Quantcast

Sodomizing the Culture: Creating a Gay America. Sex Revolution Father a Homosexual Pedophile

Related Topics: Obama, FBI, Vatican

With the recent heated debates over homosexuals in society, I would like to first point out what this article is not about. This article is not about same sex marriage, nor is it about what two adults do in the privacy of their own home.
This article is about the elements in the homosexual community who are forcing their beliefs and habits on American society, especially in the public schools and colleges and universities.
obama's safe school czar is tied to NAMBLA a leading gay rights group that advocates sex between adult men and young boys. The safe school czar kevin jennings, founded glsen, and has been working since the 90's to force homosexual indoctrination on our public school children.

To see where jennings gets his ideas from, we have to go back to kinsey.
So the following is a few articles and links about kinsey and his fraud he has placed on American society.



http://www.islamicparty.com/commonsense/36movement.htm

The Organised Homosexual Movement: Its Methods And Its Goals
By Alexander Baron



In July 1960, a series in the girls' comic School Friend was called The Gay Princess, while in October 1961, another girls' comic, June, referred to its Star of the Week as “gay Helen Shapiro”. (1) Today, a gay princess and a gay singer would have entirely different connotations. In his autobiography, published some five years later, a senior Scottish police officer recounted how in his younger days he had been engaged in the suppression of homosexual practices in the public toilets of Edinburgh.

William Merrilees might be described as an old-fashioned no-nonsense “copper”. Before the Second World War when he was head of the Vice Squad, he was given the task of cleaning up the city's lowlife, and he did so with alacrity. In a chapter The Campaign Against Homosexuality, he enthused: “Now that we had convictions to our credit, I felt free to wage wholesale war on these perverts and their associates, and quite a number of arrests were made from urinals throughout the city.” (2)

This admirable moral crusade was to result in the closure of nine public urinals and other premises. Nowadays, any police officer who campaigned against homosexuality would be accused of homophobia, and one who referred openly to homosexuals as perverts would be hauled up in front of a disciplinary board. Even then at times rightly feared British police have been cowed by the constant barrage of gay propaganda.

Gay, this happy sounding word, has been verbally kidnapped by the homosexual lobby. The evidence that homosexuality is gay is close to non-existent, but by dint of incessant repetition we have reached the stage where even the staunchest opponents of this perversion refer openly to homosexuals as gays.

Although one must always be careful about how one interprets statistics, the evidence from statistics as from other sources is impressive - or rather horrifying - that homosexuals are emphatically not gay; that by and large they die younger, are more prone to violence - both as victims and as perpetrators - (3) and that they are vectors of the most abominable diseases known to man.

Any honest, unbiased person who has studied the medical literature relating to homosexuality will surely reach the same conclusion. This is undoubtedly the reason there are so few homosexual doctors.

In addition to proselytising homosexuality as gay, the Organised Homosexual Movement has coined an epithet, homophobia, which like racist or anti-Semite is the modern day equivalent of branding somebody a witch. In 1997, an American psychiatrist wrote that: “In 1970, homosexuality was an illness so dangerous to the commonwealth that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service was charged with excluding homosexuals from entering the country...Today, homosexuality is a normal life style; disapproving of it is a mental illness called 'homophobia'...” (4)

In a press release dated December 15, 1973, the American Psychiatric Association became the first medical organisation “to officially remove the stigma of disease from persons with same-sex preference”. (5)

One might ask what new findings were made about homosexuality between 1970 and 1973 to reverse the diagnosis that it is a disease? The answer is of course none, but the homosexual lobby (6) brought about this reversal by its persistent and for the most part dishonest public campaigning and lobbying of government and influential organisations. Homosexuality is indeed a disease, but a disease of the spirit.

The One In Ten Myth

The statistic that homosexual activists are most fond of spouting is the mythical one in ten. Writing in the unofficial Labour Party magazine Briefing, (7) in 1993, the well-known and vocal homosexual activist Peter Tatchell reports that “10 per cent of the population is exclusively or predominantly queer...”, (his word); that “15 per cent are bisexual for all or part of their lives”, while “25-35 per cent have at least one homosexual experience leading to orgasm during their lifetime...” (8)

These figures are derived from the so-called researches of Dr Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), an American sexologist who published two widely publicised reports (9) on human sexuality in the late 40s/early 50s. It is Kinsey's report on the human male that is the most widely cited. (10)

Kinsey's remarkable findings extend way beyond mere homosexuality, and anyone who has read his work with the slightest critical faculty will soon conclude they would laughable if they were not so sick. For example, Kinsey and his team report that of boys raised on farms, “about 17 per cent experience orgasm as the product of animal contacts...after the onset of adolescence” and that up to 28% of college level rural males have some animal experience to the point of orgasm. Well over half of these have some kind of sexual contact with animals. (11)

One can only imagine what Kinsey understood by the word orgasm, but leaving that aside it is clear that he is confusing the true meanings of words and emotions. As the Conservative author Stephen Green writes poetically of agony aunt Claire Rayner, she uses the word love too loosely for us to know whether she means friendship, affection, commitment, or ten minutes in a public convenience. (12)

Two academics, Reisman (13) and Eichel, who subjected Kinsey's researches to a close scrutiny, have thoroughly discredited his findings. Even though “The Kinsey Reports have become the starting point for subsequent sex research” and “The textbooks quote Kinsey's findings as if they were undisputed truth”, (14) Kinsey's research has never been replicated. (15)

Leaving aside academic studies, mere observation is enough to indicate that far less than one in ten of the population is homosexual, actively so or otherwise. The grain of truth in Peter Tatchell's assertion that “25-35 per cent have at least one homosexual experience leading to orgasm during their lifetime...” may be that most of us have some sort of homosexual experience at some time in our lives, but that depends of course on how you define the term homosexual experience. If you are propositioned by a homosexual, or if an openly homosexual man smiles at you lustfully in the street, then you too have had a homosexual experience.

The actual percentage of the population that is homosexual - overtly or otherwise - is extremely difficult to determine. This is made even more difficult by the fact that homosexuals are concentrated in certain locations, (16) in certain professions, (17) and that they make a lot of noise.

The purpose of the constant repetition of the mythical one in ten is to attempt further to “normalise” homosexuality. This argument is in any case spurious, as Sahib Bleher pointed out in a reply to a query on the Party website: “the assumption [here is] that the mere existence of a condition justifies its validity, and that decisions are to be taken on the basis of how much support there is rather than on the question whether something is morally justified.”

Using the same fallacious logic, paedophilia, theft, even murder can be justified. As stated above, not all minorities are oppressed, and some deserve to be dealt with severely.

It is important to recognise that even many people who might otherwise be considered “right wing” have fallen for much homosexual propaganda. As well as referring to homosexuals as gay, they often take the homosexual lobby's self-serving statistics at face value. (18)

Catch Them Young

There is an old maxim - attributed to the Jesuits - that if you school a child for the first six or seven years of its life, it doesn't matter who has it for the rest. The age of consent in Britain is now sixteen. Up until recently the age of consent for homosexual acts was eighteen. The Labour Government, heavily influenced by both the homosexuals in its own upper echelons (19) and the homosexual lobby in general, was intent on lowering the age of consent to sixteen on the grounds that not to do so would be to perpetuate homophobia. It did so in spite of a revolt in the Lords led by Baroness Young.

In February 1994 when a vote to lower the age of consent for sodomy to sixteen was lost, hundreds of militant homosexuals stormed Parliament and abused MPs. This was in spite of the House voting to lower the age of consent to eighteen, which under the circumstances was certainly a concession to perversion. Peter Tatchell was quoted in the Times thus: “They have no respect for us, so we will have no respect for Parliament.” He also threatened a major campaign of civil disobedience. (20) About ten arrests were reported. (21)

In November 1998, when the government tried again to lower the age of consent for homosexual acts, the Lords prevailed. One magazine reported that Tatchell wanted to push for it to be lowered to fourteen. Other members of his group, OutRage, voted to keep it at sixteen (for then) for fear of alienating the public (and exposing their true agenda). (22)

Two years later, a letter published in the Daily Telegraph and signed by nine doctors headed by Lady McEwen, C.A.B. Johnston and Professor Gordon Stewart warned the government of the Physical dangers of unnatural sex. Two of the signatories had Islamic names, (23) and doubtless all Moslem doctors (along with the great majority of all other religions and none) shared the same sentiments. The signatories argued that by lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts the government would be failing in its duty to protect young boys. Unfortunately, the government and the homosexual lobby prevailed, and the age of consent for homosexual acts was indeed lowered.

Now, Tatchell in particular has come out of the closet. (24) This year he has published a paper calling for the age of consent to be lowered to fourteen for all sexual acts. (25) Two examples of his sophistry from this paper will suffice:

“Two 14 year olds who have a mutually agreed relationship risk maximum penalties ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment...”

By the same token, the maximum penalty for shoplifting is seven years imprisonment. Who in modern Britain has ever been sentenced to seven years for simple theft? (26)

One reason Tatchell advocates lowering the age of consent is to cure the sexual illiteracy of the young. Sex advice by teachers is said to be vague, euphemistic and even useless. “They never dare promote the obvious: oral sex and mutual masturbation as safer alternatives to intercourse”. This is a bit like promoting grievous bodily harm as a safer alternative to murder, but the duplicity of the Organised Homosexual Movement knows no bounds.

