Talk:Alfred Kinsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alfred Kinsey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Freud Vs. Kinsey

Why is Freud more famous than Kinsey? Freud didn't use scientific methods...

Probably because the degree to which one uses scientific methods is likely not strongly correlated with the fame of a person. It doesn't much matter why; it simply is the case. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Some dismiss Kinsey's work as mere "data collection". This overlooks the considerable originality that goes into any collecting endeavor. First and foremost, one has to decide which phenomenon are worth studying and which aren't. This extends not just to the general field of inquiry, but the specific metrics to collect, the populations to sample, etc. Especially in a virgin field, this can be a tremendously difficult task. Kinsey displayed a real brilliance for organization.

Scientific merits aside, the cultural impact of both men was tremendous. Freud shaped a generation of psychiatrists, even if many his findings were later discredited. And Kinsey contributed to launching the sexual revolution in the United States. Like comparing sports teams from different eras, debates about "who's bigger" are ultimately pointless.

[edit] Old Neutrality Dispute

I wonder if maybe the reason he has an article deserves more space than gossip about his sex life... Tuf-Kat

Most of the important facts are already in Kinsey Reports. Abraham seems to think that Kinsey's sex life is interesting, but I admit that after removing his POV slant, it reads out of place. --Eloquence 21:38 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

This entire article needs a rewrite, but I don't have time to do it now. Perhaps later. Right now the article takes a strongly non-neutral position (for example, the position that group sex between consenting adults is wrong, while widespread, is not a neutral position). The "NPOV" edits that have been made have done nothing more than tone down some of the loaded language. The original text was very obviously carrying an agenda. The edits, however, left the agenda in place but legitimized it by improving the words. I'd rather the original loaded article stand. It would be useful to break the article up so that Kinsey's professional practices and his personal positions are discussed separately. His unconventional beliefs and the controversy around them are certainly worth discussing, but there is no need to use his eccentricity to demonize him or attempt to discredit his work.

Anybody I ask either considers him to be a great enlightening researcher or a despicable pedophile. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. This deserves a more balanced article than what it has now. Adding NPOV tag.--TexasDex 22:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not that i am any great expert, but this article seems to be more about people's reactions and opinions of his work that his work itself. I wanted to knoew the results of his research, the methods he used etc. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to separtate, but this comes across as gossip and rumour than cold objective fact.


sorry, i have now found the page i was looking for! Apologies.

While I agree that far more needs to be said about Kinsey's findings, nothing about the article, as it currently stands, suggests that the author is disingenuous or pushing an agenda. Many of Kinsey's critics have pointed to his unusual sexual practices to impugn the objectivity of his sexual research. The fact that those practices and the accompanying criticism is mentioned in the article therefore seems appropriate. (Sex educators might make reference to an "abstinence-only" organization's evangelical religious views in critiquing that organization's research.)

The problem with this article is not that it's "biased," but that it's too short. And I say this as someone who values Kinsey's contributions to the field of sexual research.

Does anyone know how Kinsey died?

  • I looked it up and found Pneumonia as the cause of death. KingTT 07:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notice Removed

I seem to think most of the POV issues have been fairly well satisfied and have thus removed the notice since there has been no major activity regarding it in some time. If this is disagreed with please re-add the POV check template and poke my talk page. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awful.

An article on the life of a scientist should explore his formation and his achievements instead of laying out prurient gossip about the man. This article has clearly become a forum for ad hominem attacks, and has caved in to people with a political agenda. As the German saying goes, When you are swimming against a river you are still swimming in the river. Haiduc 20:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gall Wasps

If Kinsey devoted a significant portion of his career to entomological studies, perhaps those studies should be at least mentioned? Mokele These studies were, in fact, important in quantitative biology. Steven Jay Gould gives them high praise in one of his essays. User: William Leslie Overal

[edit] A Disgrace

This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's just a smear-job. I didn't find much useful information here... maybe a tiny bit of relevant data about the man's life, but it seems obvious to me that this is a case of conservative forces slandering a man who tried to deal with a very important subject in a scientific way. It's shameful when this happens to scientists and atheists who question popular conceptions.

Radical Mallard Fri Feb 4 21:52:45 EST 2005

I agree with the above sentiments. Remove the putrid filth. This is the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I had held Wikipedia in high esteem, now I'm hesitant to recommend it to anyone.

