranoid conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact that they were only confronted about this insidious aspect of their study was only addressed 40 years later. I say concocted as I give very little benefit of doubt to someone who analyzed this sick journal, and came to the professional conclusion that a child's cries is a normal response to sexual stimulation. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a website based upon the personal opinions of its editors. WP:CITE a mainstream WP:RS that the controversy is still going on or go home and take a sleep.

And there's not a shred of evidence that Kinsey was a pedophile. If he were, the FBI would have known it, since they have investigated him during McCarthyism.

Also, I'm not saying that it would be false that the Kinsey Institute concocted an explanation, but to this day such claim has been utterly unsupported by evidence. Technically, there is a difference between "false" and "unsubstantiated". The only people who could know that the Kinsey Institute concocted an explanation is/was the very staff of the Kinsey Institute. Nobody else could possibly have a claim to know that for a fact. People are of course free to speculate, but this website isn't based upon unsubstantiated speculation. So, no, you don't have knowledge that the Kinsey Institute has concocted an explanation. Only the KI staff know if they lied about those records. We don't equate knowledge with opinion. You and Reisman have no way of knowing what you pretend to know.

If I would claim that they told the truth, the burden of proof would be upon me. But since you claim that they lied, the burden of proof is upon you. And since you have never ever even remotely seen evidence for your claim, you can never fulfill your burden of proof. Same applies to Reisman's claim that the KI staff lied about those pedophiles: she had never seen any real evidence to that extent, so she could never fulfill her own burden of proof, she died without having knowledge in that respect. And she could do is rant that the KI staff keeps the evidence hidden because they would be somehow guilty of a world domination conspiracy.

To tell you the truth, there is no controversy because people lost interest in Kinsey. Except some history of science buffs and some right-wing troublemakers, people no longer care about him. It is like telling them that Napoleon Bonaparte had pedophile friends. Who cares? And he is only relevant to the right wing in so far they have an axe to grind against the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association. ALEC thinks they can use Kinsey's sins in order to blackmail AMA and APA. So, when ALEC says "Kinsey" they mean "gay marriage". ALEC does not really care about Kinsey, they care about denying legal rights to the LGBT. And exposing Kinsey's sins is part of their own wedge strategy to that effect. If "Kinseyan" science fails, then AMA and APA fail, and LGBT rights fail as fruits of a poisonous tree. I mean Reisman, who drafted such legislation for ALEC, was adamantly clear that the LGBT are the new Nazis. What she said was "Let's protect the children." What she meant was ALEC should promote hate speech and discrimination against the LGBT. She could never forgive that homosexuality was erased from the DSM, and she attributed it to a Kinseyan conspiracy.

So, the obsession with "Kinsey's pedophiles" is just rhetoric meant to produce and organize anger against LGBT rights. People like Reisman have exported the death penalty for homosexuals to countries like Uganda. This can be seen from the fact that Reisman approvingly quoted Scott Lively and shared in his vision of Nazism as a homosexual conspiracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

these sound like your issues. They have nothing to do with the edits, suggested edits, observations of other users, or even the article.

If your investment in these issues is problematic - and the history here suggests it clearly is - perhaps you need to step back from this. ~2026-34634-99 (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That he was not a pedophile is not something postulated at the a priori level, but it is simply an empirical fact based upon:

• his FBI file;

• the testimonies of those who knew him closely.

So it is not so that Wikipedia forfeits positing that he was a pedophile at the a priori level, but simply because there is no evidence to believe it.

While him being a pedophile were not wholly impossible, there is no shred of evidence that he was one.

Same as for Trump and Clinton: it is not wholly impossible that they are pedophiles, but there is no evidence to believe it for a fact. So, while it is not a priori impossible, Wikipedia does not posit it because there is no evidence. Believers in conspiracies think that Wikipedia rejects it a priori, while we reject it because there never was good evidence for it. They don't understand that there never was evidence for their conspiracy theory. It's not an occult power acting against them, but merely the fact that they never had evidence for their claims. Nobody believes them around here, because they could never make a serious claim that they know the truth in this matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting the issue ? Nobody is saying Kinsey was a p*dophile. They are pointing out that his book gives incidents of child s*x abuse & portrays these as evidence of 's*xual behaviour' of the children being abused . Describes screaming two yr. olds being r_p_d as evidence of ecstatic response to the abuse. Claims infants can climax.

This isn't from Reisman, Charlie Kirk or Reverend Lovejoy.This is from Kinsey's own book. ~2026-34634-99 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't TikTok. You can say "sex". Sesquilinear (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Good to know. Apparently, though, you can't say p*dophile in a discussion on an article concerning a man who collaborated with them for his most famous book. But thanks anyway. ~2026-34881-90 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

citations from which were all given several yrs ago and are conveniently listed above ~2026-34634-99 (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:PSTS. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

F for effort. Somebody needs to look over your involvement in any edits to the article proper in the light of your erratic, schizoid, and obfuscating contributions to the talk page... ~2026-34574-08 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Representativeness of Reisman

As I was told before, Reisman is not representative for the anti-Kinsey movement. She was a fringe loon crying in the desert. There are other people who are more representative for that movement, but I am not an expert thereupon.

All she could show is that Kinsey had received data donated by pedophiles. The rest of her allegations were paranoid rants. So, reducing the anti-Kinsey movement to her is a straw man.