The doctors who signed the letter to the Daily Telegraph pointed out that teenagers often have (what they believe to be) homosexual desires of a transient nature.

Young boys in particular may be attracted to other boys and young men for reasons that have little or nothing to do with sex. Not all of us are equally endowed with good looks, fine physique, intelligence, personality, wealth, or even something as simple as dress sense. This may lead to envy, which can be easily confused with desire. With proper guidance or even with none, the vast majority of teenagers will come through this phase unscathed. (27) With improper guidance they may become convinced that they are really gay and should come out as such.

Because homosexuals can't breed they must recruit in order to perpetuate their perversion, and the younger their victims are caught the better. Now that the age of consent for homosexual acts has been lowered to sixteen, Tatchell and his friends want it lowered to fourteen. If they get that they will demand it be lowered to twelve, then ten. The end result is that predatory homosexual paedophiles will have carte blanche to snatch young boys off the streets and do with them what they will with total impunity. This may sound hysterical, but there is a paedophile movement in this country and worldwide which would like to see exactly that. And it is an acknowledged fact that in Britain at least the paedophile movement has its roots firmly in the gay movement. (28)

During his campaign against homosexuality in pre-World War Two Edinburgh, William Merrilees was shocked at the number of young boys who had been ensnared by these perverts. In his aforementioned memoirs, he wrote: “I was astonished at the number of boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen engaged in this unpleasant business, some of them were effeminates, but most of them were really male prostitutes.” (29) It should be borne in mind that at this time, and for three decades after, homosexuality was a criminal offence, yet this was apparently no serious deterrent to those who would wilfully corrupt the young.

It is important for everyone to realise that there is no such thing as gay youth; there are no homosexual teenagers. Even for those who succumb to their inner demons and experiment with or engage in homosexual practices there is hope. The young who stray from the straight and narrow can be reformed, the same way souls can be saved.









http://www.lesfemmes-thetruth.org/v13_2sodomizing_culture.htm

Sodomizing the Culture: Creating a Gay America
by Mary Ann Kreitzer

What a difference fifty years makes! In 1958 the nuclear family basked in TV’s prime time. The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, Leave It to Beaver, and Father Knows Best all portrayed well-adjusted families with Dad as head and Mom as heart of the home. The parents loved and respected each other and worked together to rear happy, healthy children. While some criticized these shows for painting an idealized and unrealistic picture of family life, many baby boomers grew up in homes much like what they saw on TV. Youngsters played pickup baseball, rode bikes, walked to the corner story for penny candy, and stayed out without continuous supervision until the streetlights came on. A network of caring adults watched out for everyone’s children. Family dinners were a regular affair. Dad and Mom practiced tough love tenderly.

Even the language of the fifties was different. Drive-by shootings were unheard of. Metal detectors were for Civil War relic hunters. The word gaymeant “happily excited.” Not that the time was without problems. The Cold War was in full swing and schools had air raid drills as well as fire drills. Nevertheless, most adults who lived through the 50s as children remember it as a more innocent time when government, churches, schools, and the community worked together with mutual regard for fundamental values: honesty, integrity, respect, bravery, responsibility, prudence, generosity, and reliability. No one thought those were religious values; they were human values.

The picture of life in the U.S. is far different today. No longer does the community work to protect children. Instead, institutions uphold and defend the “civil rights” of sexual deviants to corrupt them. While the leading offenders are gay activists, they have a long list of eager accomplices and enablers. Business, government, the medical profession, the media, the entertainment industry, schools, even the churches sing in the gay chorus. The outcome is the sodomizing of American culture, a tragedy for all, but especially the children.

One of the greatest influences in perverting the culture was Dr. Alfred Kinsey, whose 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, became the source for the fraudulent claim that homosexuals account for ten percent or more of the population. According to researcher, Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph.D., “Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual ‘civil rights’ movement,…[who urged] that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.”1

Reisman has spent the past twenty year outing Kinsey as a fraud whose data “proving” that 95% of men commit deviant sex acts relied on interviews with sexual perverts including pedophiles and prison inmates. She was the first to expose Kinsey’s infamous “Table 37” in Chapter 5 on “Child Orgasm” which illustrated the systematic abuse of child victims. The results are horrifying. The table records an 11 month old having ten orgasms in an hour, a second 11 month old who had 14 in 38 minutes, a four year old who had 26 in a 24-hour period, a twelve year old who had three in three minutes, etc. Kinsey’s Table 37 documents the molestation of 24 children, fourteen and under who were masturbated and sodomized by adults in the study. Other tables in the chapter show that hundreds of children ranging in age from a few months to adolescence were systematically molested by Kinsey’s “trained observers.”


http://www.battlefortruth.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=273

What is Wrong with Sex Education
S. Michael Craven


Kinsey was soliciting pedophiles from known pedophile organizations to assist in their child sex experiments. In one instance, James H. Jones, a pro-Kinsey biographer, in his interview, described the data from one of the pedophiles on whom Kinsey relied:

Kinsey elevated to… the realm of scientific information… what should have been dismissed as unreliable, self-serving data provided by a predatory pedophile… I don’t have any doubt in my own mind that man wreaked havoc in a lot of lives. Many of his victims were infants and Kinsey in that chapter himself gives pretty graphic descriptions of their response to what he calls sexual stimulation. If you read those words, what he’s talking about is kids who are screaming. Kids are protesting in every way they can the fact that their bodies or their persons are being violated

These atrocities sound like something from a Nazi concentration camp. The irony is that another of Kinsey’s contributors was perhaps the most notorious pedophile in the criminal history of . Dr. Fritz von Balluseck was an occupation officer in the Nazi regime that was tried for the murder and rape of a 10-year-old girl. In the course of his trial it was discovered that he had been molesting children for more than three decades including those under the occupation control of Nazi Germany. In fact, the German newspaper, National Zeitung on May 15, 1957 reported, “The Nazis knew and gave him opportunity to practice his abnormal tendencies in occupied on Polish children, who had to choose between von Balluseck and the gas ovens. After the war, the children were dead, but von Balluseck lived.”

As part of his perversity, von Balluseck recorded these experiences in carefully documented diaries that he in turn copied and forwarded to Kinsey. This was prior to von Balluseck’s apprehension and arrest by German authorities. Instead of reporting von Balluseck to the authorities, Kinsey, in fact, encouraged him to continue to “collect data” even going so far as to warn him to “be careful.” Kinsey even refused to provide evidence that the FBI knew he had in the case.

The presiding judge in von Balluseck’s trial was outraged by the collaboration with Kinsey stating that, “Instead of answering his sordid letters, the strange American scholar should rather have made sure that Mister von Balluseck was put behind bars

Predatory pedophiles and perverse experimentation served as the basis for Kinsey’s evidence of early childhood sexual activity, a premise that is largely, although uncritically, accepted in the academic community today. I emphasize this due to the fact that this one element has been instrumental in the development of modern sex education. This premise argues for early and graphic sexual knowledge based upon the idea that sexual satisfaction is a “natural” childhood goal. Thus the phrase “safe sex,” which operates under this assumption that the natural sex drive should never be restrained, merely practiced in whatever manner you choose as long as you are “safe.” Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, the NEA and the homosexual activist movement are promoting sex education programs based on a premise derived from the criminal molestation of children




http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/sex-revolution-father-a-...

Sex Revolution Father a Homosexual Pedophile?

Alfred Kinsey is the Left Wing father of the Sexual Revolution. Research he worked on in 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s led to the degeneration of accepted sexual morals in America. Kinsey’s research stretched from heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophilia and many more aberrant behaviors. Kinsey’s research sent his conclusions to the public as well as to science. Many of those conclusions gave the green light to behavior to sexual lifestyles beyond heterosexuality. Some would say, hence the blight of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, transgender and pedophilia sex on course to cultural acceptability over traditional Christian Morality.

Since the majority of scientists tend to filter their research through Left Wing thought patterns, Kinsey’s research is still cited by the majority scientific community as ground breaking discovery in sexual mores of the American. Unfortunately the acquisition of Kinsey’s data has pretty much been withheld from the public. For instance Kinsey’s homosexual subjects were recruited from an area of homosexual debauchery and not exactly a representation of America’s general population. Child sex and man/boy sex was observed of children forced into sex by noted pedophiles who exacted sex from both boys and girls. Sex crimes law enforcement in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s was focused on prostitution with the overt investigation of pedophilia being nearly non-existent as an embarrassment of society to be buried out of sight.