Paulx82 12:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major updates

I have made major updates to this including all information on his early years, education and some bits on his work as an entomologist. I have not yet gotten to more and better information about the Kinsey reports, but I expect to do so in the near future. I am deeply concerned with the controversy section. If anything I think the list of alleged sex acts ought to be removed and replaced with a more general statement such as Author <Can't remember his name> has charged in his book "Alfred Kinsey a Public/Private Life" that Kinsey was involved in a number of deviant sexual acts. While a few of these have been confirmed some of them remain of dubious veracity. (Which is all objectively true). Perhaps we had ought to also include something about his development of the scale where homosexuality is a gradient and showing Kinsey more near the center rather than at either the exlusively homo/heterosexual extreme values. We do need to hae something about Christian groups who oppose him of which I know the most about the Family Research Council (FRC) which has a running attack on him at their website. Perhaps we ought to also post something about the Children of Table ## which is a book claiming he sexually abused children. Although it appears this is unlikely since the Kinsey institute points out that all information was taken from adults recalling their childhood sexual experience (and in one instance, one man telling a lot about his childhood). Obviously there are much needed additions such as Kinsey's important method of the interview as a method of collecting data (which I regard as possibly the most notible thing about the Kinsey reports from a scientific point of view). Also, more implications on the sexual revolution ought to be explored. Also, a final note, he did a lot of work at the the Indiana University in Bloomington and we need to have some comments about how he taught the marriage course there and how that was the gateway to his studies on human sexuality. In any case, please evaluate my work and make better what I've started. I really was pretty sad about the state of this article when I found it, but I think this is a good step toward making it better and hopefully through the process of having lots of editors we can make this article the type of article it ought to be encompassing the full impact of Kinsey's work and faithfully giving him a biography. For further comments directed to me please contact me on my talk page. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you all toward a better article. I'll be watching for your comments. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

So I updated the controversy section. Added some stuff on the Family Research Council and messed a bit with the wording. I removed some of the specific details on the masochism such as:

  • The sticking a spoon down his urethra bit which is almost true. Gathorne-Hardy reports that it was a small straw inserted by a girl in the company of several other people, but it was done as a child (circa 13, if I remember right?) so I thought the act of a child was hardly relevant and it seemed to have no serious impact on Kinsey.
  • Unanestetized circumcision. I have seen no evidence for this in my research, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen either (I'm not an omniscient Kinsey know-it-all). In any case, if someone could verify this through multiple sources it might be okay for inclusion. I think this is pretty well summarized in the bit about calling him a bisexual masochist. It seems overkill to me to say "He's a masochist. Therefore he liked being hurt." Please discuss if you disagree. I'm open to pursuasion on this topic.
  • "Tied rope around his testicles and pulled". Same idea basically as unanestetized circumcision. I think this one is a lot more unverifiable too, but again, just because I don't have the info right in front of me doesn't mean it isn't true. Again, however, it seems superfulous to include that type of thing.

Thoughts please.

Oh, will someone also please look over my work on the FRC? I'll be up front and say that I disagree with their policies virtually all the time, but when I'm on wikipedia I really do try to uphold the standard of NPOV with zealousness. So, if you'd please look over the FRC thing and merciliously remove any POV still remaining in it (I think I did well, but you never know until someone with the opposite viewpoint looks it over and tells you), I would certainly appreciate it.

Anyway, happy editing. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


i'm having problems with many of the statements in the controversy section lacking npov, or at least lacking in citation. many seem to fall in the "everybody knows... " category of things which often are baseless opinions. for instance: "Kinsey's work, often associated with the sexual revolution", "Kinsey's research polarized a segment of society", "Some have suggested...", "there are continuing claims that the Kinsey Reports contain statistical and methodological errors." can anyone verify this? it's cleaned up somewhat but still reads more like a slander than a good criticism. Slamorte 14:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving away from the controversy...

...in terms of biographical information this article is sorely lacking. What did he die from? Did he marry? Children? We seem to lose the thread about who he is shortly after college and plunge into the sex study without ever picking up the thread again.--Deridolus 09:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. I did a lot of research on Kinsey and hence I wrote the huge early life and education paragraphs as well as worked heavily on the controversy section because it was really badly in need of reworking. I haven't found time (=\), unfortunately, to work more heavily on the Kinsey reports section, but hope to in the near future. If you want to take a stab at it though, by all means, edit away! -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd have, but I know nothing about him. If I find the time to do some reading on him (a dubious proposistion, indeed), I'll give it a shot, but I wouldn't bet anything on the possibility.--Deridolus 07:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Would Like More Information in the Article

Probably like many people, I looked at this article after seeing the film starring Liam Neeson. I was looking for further information about issues raised by the film, but came away with many unanswered questions.