What Anthony Storr wrote about somebody else could also apply to her: "His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to consider it delusional...." So, of all anti-Kinsey folks, she is the easiest to dismiss, because she never had any real evidence that Kinsey were a pedophile organizing a world conspiracy against virtue and common sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Was Woodrow Wilson a pedophile? I mean: it is not altogether impossible. But since there is zero evidence to that extent, Wikipedia cannot claim that Wilson was a pedophile. Same applies to Kinsey. If Kinsey is fair game for libel, why not Wilson? If Wilson is, why not Trump? Just call Trump a pedophile because a ranting fool claims he is so. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online" O'Sullivan, Donie (12 December 2022). "Former top Twitter official forced to leave home due to threats amid 'Twitter Files' release - CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 15 December 2022. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dlobr: Kinsey wasn't "associated" with pedophiles or anything like that. But he was hunting after data. The claim that we was associated with pedophiles is Reisman's paranoid delirium. See WP:GEVAL for the distinction between historical facts and paranoid conspiracy theories.

So, the obsession with "Kinsey's pedophiles" is just rhetoric meant to produce and organize anger against LGBT rights. People like Reisman have exported the death penalty for homosexuals to countries like Uganda. This can be seen from the fact that Reisman approvingly quoted Scott Lively and shared in his vision of Nazism as a homosexual conspiracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting myself. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Kinsey and homophobia

• Withdrawn. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

My claim is that pushing unsubstantiated allegations (conspiracy theories) about Kinsey being an associate of pedophiles should be treated as a de facto expression of homophobia. Agree or disagree with such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree (Summoned by bot) First of all, your Rfc is non-neutral, and a loaded question, so by that token, this Rfc is invalid and your Rfc should either be reworded or closed. It is doubly non-neutral, because:
  • You talk about "pushing" in your Rfc question, thus linking your question with the idea of Pov-pushing, which is a forbidden by core policy, thus implying that a vote to "Agree" would fly in the face of core policy. This is a non-neutral wording, and is prohibited in an Rfc question.
  • You talk about "unsubstantial allegations" in your Rfc questions, thus linking your question with violations of WP:Verifiability and reliable sourcing, also forbidden.

tgeorgescu, regardless of the merits of a possibly neutrally-worded question that might have been placed here, your phrasing badly taints this Rfc, and makes it nearly impossible to respond to, or to assess for closure later. Nevertheless, I'll try to ignore the way you wrote the question, and respond to the neutral question that isn't there, namely: I disagree, because pedophilia and homophobia are orthogonal, and there is no evidence that either one implies the other. However, you should change the wording ASAP to be neutral, as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL, or you should withdraw this Rfc, and start another, properly conceived. Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral RFC: I get the general gist of what the OP is trying to ask, but a better phrasing would be Should we include allegations that Kinsey was an associate of pedophiles in this article? or maybe Is the mention in the lead that Kinsey's research was controversial "because of accepting data donation from pedophiles in particular" justified by the relevant text in the body? Loki (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Loki; either of those would be okay, assuming they agree with what the OP generally had in mind, but only tgeorgescu (or a telepath) can answer that question. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what this is asking. In particular there is no proposed text? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. (Summoned by bot) If he has or hasn't associated with pedophiles has nothing to do with homophobia simply because being gay and being a pedophile have no direct correlation. I don't see what the idea is here. Only thing that matters is what the sources say about his research and how to accurately represent them in the article. FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• also Disagree. (Summoned by bot) but the RfC is so garbled and unclear that no workable consensus can come out of it anyway. Suggest WP:SNOW close and start again if necessary. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, just noting here, for better visibility, the earlier withdrawal comment left by the OP and dated 00:04, 18 Dec. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Political use

It does not matter that the allegations are batshit crazy, but Christofascist senators use them as a stick against the scientists whose works have been essential for the support for the LGBT (decriminalization up to gay marriage). Actually, the legally designated scientific advisor of the US Congress was just a phone call away, and they could learn very fast that they deal in WP:CB. Of the FBI, for that matter. But nothing beats stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance at their own game. If these people decide the fate of US science, the US is doomed, economically and militarily. In order to achieve that, they only have to combat mainstream science, and entropy will take care of the rest. If they make scientists feel unwelcome in the US, that will be the end of a superpower. Sexologists, evolutionary biologists, virologists, bacteriologists—make them all unhappy and see how fast the country reaches bottom. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads: If you take into account that one side of that dispute based its amendment upon paranoid conspiracy theories, the other side are the voices of reason by virtue of not buying into paranoid conspiracy theories. The Democrats and several Republican senators voted against the amendment because it is an angry, vindictive, irrational, paranoid, and administratively badly thought-out political decision. I would not be amazed if Conservative judges declare it unconstitutional. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I could certainly add plenty of negative things to say about the politicians of which you speak, but it isn't appropriate to insert personal opinion or unencyclopedic language in the article (and expounding it on the talk page can run afoul of WP:NOTFORUM). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Okay, but you could still rephrase the statement for complying with WP:NPOV instead of wholesale deletion. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

LGBT / bisexual

@Peleio Aquiles and Giovanni 0331: Did he tried to have sex with men? Yes, but found out pretty soon it wasn't his thing. So, the category LGBT or bisexual is shoddy. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about Kinsey's life. I only added that category because this entry had already been classed as belonging to other LGBT categories. In any case, we should probably follow how RS generally describe him instead of following our own intuitions. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Peleio Aquiles and Giovanni 0331: As a theorist, he was an ally of the LGBT. But in practice he rarely deviated from heterosexual sex or masturbation. Yup, he wasn't a monogamist, for the rest his reputation as a sexual pervert is very much undeserved. I'm speaking of how the American religious right imagines him. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

His POV was that he should like having homosexual sex, but in reality he didn't really enjoy it much. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

responses an controversy

"The postmodern take on Kinsey is that sexuality should not be made an object of science,[47]"

The source does not prove that claim. It does not allow any general statement about a "postmodern take". Raupkatze (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)