The gal that has dedicated her life to exposing Kinsey as a morally corrupt man was on a mission to justify lifestyles that personally subscribed to. That gal is Dr. Judith Reisman. Reisman has written books and articles exposing Kinsey’s research as fraudulent. Thus Reisman has become a darling to social Conservatives as I. From my brief Google searching Dr. Reisman I discovered that scientists or psychiatrists/psychologists in general has condemned her research on Kinsey methods and life as a Right Wing political agenda insinuating that Conservative affirmation is good enough to discredit her. As if Kinsey’s Left Wing agenda to socially transform America into the acceptance of immoral and/or deviant lifestyles was a justifiable political path that science must accept as valid.



http://www.vidahumana.org/english/family/kinsey.html

Kinsey's Fraud and its Consequences for Society
By Raquel M. Chaviano and Magaly Llaguno

What is extremely difficult to believe is that our society seems to be on the verge of accepting pedophilia as an orientation within the sex spectrum. This particular issue is where the ties to Kinsey's research can be fully attested to. In an article, Joan A. Nelson, Ed.D., writes in favor of a model of adult-child sexuality in which sex acts with children are to be viewed as acceptable and even essential to the healthy development of the child. What Dr. Nelson views as the harmful agent is "society's condemnation", rather than the effects of such grotesque and immoral acts on young children. (28) Also, Wardell Pomeroy (Kinsey's colleague) of Planned Parenthood, once stated that "...incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying experience. Incestuous relationships can - and do - work out well". (29) This is exactly what Kinsey believed! A variety of materials from Alyson Publications, which consist mostly of pro-homosexual literature, includes a new series of books that attempt to justify pedophilia and respectabilize its perpetrators. "They [NAMBLA] promote children as objects of sexual pleasure, give advise on how to have sex with children without getting caught, provide locations around the world where child prostitutes can be had, and list clubs pedophiles can join..." (30) Now that academic sexology accepts children's "sexual needs" and many strides are being taken by organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), in order to legitimize child-adult sex, we can see the acceptance of pedophilia as an orientation on the horizon. It is only a matter of time before we will find other scientists, sex educators, and publishing companies, sympathizing with the pro-pedophilia effort. We owe this largely to the work and effort of Alfred C. Kinsey who also affirmed (without conclusive, scientific evidence) that 10 percent of the population was homosexual. "Kinsey's statistics on the prevalence of homosexuality in society have been grossly in error, which would probably be no surprise to Kinsey - he knew the bias he was building into his research." (31)

"Currently an estimated 80 percent of public schools teach sex education patterned after SEICUS-Planned Parenthood's dogma." (32) In the words of Mary Calderone, "What SEICUS seeks ...is to 'establish sexuality as a necessary for good health and make it worthy by focusing on it more openly... with the best of intentions, which implicitly would teach that people must make well-formed and intelligent choices concerning a series of alternatives'." (33) In a May 1974 "Statement of Belief", SEICUS reinforced its sex education mission where it concerns homosexuality: "It is the right of all persons to enter into relationships with others regardless of their gender, and to engage in such sexual behaviors as are satisfying and non-exploitive." (34) In a recent issue of the Health Action magazine, a publication partly sponsored by IPPF's Sexual Health Project, it is stated that promoting sexuality awareness involves:

"Sexuality as seen in other cultures - color slides of erotic art from around the world help participants understand that not everyone has the same concept of what is sexually 'normal'; and "understanding variations in sexual attraction - opposite sex attraction (heterosexuality) and same sex attraction (homosexuality)." (35)

A review of many of the sex education programs used in schools will show that most are tainted with Kinsey's influence. For example, Growing Healthy, a health education curriculum aimed at kindergarten to seventh-graders in New York, included a section on homosexuality and heterosexuality. Here it used Kinsey data, whose research had "supported" that 10 percent of the population was homosexual. (36) "Probably about one in ten persons is homosexual. Most people fall somewhere on a continuum between having an exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual orientation." (37) Other publications with similar contents are recommended for sex education. One of these is Changing Bodies, Changing Lives published by Vintage Books. It also quotes Kinsey: "quite a number of people, about 10 percent, are mainly attracted to people of their own sex." (38) What most people do not know is that the 10 percent figure is a falsehood, since Kinsey employed biased research techniques in order to "prove" that many Americans were in fact having such sexual relations. (39)

Back in 1992 Joe Fernández, New York City's chancellor of schools, stripped the school board members of their authority, in order to push his own agenda in sex education. This agenda mainly emphasized the "positive aspects" of homosexuality and had students as young as nine years old receiving instructions in the mechanics of anal and oral sex. Fernández also distributed over 300,000 copies of a booklet notifying adolescents of their "right to have sex". (40) This demonstrates the constant attempt at showing the respectability of other sexual lifestyles and that even unnatural sexual activity is everyone's right.

For SEICUS, Planned Parenthood, and other sex education programs modeled after Kinsey, the problem lies in the Judeo-Christian perspective on marriage and sexuality. In other words, the belief that sexual expression is only adequate in heterosexual marriage is seen as the abnormality and guilt is seen as a disease in need of a cure. Changing Bodies, Changing Lives states that "guilty feelings might come because we have been taught that certain sexual acts and feelings are bad" and that "we who are writing this book believe that a lot of society's moralistic attitudes about sex can make people unnecessarily guilty about feeling and activities that are a normal part of being human." (41) Ultimately, sex is seen as a simple means to have fun and to give pleasure to the self without any form of restriction. Some Planned Parenthood (P.P.) materials teach that "sex is fun and joyful, and courting is fun and joyful, and it comes in all types and styles, all of which are Ok. Do what gives pleasure, and enjoy what gives pleasure, and ask for what gives pleasure. Don't rob yourself of joy by focusing on old-fashioned ideas about what's normal or nice. Just communicate and enjoy!" (42)

The result is that children and adolescents are given free license over sexual activity such as pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and masturbation. Dr. Alan Guttmacher of P.P.'s Guttmacher Institute, also mentioned in Human Sexuality and Personal Relations, that "young people cannot be told that pre-marital sexual relations are good or bad" because such influence though sometimes constructive, can be destructive. (43) Another P.P. pamphlet for teenagers states that: "Sex is too important to glop up with sentiment. If you feel sexy, for heavens sake, admit it to yourself. If the feeling and the tension bother you, you can masturbate. Masturbation cannot hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed." (44) Ruth Bell's publication makes a similar remark, "Masturbation is something you do with yourself, a way of giving pleasure to yourself, of loving and being tender to yourself. It also helps you to get to know your body's sexual responses." (45) A recent report form IPPF states that mutual masturbation is allegedly equal to "safe sex" and that "notwithstanding the denial of adults to deal with the issue; it is necessary for the youth to learn these type of activities." (46) IPPF and other affiliate organizations (including other population control organizations), consider that "adolescence can include young people from ten to 19 years old." (47) These same adolescents are believed to have "the same rights as other clients in the area of health and sexuality: the right to decide if they want to have a sexually active life or not; the right to information; contraception; safe abortions and the right to be protected against [venereal] diseases; and the right to confidentiality..." (48)

With this type of philosophy, one can obviously foresee an increase of adolescent sexual activity in our society. It is then not surprising to see increases in the number of AIDS cases, other venereal disease cases, and pregnancy rates. The response from sex educators across the board is simply to bombard youth with the so-called benefits of contraception. However, "In 1963 Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, who had urged that teenagers be provided with birth control information, conceded that such information would bring about an increase in sexual relations among teenagers". (49)

The ultimate result is the creation of a vicious cycle where the stakes are high and there are no winners. Sex education is often fueled by, if not disguised as AIDS education, as well as, an earnest attempt at lowering teenage pregnancy. The same SEICUS "Statement of Belief", mentioned earlier, insisted that "contraceptive services should be available to all - including minors who should enjoy the same rights of free and independent access to medical contraceptive care as do others." (50) Children are exposed to information promoting the use of contraception, and they are given contraceptive and abortifacient drugs and devices, through school-based clinics. Yet, a major report from Planned Parenthood previously revealed that school-based health clinics have failed to lower pregnancy rates at schools. (51) This just goes to prove that even in the face of unsuccessful programs, PP, SEICUS, and others, continue to push their agenda.

Alfred Kinsey's "contribution" to our modern day society through organizations such as Planned Parenthood and SEICUS are obvious. The traditional, Christian moral values that once prevailed are undoubtedly under attack. The present conflict concerns opposing views about the nature of human sexuality in a civilized society and whether traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about sexuality are repressive and unhealthy." (52)

Alfred C. Kinsey had opened an avenue of abuse and deceit within the study of human sexuality and sex education; we are witnesses to the continuous expansion of this avenue. All areas of society must realize the importance of informed action against sex education programs inspired by Kinsey and Margaret Sanger, in order to protect future generations. We must be aware that the original instigator of hedonistic sexual lifestyles is none other than Satan, Father of Lies, who seeks the perdition of souls.



http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT

KINSEY'S FRAUD AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOCIETY
by Raquel M. Chanano


Many people will be surprised to discover that what has served and is
serving as the basis for public school sex education (and is even being
used in many Catholic schools) has its roots in scientific fraud. Most of
this could be credited to one individual: Alfred C. Kinsey, with the help
of his colleagues Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul Gebhard.
Their research and studies have undoubtedly shaped current attitudes and
perceptions concerning human sexuality. These perceptions have ultimately
worked themselves into the current sex education programs.

Over forty years ago, Alfred C. Kinsey was a professor of zoology at
Indiana University (I.U.). Later he served as coordinator of new marriage
courses that were established at I.U. During his involvement in these
courses, he began to question students about their sex lives and offer
advice in matters of sex and relationships. He simultaneously began
compiling detailed documentation of several of these "sex histories" for
his own personal interest.