I think it is questionable, in terms of biography, to lump together both books as "the Kinsey Reports" and to discuss them as though they were a single unit. If the film is to be believed, the "Male" book was far, far better received than the "Female" book. Kinsey developed major opposition and challenges to his funding after the publication of the "Female" book in 1953, whether due to the change in the political climate since the publication of the first book or due to the content of the second book, or a combination of both.

I would like to see more discussion of the people and institutions who were his enemies during his lifetime. What was the net effect of their opposition? Leaving this out and starting to talk about Judith Reisman's criticisms some thirty years after his death leaves a huge historical gap and many unanswered questions. Is the Kinsey story the story of a victory of academic freedom in the US? Or a story of its defeat? Or a little bit of both? Are these books still being cited so long after their publication due to their merit? Or is it more that what Kinsey experienced during his lifetime from his enemies so scared off other researchers and funders that Kinsey's work was the only tree left standing in the field?

I also noticed that the article categories include "Atheism," yet this aspect of his life is not discussed in the article. Is it really relevant to his work? If so, how?

I'd also like to see more concrete information about how his works influenced later scholars, therapists, social thinkers and other people involved in the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s. It seems that we are given the conclusion that his works were influential in bringing about the sexual revolution, but not given the supporting material to substantiate or illustrate this conclusion.

--BenAlias 23:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need source for unlikely claim

It is currently stated in the article that: "The Kinsey institute also maintains that Kinsey's information on child sexuality derives from the thousands of interviews conducted with adults through his work on the Kinsey Reports and denies having involved children."

In Sexual Behavior In The Human Male Kinsey discusses effective techniques for interviewing young children (pages 58-59). It seems unlikely that he would discuss interviewing children if he did not, in fact, interview children. I'm not suggesting that Judith Reisman's claims are valid, but perhaps the Kinsey institute has been misquoted in this instance. Can someone cite the actual quote from the Kinsey Institute? Kaldari 07:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Found a more accurate account in the Kinsey Report article: "Bancroft reiterated the Kinsey Institute's claim that Kinsey never had any sexual interaction with children, nor did he employ others to do so, and that he interviewed children in the presence of their parents." I'll correct the article to reflect this. Kaldari 07:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Methodology with Children

Kinsey's reports contained information about the sexuality of young children, such as how long it takes children of different ages to reach orgasm, the number of successive orgasms, etc.. I don't understand the methodology used to obtain this information. Anyone know? --Cypherx 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of the information in Sexuality in the Human Male was obtained through interviews. There is an entire chapter in the book devoted to explaining his methodologies. He did interview children (in the presence of their parents), but of course not about orgasms. Most of that information was obtained from adults recounting their experiences as children, although he also used information volunteered by pedophiles (or so the story goes). That's were it gets controversial. Kinsey basically viewed data as data, and didn't descriminate against where the data came from. He did not, however, recruit pedophiles to molest children as some of his wackier critics would have you believe.Kaldari 21:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...well, here's the beginning of the oft-attacked table 34 (time to orgasm)

5 months of age, 3 orgasms, uknown time

11 months of age, 10 orgasms, 1 hour

11 months of age, 14 orgasms, 38 minutes

11 months of age, 7 orgasms, 9 minutes

2 years old, 11 orgasms, 65 minutes

2.5 years old, 4 orgasms, 2 minutes

... Is there any indication which data came from which source? Is this among the data he obtained from pedophiles? --Cypherx 21:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The story is that those tables of specific data came from one person in particular, a "Rex King" who worked for the US Forestry Service. I don't remember where I read that so don't quote me. If you watch the movie, there's a scene which is ostensibly about the Rex King interview. Kaldari 21:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From WorldNetDaily (probably not the most reputable source): "Reports of childhood sexual behavior were mostly from interviews of adults recalling their early experiences. Parents and teachers were also asked if they had noticed sexual reactions in their children, and some children were interviewed in the presence of a parent or teacher. Among more than 5,000 men interviewed for "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," there were 9 who reported having had sexual relations with children. One in particular, with an extensive sexual history, is the source of the childhood response tables in the Male book. Dr. Kinsey and his staff never conducted experiments with children." Kaldari 02:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abnormal Reporting

I removed this line

This reaction is thought by some to be extreme and unusual as Kinsey, among others, did not "invent" any so-called "abnormal" behaviours, he simply reported on them.

becase it seemed to be an editorial, POV opinion. If someone reputible has made this claim, I'd be happy to see it reenter the article but with "This reaction is thought by <<insert speaker's name here>> to be...." -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Reisman is a nut