Alfred Kinsey considered animal sexual behavior as the model for human
sexual behavior, the only difference being that animals act without
inhibition and by instinct alone. However, various cultural conditions are
imposed on human beings, according to Kinsey, that unjustly inhibit and
even criminally prohibit "natural human sexual behavior." "Being involved
in all types of sexual activity would represent freedom from the cultural
conditioning which society imposes and which leads to artificial
distinctions such as right and wrong, licit and illicit, normal and
abnormal, acceptable and unacceptable in our social organization," Kinsey's
Male Report (1948) states.[1]

The problem, according to him, is that
society was conditioned through traditional modes of thought to believe
that heterosexual activity within marriage, especially, is both correct and
the healthiest means of sexual expression. Kinsey strictly believed that
all forms are healthy and that if any one form is abnormal and lesser, it
is heterosexual intercourse.[4]

One of the most worrisome of his concepts is that which justifies
pedophiliac activity. Kinsey believed that children were predisposed to
sexual activity from the moment of birth and that adult-child sex was
included under the notion of a sexual outlet. Our social conditioning made
it taboo, although it is actually a "normal" sexual behavior that should be
practiced as well as pursued, Kinsey believed. He maintained that when done
under circumstances where the adult genuinely cares for the child, as would
a loving parent or relative, sex between an adult and a child could prove
to be a healthy experience for the child. The results are unfavorable,
Kinsey said, only when the child is conditioned by police authorities and
parents to believe that such conduct is immoral and incorrect.[5]

How does a scientist go about collecting evidence for such theories? One
would like to believe that both ethical and scientifically sound research
methods would be employed. Kinsey claimed that he wanted to conduct
research that would be representative of American society. However,
Kinsey's work and research was manipulated so that its results would be
indicative of what he himself believed, without any real and tangible
scientific support. According to Paul Robinson, one of Kinsey's
biographers, Kinsey's work was designed to "undermine the traditional
sexual order."[6] Kinsey had his own amoral agenda and hoped to use his
research as the scientific base to "change society's traditional moral
values."

Kinsey's research included two main parts: he used data from the "sex
histories" of about 18,000 persons, and he directed experimental sex
research on several hundred children aged two months to almost 15 years of
age. The information from the "sex histories" was not only manipulated, but
most of his interviewees were not representative of society, because they
were deliberately chosen (others volunteered) for their sexual deviancy.
Though Kinsey wanted to document and expose what society was doing
sexually, he only concentrated on one section of society -the deviant. A
great number of the 5,300 male interviewees were sex offenders, pedophiles
and exhibitionists, while about 25 percent of them were prison inmates.
Many of those who volunteered were also biased in favor of the "sexually
unconventional."[7]

Kinsey himself and his team also observed and took notes on several filmed
"experiments" that dealt with various kinds of deviant behavior, especially
sex acts between homosexual males.[8]

The experimental research on several hundred children consisted of the
molestation of these children by a group of nine persons. Some were
"technically trained" and in reality acted like pedophiles. It is reported
that some were indeed already pedophiles because not all had to be trained.
In Kinsey's <Male Report> (1948) it is reported that the children reacted
to the oral and manual stimulation by these nine adults in various ways.
The reactions ranged from bodily "twitching", "violent cries", "violent
convulsions", and "extreme trembling", to "excruciating pain".[9]

This was all done in order to supposedly demonstrate that children are
sexual beings and can enjoy sexual pleasure as well as any adult. Kinsey
sought to use these results to indicate that children are indeed able to
engage in and benefit from sexual activity. There was no documentation as
to who were those children or where they came from. How's that for
scientific soundness? However, the relevant issue here is that Kinseyan
concepts and perceptions on human sexuality, though deceitful and
unscientific, have surfaced in sex education courses.

It is clear that sex education has been oriented towards the direction
Kinsey had envisioned for society. Due to the second part of his research,
his unfounded assertions have made their way into sex education for
children. Most of the professional sex educators are being taught the
Kinseyan model of human sexuality. A number of materials on sex education
have captured Kinseyan modes of thought to their curricula. Even the
biggest and most influential organizations include and promulgate Kinseyan
concepts within their educational efforts.

Evidence of the correlation between Kinsey's theories and prominent
educational agencies is abundant. One of the largest of these is the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Its publication, <Human
Sexuality and Personal Relations (Sexualidad Humana y Relaciones
Personales>), for the Western Hemisphere Region, states that sex education
methods should facilitate the understanding that there is no one model of
sexual behavior, but on the contrary, that there are diverse types of
sexual behavior which are all acceptable and respectable.[10] The root of
their sex education objectives are clearly embedded in Kinsey's views. What
is more obvious is the fact that various remarks from both Kinsey and
Pomeroy (his colleague) are stated in order to justify teaching the
validity of diverse types of sexuality, the most prominent of which is
homosexuality.[11] The Teaching of Human Sexuality in Schools (la Ensenanza
de la Sexualidad Humana en las Escuelas) by IPPF, also states that young
people should not be exposed to negative prevailing attitudes towards
homosexuality so that they can develop "freely" and "normally."[12]

Other organizations that follow Kinsey's lead are the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), its regional
center of higher education for Latin America and the Caribbean CRESALC),
Planned Parenthood of America, and the Sex Information and Education
Council of the United States (SIECUS). UNESCO's publication, <Teachers
Guide for Population Education (Guia Didactica de Educacion en Poblacion>)
for first grade education, includes several cartoon-type figures claiming
that children have the right to know their bodies. They proclaim the
uselessness of guilt, prejudice, and social taboos. From seventh through
ninth grade, students are taught that sexual relations can be constructive
and pleasant experiences for both persons involved if both are open to
having them freely, conscientiously, and if they are informed and
responsible.[13]

The Regional Center of Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean
(CRESALC), under the UNESCO-FNUAP umbrella, also dedicates much of its
effort to similar educational instructions. In Diez Hechos Ciertos y De
Peso Acerca del Sexo (a Spanish translation of Ten Heavy Facts About Sex),
a publication partly funded by CRESALC, students are informed that the
enrichment of a relation is sex between two people, no matter who the two
people are.[14] In other words, students are taught to believe that any type
of sexual activity is both correct and naturally enriching. Ultimately,
children learn that heterosexuality is but one of the many options
available to them. In this manner they start to establish the premise that
heterosexuality can be easily abandoned. It is the creation of a
"heterophobic" society, which Kinsey obviously aimed for through his
research. This term, as of yet, has not worked its way into American
mainstream society as the term "homophobic" has. (Homophobia is used to
describe the unfounded fear and discomfort which some people or a
particular culture supposedly have toward homosexuals.) Once all of
Kinsey's ideas are in place, society will come to fear and be wary of
heterosexuals, while the sexual deviations will be seen as the norm.

Two of the main promoters in the U.S., where Kinsey's ideas are concerned,
are the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and SIECUS (Sex
Information and Education Council of the United States). Planned
Parenthood, by far the more prominent, founded by Margaret Sanger, is a
model of Kinseyan thought. Kinsey was simply following in the footsteps of
Sanger, who once claimed that "the marriage bed is the most degrading
influence of the sexual order . . . a decadent institution, a reactionary
development of the sex instinct."[15] SIECUS, under the leadership of Dr.
Mary S. Calderone, formerly medical director for the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, has also been making continuous strides in relation
to sex education for children, based on the Kinseyan philosophy. For
example, the promotion of the "acceptance of the wide range of possible
expressions of sexuality," was affirmed in a January 1980 SIECUS Report.[16]

But where Kinseyan philosophy is most noticeable is in SIECUS's attempts at
teaching childhood sexuality. By 1983 Mary Calderone was writing that the
child's sexual capacities could "be developed in the same way as the
child's inborn human capacity to talk or to walk . . "[17] It is amazing how
society is now working towards indoctrinating children in matters of
sexuality at an early age: Planned Parenthood's Sex Education and Mental
Health Report (1979), states that "no religious views, no moral standards,
are to deflect the child from the overriding purposes of self-discovery,
self-assertion, and selfgratification."[18] Children, especially teenagers,
are learning in sex education courses patterned after Kinsey, that all sex
is good in an of itself and that it is fun. They are being taught to
believe they have the right and that it is for their well-being that they
enter into any type of sexual activity at an early age, even with adults.
Many sex educators have joined the bandwagon, without any slight hint of
hesitation. It is no wonder that young people are engaging in promiscuous
sexual activity, now more than ever, with the resulting rise of venereal
diseases, illegitimate pregnancies, abortion, AIDS, etc. It is obviously a
cause-and-effect scenario, and our society is clearly reaping the fruits
from this type of mentality.

What is extremely difficult to believe is that our society seems to be on
the verge of accepting pedophilia as an orientation within the sex
spectrum. This particular issue is where the ties to Kinsey's research can
be fully attested. In an article, Joan A. Nelson, Ed.D., writes in favor of
a model of adult-child sexuality in which sex acts with children are to be
viewed as acceptable and even essential to the healthy development of the
child. What Dr. Nelson views as the harmful agent is "society's
condemnation," rather than the effects of such grotesque and immoral acts
on young children.[19] Also, Wardell Pomeroy (Kinsey's colleague) of Planned
Parenthood, once stated that "incest between adults and younger children
can also prove to be a satisfying experience. Incestuous relationships can-
and do-work out well."[20] This is exactly what Kinsey believed! A variety of
materials from Alyson Publications, which consist mostly of pro-homosexual
literature, includes a new series of books that attempt to justify
pedophilia and render its perpetrators respectable. "They promote children
as objects of sexual pleasure, give advice on how to have sex with children
without getting caught, provide locations around the world were child
prostitutes can be had, and list clubs pedophiles can join..."[21] Now that
academic sexology accepts children as sexual beings and many strides are
being taken to legitimize child-adult sex, we can see the acceptance of
pedophilia as an orientation on the horizon. It is only a matter of time
before we will find other scientists, sex educators, and publishing
companies, sympathizing with the pro-pedophilia effort. We owe this largely
to the work and effort of Alfred C. Kinsey!

The traditional, Christian moral values that once prevailed are undoubtedly
under attack. The endeavor appears to be one on which some of the most
influential sectors of society have embarked. Kinsey himself was motivated
to change society's perception of human sexuality by his disgust towards
the Judeo-Christian tradition. "Kinsey knew a great deal about the Judeo-
Christian tradition, and he was indignant about what it had done to our
culture," says Pomeroy.[22]

IPPF's manual Human Sexuality and Personal Relations states that a more
positive view of human sexuality, free of preconceived moral and religious
taboos, should be integrated.[23] And "SIECUS' idea of current needs in sex
education has led to the basic conflict . . . about the nature of human
sexuality in a civilized society and whether traditional Judeo-Christian
beliefs about sexuality are repressive and unhealthy."[24]

Alfred C. Kinsey had opened an avenue of abuse and deceit within the study
of human sexuality and sex education; we are witnesses to the continuous
expansion of this avenue.




http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/May_1992/kinsey_sex_fra...

Kinsey, Sex and Fraud
FRAUD OF THE CENTURY?
J.Gordon Muir and John H. Court

In recent years there has been a flurry of publicity surrounding some important cases of science fraud. But the names Baltimore in the United States, Benveniste in France, McBride in Australia, to list but a few - are quickly forgotten because, despite the breach of public trust involved, few would claim there has been a major adverse effect on individuals or society. However, what about a massive scientific research project that had succeeded in its purpose of using fraudulent data to radically alter perceptions of normal human behaviour? What if, in addition, this "research" had attempted to substantiate an unproven and potentially dangerous theory of child development with data from abusive and unethical sexual experiments conducted by paedophiles on infants and children, needless to say, without consent? And what if the results of this research were still uncritically taught as fact in academia and formed the foundation of current sex education philosophy? Would evidence of such a subterfuge, especially if it had been successfully covered up for 40 years, be of concern to the scientific community and the public at large? Would such a scheme qualify as the scientific fraud of the century? You be the judge.

This is not a hypothetical question, as will become very clear. What follows is a review of a simple expose of one of the most famous and most ballyhooed research projects of the 20th century. Establishing that fraud took place in this research is not particularly difficult. The trick is to try and explain how this major piece of deception was passed off as valid science for more than 40 years. However, the answer to this puzzle is becoming more obvious through, ironically, the efforts of those now rallying to the defence of the original project and its authors. There is an identifiable ideological tie binding this phony science's defenders and true believers. In 1948 a Harvard-trained zoologist, who had gained a reputation classifying gall wasps, suddenly became an international scientific celebrity - perhaps the first truly media-manufactured science icon of the 20th century. His name was Alfred Kinsey. His springboard to fame was the publication of his first landmark work on human sexuality, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.1 This was followed five years later by Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female.2 These two tomes (known subsequently as Kinsey's Male and Female Reports) altered Western society's view of how people behaved sexually and forced a sea change in what was considered "normal" sexual behaviour. Today the findings of Kinsey (who died in 1956) and his team (still surviving) continue to provide us with what the authoritative news weekly U.S. News and World Report (January 9,1989, p. 54) describes as "the cornerstone of almost everything known about human sexuality," and the philosophy emanating from their research has become the foundation of modem sex education.

Less well known is the role of Kinsey's research in support of the proliferating paedophile movement. According to Tom O'Carroll, chairperson of the international organization PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange), the Kinsey team's science demonstrates the capacity for children to have harmless sexual interaction with adults. This is a correct representation of one of Kinsey's conclusions. (See, O'Carroll's 1980 book Pedophilia: The Radical Case6). Those who follow these matters will be aware that moves are afoot in sexological circles to have paedophilia regarded as an "orientation." Sound familiar?

Kinsey, Sex and Fraud pulls together a mountain of documentation that the image in Kinsey's mirror was a deliberate distortion. Here's a profile of Kinsey and team's male sample used to picture normal sexual behaviour in American men: 25% were prisoners or ex-cons; a further abnormal percentage were sex offenders (Kinsey had the histories of over 1400); many were recruited from sex lectures, where they had gone to get the answer to sex problems, some were obtained through paid contact men, including underworld figures and leaders of homosexual groups; the group was wholly unrepresentative in terms of marital status, church attendance and educational level. In addition, Kinsey had a minimum of 200 male prostitutes among his histories. That could have been, at the very least, 7% of the total (2,719) in his sample's occupational classes!1(pp618,622) Kinsey's readers and the media got a different explanation of what was happening. An advertising circular for this survey said it was conducted "with full regard for the latest refinements in public opinion polling methods" and Kinsey's own text presented it as "a carefully planned population survey."1(pp618,622) (There is not space to discuss the female sample, it, too, was wholly unconventional.)

Already we have a description of fraud (using the intention-to-deceive definition). But it gets worse. In a 1941 paper Kinsey told the readers of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology that attempts to determine the prevalence of homosexuality in society were compromised by the use of prison populations. His own study would avoid that pitfall and provide the first credible statistics on the subject! His article was submitted in November 1940. Several months before, according to biographer Christenson,9(p115) Kinsey had already begun to recruit what became a large prisoner group in his survey sample.

Kinsey's homosexuality statistics were clearly inflated Thus, epidemiologist David Forman, after a careful survey of a much more representative population, was forced to say in his 1989, British Medical Journal article that "frequently cited figures such as [Kinsey's] 10% of men being more or less exclusively homosexual cannot be regarded as applicable to the general population." Other surveys support this view (eg, Tom Smith's 1989 study for the National Opinion Research Center11). But today, in the United States, Kinsey's original figures have become ingrained givens. You will read in Time magazine (July 10, 1989, p. 56 [U.S. edition]), for example, that "about 25 million Americans are gay." It has become politically correct so to believe.

The Kinsey team's statistical manipulations of their homosexual data, when examined in some detail, can have had only one purpose: to achieve as high an apparent prevalence figure as possible. For example, the Kinsey tearn claimed that 37% of the male population had some homosexual experience "between adolescence, and old age."1(p650) What they omitted to point out was that 32% had occurred by age 16 and the full 37% by age 19 (see Table 139, p.624 of the Male Report). And the statistic they misleadingly represent as adult homosexuality was, in fact, principally homosexual play among heterosexual preadolescents and adolescents. Moreover, the Kinsey authors represent this activity, which may have occurred only once in adolescence, as occurring throughout adult life.

Other hallmarks of fraud abound in the Kinsey team's human sexuality research. Kinsey chose his research staff for their bias - his coauthor Pomeroy noted he was hired, in part, because of his freedom from the "taboos," "inhibitions" and "guilts" that his colleagues had (panel discussion, Eastern Regional Conference, Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Philadelphia, April 17, 1983). A candidate for the research staff, Pomeroy also tells us, was rejected for believing "extramarital intercourse harmful to marriage, homosexuality abnormal, and animal contacts ludicrous."12 In the midst of his project Kinsey rejected valid criticism that his methods favoured overrepresentation of the sexually unconventional. When given expert advice to this effect, he simply ignored the expert(Abraham Maslow), refused to deal with him further and lied about the information in his published work.7(p181)

Sweeping generalizations characterise Kinsey's work. Important statements of fact, without supporting data (in some cases contrary to the data), are common. Another fraudulent act was Kinsey's deception of Indiana University authorities about his filming of human sexual activities.4(p174) And Kinsey coauthors Gebhard and Pomeroy compound their credibility problems by subsequently describing Kinsey's samples as "random" and a "cross section of the population" - patently false descriptions (Penthouse, December 1977, p. 118; Variations, 1977, p. 84). Other examples of deception, such as obfuscation of research methods and inaccurate claims of statistical validations, would take too long to describe and are, in any case, redundant, given what we know already.

Frivolity with facts was a Kinsey modus operandi, as exemplified by one long-standing Kinsey invention recently laid to rest by Fidelity (U.S. catholic magazine) editor Michael Jones: that the Vatican had one of the three biggest pornography collections in the world - the others being Kinsey's and the British Museum's (Fidelity, April 1989, p. 22). This myth is treated as fact throughout Pomeroy's biography of Kinsey.4

From this point on, the story content becomes somewhat sordid and a suspension of disbelief has to be practised to get to the end of our review. Kinsey and team provided a body of experimental evidence demonstrating that children are "orgasmic" and capable of sexual pleasure - not just affection - from infancy. Apart from fuelling the aspirations of the growing paedophile movement, this finding now is taught as "scientific" fact in academic sexology.