After reading a few of Judith Reisman's articles, I have to say that she is a certifiable loon. Of course I'm not going to write that in the article, but it makes me wonder if her accusations are even credible enough to be worth mentioning in the article. Aside from her baseless claims of Kinsey's pedophilia, she also has some elaborate conspiracy theories about the media brainwashing children into becoming gay, and people's minds being poisioned by "erototoxins" from looking at pornography. She obviously has a personal agenda to promote. The question is, should Wikipedia be helping her to promote it? The neutral point of view policy says that opinions must at least be of a "significant minority" in order to justify being included in an article. Do a "significant minority" of people really believe that Kinsey was a child molester? Kaldari 03:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree with Judith Reisman's assessment of Alfred Kinsey, I do believe her work as a direct opponent of Kinsey is substantial enough to merit inclusion. Wikipedia does not help her promote her position by saying "Reisman says ... <<blah blah blah>>". We would be in violation of the NPOV policy if we said "Reisman says ... <<blah blah blah>> and she is <<completely right /// completely wrong>>>", but that's not what we're doing. Nut or not, Reisman's work against Kinsey is notible and merits inclusion. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't think a short sentence along the lines of, "Reisman's accuracy or qualifications are questioned by some due to..." would be out of place. We don't wish to be impartial, but that doesn't mean we can't also include facts that set peoples' statements and opinions in an objective context.
In some cases it isn't biased to say "this critic says this, but that is wrong because..." if the facts truly support it. There was some other certifiable loon who claimed that TMI released radioactive strontium that was getting into the milk used to make Hershey's Chocolate. No matter how loudly they claim it, it is nor and never will be true, and giving such statements any more credit than that is a disservice to Wikipedia. This may not apply to all of Reisman's claims, but I think at least some of them.--TexasDex 17:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

It is policy that when going from a category to an included article, it should be obvious why the article is in the category. It is therefore improper to categorize Kinsey as an atheist before adding discussion of his beliefs. This is especially true since the reader may well suspect that atheist is being used loosely, as often, for "agnostic", "freethinker", or "deist"; and Category:Atheists is expressly restricted to declared atheists who have defined their disbelief. I would not be surpirsed to find that Kinsey fitted this, but it must be shown. Feel free to put the cat back when the text justifies it. Septentrionalis 21:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Word Choice for "Pornographic"

"Some have suggested that the films Kinsey made are fundamentally pornographic in nature."

Pornographic literally means graphically depicting sex. Whether his films had scientific value may be debated, but if they visually depicted sex, they were pornographic, even if they were for scientific purposes. I think the line should be changed to something along the lines of "some question the scientific value of these films."

I must disagree. Dictionary.com [1] gives the definition of pornography as: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal," and pornographic as "designed to arouse lust". That is, films which are not intended for the purposes of creating sexual arousal (such as a scientific film) are not "pornographic". -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Conservative?

Regarding this paragraph:

Alfred Kinsey's two volumes became the manifestoes of sexual revolution and the counterculture. However, That was not the intention of the scientist from Indiana. Kinsey, himself, was a life long Republican, and his research was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, established by the moderately conservative Rockefeller Family.

It seems that whoever wrote this was trying to imply, by pointing out that Kinsey was a Republican, that he was conserative. This is an anachronistic implication, most people who held what today would be considered liberal and progressive viewpoints were Republican because the Republican party back then were the most supportive of liberal and progressive causes(for example civil rights legeslation was almost always championed by Republicans and zealously resisted by Democrats.) The situation changed in the 70s when a idealogical reorientation took place across party lines, thats when the most conservative element of the then conservative Democratic party crossed to the Republicans--the reason why Republicans are the conservative party today. Republicans have always been fiscally conservative, but being a Republican was the only option back then for a liberal and progressive minded individual.

And because the Rockefeller foundation was founded by a moderately conservative family does not mean that people they funded were conservative. Point being Kinsey was most likely not a conservative and I am going to delete this misleading paragraph.

And perhaps more egregious part of the paragraph, the reports were not a manifesto. They may have played a part in the coming of the sexual revolution, but a manifesto implies that this was the purpose of the reports, which it was not. --Brentt 07:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(I disagree. Republicans *used* to be fiscally conservative.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.227.37 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 February 2006.