Creating an awareness of this knowledge also has become one of the principal educational goals of SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S. - a leading force in the field of sex education in the United States), according to SIECUS co-founder and former Planned Parenthood medical director Mary Calderone. Known as the "High Priestess" of sex education, Calderone wrote in a SIECUS publication in 1983 that children's sexual capacities should be "developed in the same way as the child's inborn human capacity to talk or to walk and that [the parents'] role should relate only to teaching the child the appropriateness of privacy, place, and person - in a word socialization" (SIECUS Report, May-July 1983, p. 9). In the same vein and a little more explicit - if the previous quote seemed a bit ambiguous - Calderone's SIECUS colleague Dr. Lester Kirkendall (emeritus professor in the Department of Family Life(yes family life) at Oregon State University) has written in a 1985 issue of the Journal of Sex Education and Therapy " that sex education programmes of the future will probe sexual expression across generational lines, particularly as our sense of guilt about these things diminishes.

Extending the Kinsey findings even further - to their logical long-term conclusion - James Ramey, visiting professor in a medical school psychiatry department, in an unusually candid piece in the May 1979 SIECUS Report, wrote, "We are in roughly the same position today with regard to incest as we were a hundred years ago with respect to our fear of masturbation" (p. 1). In a series of remarkable experiments, the Kinsey team provided the scientific base for these progressive developments.

Several hundred children, 2 months and older, were manually and orally masturbated by "partners" in "orgasm" experiments, in some cases over periods of 24 hours. The performance of at least 188 children was timed with a stopwatch (see tables). Particulars of physiological reactions, such as the presence of anal contractions, were carefully recorded. Kinsey has assured us that "technically trained" individuals were involved in this experimentation and that some of the children were followed over a period of years to make sure that true orgasms were occurring.1(p177) These data are unique in the scientific literature, but no satisfactory explanation has ever been given of how they were obtained.

Kinsey disingenuously has maintained that in the course of interviewing people about their sex lives he just happened to come across a technically trained few (who trained them?) with identical stopwatch measurements on hand from which to piece together the most remarkable and precise tables on infant and childhood sexual (orgasmic) response ever obtained. No other surveys before or since have been able to achieve this feat - for obvious reasons. Pressed by Fidelity's Michael Jones to explain the precise measurements in so many children (Fidelity, April 1989, p. 32), Kinsey associate Paul Gebhard naively replied, "One parent used a stopwatch"! (The implication is that some of the information came from parents!) Kinsey photographer C.A. Tripp, apparently oblivious to the enormity of what he was saying, told one of us (JGM) after a television show that the experiments did indeed take place (we have speculated the data may have been invention), that they were harmless, that the children enjoyed the activity and there was no need for parental consent!

Maybe the children benefited. Here are Kinsey and colleagues' descriptions of the orgasm-inducing experiments: 1(p161) "Extreme tension with violent convulsion"... "mouth distorted ....... tongue protruding" ... "eyes staring"... "violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)". . . "extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject" . . . "excruciating pain and may scream if movement is continued" . . . "will fight away from the partner." Use of the neutral term ‘partner’ is interesting in this context.

This is the only example in Western scientific literature where data from the sexual abuse of infants and children are used to substantiate currently taught theories of human development - in this case normal sexual development. A further remarkable fact is that data from these experiments were actually published as valid "science" shortly after the trial of 20 Third Reich doctors at Nuremberg for, in some cases, lesser degrees of human abuse. And the book in which these results were tabulated was hailed in the American media as a great work of science, sweeping away embedded myths and delusions. In the December 1947 Harper's, for example, the "methods goals and findings" were said to have been "checked and rechecked by outstanding investigators" (p. 490). Nota wordappeared anywhere about the illegality and abusiveness of the child sex experiments. The public, getting its information second hand from the press, believed a great scientific and cultural milestone had been passed. This was to be the enlightenment whereby society would be educated away from its burden of Judeo-Christian superstition. Regarding sex education, Kinsey wrote to a colleague: "I shall aim to distinguish the scientific data in this field from the moralistic claptrap which has invaded our schoolroom."9(p118)

By whatever means Kinsey's child sex research was accomplished, it was the work of sex offenders capable of criminal acts - possibly offenders with an interest in science since such meticulous care in recording results was evident (table excerpts below). On the other hand, scientists are capable of criminal thoughts and acts, and the Kinsey team, according to one of their number, may have fallen into this category.

In the 1977 book Ethical Issues in Sex Therapy and Research,15 Kinsey coauthor (of the Female Report) Dr. Paul Gebhard makes some very frank statements about how the Kinsey team dealt with some of the ethical issues they confronted. Gebhard's comments go some way toward clarifying the entire Kinsey research philosophy.

It was Gebhard's view that "Each researcher must establish his or her own ethical hierarchy and decide as problems present themselves whether the ultimate good resulting from the research or therapy supersedes a particular ethic"15(p14). Concerning the nature and sources of information for the Kinsey Reports, Gebhard had this to say:

We have always insisted on maintaining confidentiality, even at the cost of thereby becoming amoral at best and criminal at worst. Examples of amorality are our refusal to inform a wife that her husband has just confessed to us he has an active venereal disease, and our refusal to tell parents that their child is involved in seriously deviant behaviour [emphasis added].15(P13)

The matter of the husband and wife, though certainly not the child, would possibly be handled the same way by some researchers today. But Gebhard went on to give an example of outright "criminality":

An example of criminality [in the Kinsey research] is our refusal to cooperate with authorities in apprehending a paedophile we had interviewed who was being sought for a sex murder [emphasis added.15(P13)

It is assumed that the murder victim in this case was a child. It is not impossible that before he/she died, information of a sexual nature was obtained by the killer that subsequently appeared as part of Kinsey's child sexuality tables depicting "normal" sexual response.

In another illustration, Gebbard recounted the story of Wardell Pomeroy being told by a prison interviewee that he intended to stab another prison inmate to death with a "file which had been turned into a ten-inch knife." Pomeroy did not know that the prisoners were just testing him. He discussed his dilemma with other members of the Kinsey team. If he told the authorities about the knife, he might save a life. If he said nothing,

... someone might get stabbed. We decided that the man might get stabbed anyway .... We kept perfectly quiet.... [I]n order to facilitate the research, we had to literally gamble with someone's life [emphasis added.15(P18)

This type of philosophy was rationalised by Gebhard as "own[ing] ... allegiance to science ... [and not] to any one society.15(p19) Confidentiality was more important than life itself.

We would keep confidentiality even if life itself were at issue. We simply would not break confidentiality for any reason whatsoever. So, in many ways, we are rather amoral, but we simply set ourselves to one side and say, "We are scientists and observers, and we are not willing to get involved in this thing one way or another.15(p17)

Only the survivors of the Kinsey era at Bloomington can say exactly how the Kinsey research philosophy was applied in practice in the gathering of the child sex experiment data for the Male Report. It is important for society to know in the interests of truth in science and, more importantly, because crimes may have been involved that should be a matter of public record.

The Kinsey team's work, as is evident from the deliberate effort to manufacture statistics showing a high rate of homosexuality in the male population, was designed with certain goals in mind. Gershon Legman, former bibliographer of Kinsey's erotica collection at the Kinsey Institute, was dismissed as disgruntled when he wrote in The Horn Book that the Kinsey studies were "statistical hokum" designed to "disguise" his "propagandistic" purpose of respectabilizing homosexuality and certain sexual perversions."16 Legman added, "[Kinsey] did not hesitate to extrapolate his utterly inadequate and inconclusive samplings .. . to the whole population of the United States, not to say the world." It turns out Legman was correct. Stanford University historian Paul Robinson, in his 1976 book The Modernization of Sex observed that Kinsey's statistics were designed "to undermine the traditional sexual order."17 Especially threatened was the long-standing societal prohibition on adult-child sexual contact, which helps explain a common tie binding Kinsey's prime defenders.

In the current controversy, Kinsey's few apologists risk self exposure through the connection of their own agendas with the worst elements of Kinsey's. The first defender - in New York's Village Voice (December 11, 1990, pp., 39-41) - was Philip Nobile, a former editorial director of Forum magazine, who is noted for his 1977 article in the well-known science publication Penthouse (December 1977) on the subject of "positive incest." The following year, Nobile was featuring the views of a pro-incest physician in the San Francisco Chronicle (May 15, 1978, p. 21) with the commendation that "despite the utter amorality of her prescription, I believe she has an argument that should be heard. For she wants to save the children too." Nobile's review of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud was principally a personal attack on one of the authors.

Another true believer to surface is Vem Bullough, whose review of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud in the journal Free Inquiry (Spring 1991, pp. 50-1) artlessly mocks the writers for getting upset about Kinsey's findings on the harmlessness of adult-child sex. The Kinsey view is "probably true," says Bullough of the case of men with young girls, that "if penetration is excluded" the result of societal overreaction. Bullough has written in a foreword to Dutch paedophile Edward Brongersma's book Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study of Sexual Relations Between Adult and Minor Males (Volume 1) that paedophilia is "a subject that too often has been ignored or subject to hysterical statements."18 He recently has been quoted in a NAMBLA Bulletin advertisement (March 1991) recommending the Dutch Journal of paedophilia. (NAMBLA is the acronym for the North American Man/Boy Love Association).

A fascinating review by former Kinsey Institute staffer Dr William Simon has just appeared in the February 1992 issue of Archives of Sexual Behaviour.19 For the first time ever (as far as we can determine) a Kinsey disciple agonizes about the ethical dilemma of using data from the illegal experiments described above. However, Simon will only admit that the experiments were "possibly abusive." He assumes, moreover, that data from children can illustrate normal sexual development, and expresses concern that we "must ... be alert to tendencies to overidentify with the subjects of our research." We're not making this up! Simon believes our allegations are politically motivated and ideologically driven paranoia. This reaction might have been expected. In 1970, Simon and former Kinsey Institute colleague John Gagnon authored a SIECUS Study Guide (No. 11) declaring that in cases of adult-child sexual contact "the scarring is more likely to come from various adult reactions to the event itself" (p. 23). Interestingly, it was John Gagnon who, knowing the prisoner and sex offender bias among Kinsey's male interviewees,20 misrepresented the sample problems in a 1989 Science article as too many people from groups such as college faculties and Parent Teachers Asssciations and too heavily drawn from the Mid- West!"

One would have expected some official reaction from the Kinsey Institute to the allegations in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. The response has been silence and repeated refusal to debate the issue in public forums on the grounds that to do so would dignify the baseless charges. One clue to the sensitivity of these charges, however, has been the attempt by Kinsey Institute director Dr. June Reinisch to prevent public discussion of the book on radio talk shows. In the case of radio station WNDE, Indianapolis (Kinsey home turf, this was successfully achieved by implied threat of a law-suit. Another clue is Dr. Reinisch's response to National Institutes of Health scientist Walter Stewart's call (on the jacket of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud) for the scientific community to thoroughly and openly debate "disturbing questions" about the Kinsey research. (Stewart is well-known in the United States, and abroad, as perhaps the leading expert on science fraud. He was intimately involved in the Baltimore and Benveniste cases.) Reinisch wrote to the National Institutes of Health that "If such a scientist [Stewart] does exist and is on the staff of NIH, I thought you would like to know that he is making these kind of statements" (letter to Dr. Wyngaarden, November 8, 1990). We, like Stewart, interpret this as a crude attempt to discourage his interest.

A particularly benighted review of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud in the October 15, 1991 Canadian Medical Association Journal 22 considered the pointing out of the above (and other) facts about the Kinsey team and their research a "diatribe." However, we wish to thank this reviewer for incorrectly accusing one of us (in a letter exchange) of quoting Walter Stewart out of context.23 A response to the journal from Stewart calls for an investigation of the Kinsey research.24

Since the American media of the 1940s and 50s created Kinsey, how do their successors handle his fraud exposure? Columnist Patrick Buchanan, now running a presidential campaign, got the point right away and fearlessly ran a syndicated column titled "Sex, Lies and Dr. Kinsey" (New York Post, October 20,1990, p. 13) and radio talk shows tackled the subject head on, but print journalists have difficulty with this scandal. Unlike Britain, the "mainstream" press in the U.S. is liberal-left, and, of course, Kinsey has been a God in that group's pantheon. One of the greatest journalistic fears (and perhaps dangers) is to be too far out of politically correct orbit. Nationally respected columnist John Leo of U.S. News and World Report, recounted (in a conversation with JGM) a sticky situation in a previous life at Time magazine when he mocked the pro adult-child sex coterie of academics, including Mary Calderone (q.v.) (Time, April 14, 1982, p. 72). "A complaint came in," said Leo. "I believe Henry Grunwald [then editor-in-chief] made an apology behind my back." Leo said he thought hisjob was at risk. Now he is uncharacteristically silent about the shocking exposé of the related research his new publication thinks is a "cornerstone" of sexual knowledge. Print journalists might get on board when it's politically safer.

In the meantime, an awareness of the Kinsey research scandal is gradually spreading through the mainstream scientific (as opposed to sexology) community. An investigation of some kind may be inevitable.- in October 1991 a past president of the American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists wrote in the society's newsletter (Contemporary Sexuality, October 1991, p1): "Look how we've used the Kinsey data. We've used it for everything from assessing the stability of marriage to raising children to trying to understand human growth and development - not just sexual but also psychological growth and changes over time." And all this from a pathological model of human behaviour!




http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/Feb_2000/homosexuality.htm

HOMOSEXUALITY AND PSYCHIATRY
Pravin Thevathasan

Why do people become homosexual?
Homosexuality is not a unitary or homogeneous condition. As has been written in Understanding Homosexuality: 'It is surely too much to find common aetiological features in, on the one hand, the psychopathic, perverse homosexual and, on the other, the passive exclusive homosexual(3). In other words, the causes of homosexuality in the promiscuous, the dominant and the effeminate are likely to be different.

However, there is a general consensus among psychiatrists that homosexuality is an emotional tendency that is learned. Kendall and Zeally write:
‘ ....... exclusive homosexual preference appears to be a uniquely human phenomenon, and one which varies in incidence from one type of society to another. This would suggest that, whereas biological factors may influence whether homo sexual activity occurs, the establishment of an exclusively homosexual orientation is probably the result of social learning’.(4)

Another factor in the development of homosexuality is an abnormal family life. It must be emphasised that not all homosexuals come from abnormal families and not all abnormal families give rise to homosexuals.. However, a child needs to identify securely with the parent of his own sex and to have a happy relationship with the parent of the opposite sex.

‘Lack of confidence may stem from an absent or emasculating father or an overprotective mother, and undermine boys self confidence in relating to girls, so that attempts at heterosexual contact are likely to be unrewarding or even punishing’.(4) Thus the homosexual person needs to see in the therapist someone in whom he can confide and who will show compassion towards his disorder.

A study carried out by Kenyon(4a) in 1968 on lesbians showed that poor relationships with either parent was common: twenty per cent thought they had been brought up like boys. Nearly twice as many lesbians, when children, had been frightened or disgusted by the sexual behaviour of men. A quarter of parents had divorced as compared with 5 percent in the control group. Social pathologies thus produce human disorders.

‘General inadequacies of personality which inhibit the transition from the all_male society of many boys during puberty and adolescence to the hetero sexual groupings of adult life’ may make a contribution in the causation of homosexuality .(5)

‘A useful way of uniting these different ideas is to suppose that young people develop with the capacity for both heterosexual and homosexual behaviour, and that various factors determine which behaviour develops more strongly. Heterosexual development might be impeded by repressive (abnormal) family attitudes towards sex or by general lack of self_confidence’.(5)

King and Bartlett note that attempts to identify an organic cause for homosexuality have failed. They write: ‘When the search is for a "gay gene" or an alteration in a cerebral "sex centre" rather than for the biological basis of all sexuality, gay and lesbian people become concerned that this really leads to marginalisation’.'(1)

They fail to mention that some of those scientists (eg. Le Vay) are well known promoters of homo sexual rights. They rightly point out that these studies are deeply flawed. Furthermore, do the authors seriously contend that all sexuality has a mere ‘biological basis’ ?Is this not reductionism of the human person? While it is possible that there is a small minority of constitutional homosexuals, social learning remains a crucial factor in its development.

Persistence of homosexual behaviour
It is said that sexual orientation, once established, is immutable. However, there is growing evidence that many individuals change their sexual preference at different stages of their lives. Slater and Roth have written that 'it is unwise to assume that exclusive homosexual behaviour has been established until the age of 25 has been passed’(5). This group includes ‘mentally immature adults’ on whom the final pattern of sexual adjustment is not yet decided. The pro_ homosexual author, Michael Ruse, in his book, Homosexuality, has written: ‘At adolescence many people are confused by their sexuality and it takes a number of years to resolve things fully.’

Persistence depends on the person’s age, the extent to which there has been previous heterosexual interest and the person’s wish to change. Research suggests that, while a significant number will develop heterosexual tendencies, the majority remain homosexual.

The psychological problems of practising homosexuals
Hill, Murray and Thorley have written that 'homosexual relationships tend to be impermanent and may be promiscuous. The tendency to depression and suicide shown in a number of studies (eg. Lambert, 1954) may be related to this impermanence of relationship’.(7)

According to Slater and Roth, ‘homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous in their relationships with each other than heterosexuals; and the tendency is not confined to those with associated psychiatric disorders. The lack of stability of homosexual relationships, the difficulty of establishing fresh contacts with advancing age and the denial of the roles of parents and grandparents make the plight of the ageing homosexual a pathetic and difficult one. Some of the psychiatric disturbances, particularly alcoholism, depression and suicide (O’Connor 1948) which are common in homosexuals may be related to such factors’.(5)

Are homosexuals by nature more prone to psychological problems? The best evidence comes from large scale studies by Weinberg (1974) and Bell (1978) from the Kinsey Institute. They found a higher incidence of loneliness, lower self_acceptance and more depression and suicidal ideas in their male and female homosexuals than in their hetero sexual controls.

There is one truly tragic statistic secondary to the fact that a number of physical diseases are linked to homosexual activity: the average male homosexual in the United States will be dead before he reaches the age of forty five. Despite this, writers such as Davison and Neil, who support the homosexual lifestyle, state that ‘clinicians should help them to resist the pressures that are still applied by those directing them to heterosexuality ... mental health professionals could be attempting more vigorously to reduce this widespread fear and abhorrence of homo_eroticism’.(2)


Conclusion
King and Bartlett (1) conclude their article by stating they did not intend to write a bland review. They write with passion, and there is much in what they say. As Christians we too must be aware of the mistakes of the past. Hatred and misunderstanding of homosexual persons have led to much unhappiness a few years ago. The Dominican, Father Gerald Vann related a story of the man who was advised by his confessor to marry a good Catholic woman after he had mentioned his homosexual orientation. One can but hope that this attitude is a thing of the past. The pastoral care offered by the church is more charitable than that offered by ‘gay advocates.’ The church teaches that homosexual persons have the same dignity as any other human being, not because they are homosexuals but because they are persons.

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • technotrucker 2010/08/02 01:54:20
    technotrucker
    +14
    This is a very good post. I have made these points over and over to supporters of the immoral gay society. They insist that being gay is victimless. It is not.
    Prepubescence and adolescence is a very trying time for children. Hormones raging, insecurities and the like. It makes it very easy to confuse an already struggling mind into believing they are attracted to the same sex. It is still clinically a mental disorder, being there is no biological reason for same sex attraction. Admiration and even envy are often mistaken for attraction.
    Of course the Gays on this site will label this huge amount of research as hogwash, without one iota of rebuttal with facts. The recruitment of younger and younger kids into the fold is on the same playing field as an occult activity, yet no one seems to find a fault in it. Strange that gays find no issue with pedophilia as long as it suits their needs.
    peace

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • REFUSENICK1967 2011/10/08 18:51:45
    REFUSENICK1967
    1 in 15 children will be molested by a Gay person,If gay people make up only 6% of the American population,That would make 1 out of every 6 gay people will molest a child
  • DeborahLakeHelen 2011/10/07 01:12:16 (edited)
    DeborahLakeHelen
    +1
    Wow, Dana, now this post is one that is worth C&P;'ing to my documents. MANY valid points were made that I agree with wholeheartedly. I've newer believed the malarkey that being a homosexual is genetic, because I know God would never put ANYTHING in pour physiological make up that would cause us to sin. Furthermore, I despise, I mean DESPISE the way homosexuals have RUINED, tarnished and made blasphemy into SACRED symbols ( the rainbow, butterfly, etc...) for their own perverted euphemisms, and ruined perfectly good words iin the English language. (gay, fairy, etc...) I also find it absolutely APPALLING that homosexual men are allowed to adopt little boys. I have NO DOUBT what goes on in those perverted households!
  • safari 2011/10/05 15:29:11
    safari
    +2
    "This article is about the elements in the homosexual community who are forcing their beliefs and habits on American society, especially in the public schools and colleges and universities. obama's safe school czar is tied to NAMBLA a leading gay rights group that advocates sex between adult men and young boys. The safe school czar kevin jennings, founded glsen, and has been working since the 90's to force homosexual indoctrination on our public school children. "

    I've seen it, reported on it, and am opposed to this.

    Because of the agenda - it has turned me and my feelings quite off the whole subject when I didn't used to care. The destruction of family is hugely important to the communist manifesto. So of course - what a great agenda to add to their already existing stew of putrid evil against mankind in general. It's the agenda that I speak of not the people it has used as tools to accomplish it.

    This is not a condemnation of individuals - God loves every one.

    But to allow something like this to be used against society - is wrong. The same agenda is attempting to establish pedophiles as being normal as well.

    WAKE UP AMERICA - it's already almost too late.

    There is a time place for every thing - the class room shouldn't be turned into a sexual breeding ground for...
    "This article is about the elements in the homosexual community who are forcing their beliefs and habits on American society, especially in the public schools and colleges and universities. obama's safe school czar is tied to NAMBLA a leading gay rights group that advocates sex between adult men and young boys. The safe school czar kevin jennings, founded glsen, and has been working since the 90's to force homosexual indoctrination on our public school children. "

    I've seen it, reported on it, and am opposed to this.

    Because of the agenda - it has turned me and my feelings quite off the whole subject when I didn't used to care. The destruction of family is hugely important to the communist manifesto. So of course - what a great agenda to add to their already existing stew of putrid evil against mankind in general. It's the agenda that I speak of not the people it has used as tools to accomplish it.

    This is not a condemnation of individuals - God loves every one.

    But to allow something like this to be used against society - is wrong. The same agenda is attempting to establish pedophiles as being normal as well.

    WAKE UP AMERICA - it's already almost too late.

    There is a time place for every thing - the class room shouldn't be turned into a sexual breeding ground for ANYTHING - wtf does that have to do with education? Anyone remember reading, writing and arithmetic? Kids are getting out of school unable to perform those most basic functions yet you can be damn sure they will know all about sex including deviant sex.
    (more)
  • gkirmani 2011/10/03 19:19:36
    gkirmani
    +3
    America is fast turning to be an IMMORAL MENTALLY UNSTABLE and GAY Contry.......It is a serious sickenss but America and Americans are OT free to LOOK athemselves.....what a PITY
  • Deborah... gkirmani 2011/10/08 18:44:21
    DeborahLakeHelen
    +1
    Well said
  • Patriot Unit 2011/09/30 21:49:43
    Patriot Unit
    +3
    Well, sense 2009, I have seen a lot of similarities between Nazi Germany and us, and that is so very sad, that my fellow Americans have become so complacent, that they look the other way as their country is being changed for the worse.
  • Deborah... Patriot... 2011/10/07 01:19:26
    DeborahLakeHelen
    COMPLACENT is EXACTLY what "we've" become. Sickening indeed.
  • REFUSEN... Patriot... 2011/10/08 18:53:31
    REFUSENICK1967
    100 % Correct
  • Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2011/09/30 12:31:32
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    I see that the Pedophile supporters are out in force.

    It is pure ignorance to support gay/pedophile behavior. The AIDS pandemic is being dismissed by the media. The Debtocrats passed the aptly nick-named 'Pedophile Protection Act' last year (s 909).

    This behavior is pure evil.

    No parent in their right mind would want their children near anyone with this behavior.
  • Deborah... Torchma... 2011/10/07 01:20:37
    DeborahLakeHelen
    100 % TRUE!
  • Pieter Joubert 2011/09/30 08:10:31
    Pieter Joubert
    Taking the opinions of these people as gospel is wrong.

    Records show that 95% of sodomy cases involving children was commited by hetrosexual males, so the myth that homosexual males are responsible for this is false.

    It has been shown by one study after the other that sexual preference is not determined by outside forces /influence.
  • Torchma... Pieter ... 2011/09/30 12:20:11
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    That is a lie. Gays were raping/molesting boys at the rate of 12 to 1, over those who were listed as 'heterosexual' (Cameron), 20 years ago. That number does not show the devastating truth that it is actually worse than that. There is a neighbor here that has been charged with the rape of a girl AND a boy. When a man rapes a boy he is committing the GAY act of sodomy. Sodomy is the primary method of transmitting AIDS and the reason that it is STILL primarily a gay male disease (AMA).
    The facts were well known BEFORE the internet got rolling. One Judge wrote a statement about the problem with gay pedophiles in the 1950s. Do you know WHY it used to be illegal to be a homosexual?
    When you have homosexuals in your family and have those you know die from AIDS you tend to want to know the facts. I've been researching this for 2 decades and am furious at the ignorant statements and bold lies of those who promote this behavior.
  • Pieter ... Torchma... 2011/09/30 19:13:32
    Pieter Joubert
    +1
    These comments are so full of lies and assumptions, I nearly did not bother to comment.

    In the 1950's people also believed black people were of a lower intelligence level than white people and that was also a myth.

    Sodomy may have been the primary way of transmitting aids 30 years ago, now everyone having any kind of sex can get it.

    Aids is by no means a primary gay male disease, check the WHO figures and that will dispel that myth.

    Do yourself a huge favour and actually do research, you will find 90% of child molesters serving jail sentences are heterosexual males.
  • Deborah... Torchma... 2011/10/07 01:26:54
    DeborahLakeHelen
    The facts are the facts, but SOME people will refuse to accept the truth, even when they KNOW it's the truth! If they acknowledged the truth, they' have no excuse to continue their perverted behavior.
  • Deborah... Torchma... 2011/10/08 18:46:14
    DeborahLakeHelen
    I'm definitely with you on your views!
  • Deborah... Pieter ... 2011/10/07 01:22:56
  • Pieter ... Deborah... 2011/10/07 18:34:23
    Pieter Joubert
    The contents of your thought pattern and arguement in full view
  • Deborah... Pieter ... 2011/10/08 03:07:59
    DeborahLakeHelen
    Nah, just what I think about your frigged up philosophy, Peter.
  • Pieter ... Deborah... 2011/10/08 16:56:33
    Pieter Joubert
    You should stop smoking that stash in the photo and then maybe you will be able to think straight. On the other hand many times it is gay people still in the closet who are most verbal about homosexuality so which one are you a closet case or a smoker.
  • Deborah... Pieter ... 2011/10/08 17:03:06
    DeborahLakeHelen
    Well that's just it, PETER! I do think STRAIGHT! lmlao You're the one HIDING behind the closet door in a dress!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 Next » Last »

About Me

DanaR

DanaR

Dillingham, AK, US

2009/09/18 01:44:15

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals

The Latest From SodaHead

News

Politics