[edit] Interesting

How badly POV this article is! "Although the investigation into sexual behavior carried out by Kinsey resulted in an explosion of knowledge about topics previously considered taboo, there are continuing claims that the Kinsey Reports contain statistical and methodological errors." and exactly what errors might these be? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"A 1948 American Statistical Association report entitled Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male concluded ... Kinsey employed unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and pedophiles to obtain data about child sexual behavior. ... Kinsey's colleague Abraham Maslow also pointed out the bias inherent in people volunteering information."
In short, there are some valid concerns about the selection methodology used in the report. There were a disproportionately large number of inmates, for example. And of course any interview-based study inherits bias from those being interviewed and those doing the interviewing. This article has improved a lot from when I first added an NPOV tag. --TexasDex 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False

Also regarding this paragraph:

Alfred Kinsey's two volumes became the manifestoes of sexual revolution and the counterculture. However, That was not the intention of the scientist from Indiana. Kinsey, himself, was a life long Republican, and his research was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, established by the moderately conservative Rockefeller Family.


From ALFRED KINSEY AND THE KINSEY REPORT: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND LASTING CONTRIBUTIONS

By Bullough, Vern L.

"Kinsey had probably been doing at least some of the things that Rice mentioned because he had approached sex as a taxonomist--as one interested in classifying and describing--as a dispassionate scientist and not as a reformer or politician. In a sense, he was a political innocent. He believed that science could speak for itself, and he criticized his faculty colleagues who took any kind of political stand. He refused to join organizations that he felt had any kind of political agenda, including the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) in its early years."


[edit] Validity

I'm concerned with the sentence "Nonetheless, his data are still widely cited despite questions by some about their validity." There is no significant mention of debate concerning the validity (I take this to mean his research methodology and rigor of his work) of Kinsey's work at any point before this in the article. Is there even any serious debate over his work's validity? That is, by anyone without a political agenda, perhaps a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a recognized academic press. If there is no such work then this sentence ought to be deleted.

Yes, there's lots of debate about his work's validity--he used convenience samples (there's no debate that a lot of his subject were prisoners--they were), and he did face-to-face interviews with subjects, whereas today similar studies are done with much stricter confidentiality and guards against influencing the subject. Dybryd 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No need to tread carefully with Reisman

The article at the moment is awfully timid about rejecting Reisman's claims. Factually, many of her claims are not just inaccurate but luridly implausible--that Kinsey conducted Mengele-like experiments on groups of small children, then published the results in a bestselling book but escaped prosecution. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

While there are legit concerns about validity with Kinsey (see my note above) Reisman's horror stories are simply made up out whole cloth, and there's no need to worry about NPoV in rejecting them. In fact, it's non-NPoV to present them in a neutral light. Dybryd 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Judith A. Reisman

Is it Possable to get a refrance, saying that Dr. Judith A. Reisman said what he did about Kinsey.

[edit] McCarthy?

Gosh, ChazYork is right, why isn't there anything in the article about Kinsey and the McCarthy hearings? We really need a paragraph on that. DanB DanD 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Play/Musical Dr. Sex

The article describes this as a musical and goes on to say that it was broadcast on the 11th of August 06 - which is quite impressively up to date since the play was only broadcast a few hours ago. It was however, definitely a play, not a musical.

I combined the existing "Dr. Sex" info with the new BBC broadcast info from today. Is it possible that they are two different works with the same name?
DanB DanD 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! Totally my fault! The musical is called "Dr. Sex" and is different from the radio play, which is called "Mr. Sex." I apologize for the confusion.
DanB DanD 00:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and OR concerns

The newly added section, Kinsey, Social_Science, and the Survival of our Species is an original critical essay, which violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV in a number of ways, and also doesn't provide any citations for the information in it that isn't original. Hopefully User:Quester67 will revise it himself after reviewing those two policies. Otherwise, it's going to have to go.

Meanwhile, the page in general is in dire need of citations.

DanB†DanD 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The section is clearly POV, Orig. Research so I've removed it per Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, I was one of those that wrote a bunch of the data still in the article and one of my primary sources was Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy's Book Alfred C. Kinsey: Sex the Measure of All Things, if you'd like to help add citations for facts in there as well. -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huge gap in biography

Why does the biography more-or-less end in 1920? The only thing mentioned after that is his marriage and death 36 years later. --88.110.189.21 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Summary of His Report's Findings

Before the "Controversy" section there should be a competent summary of Kinsey's two reports on human sexuality.

I agree, this article doesn't mention much about his work with human sexuality. It concentrates mostly on him, but I do believe that his work, since it was such pioneering and important, should get a substantial amount of article space. Laytonsmith14 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entire Career section was deleted on September 1st

Did no one notice this edit?!? Is anyone watching this article?? Kaldari 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexuality

Are there objections to putting Kinsey in a wiki list of bisexuals?Andral 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


-- I think it's very important to include the findings of his experiments with children. I've read the "pedophiles" used "stopwatches" to record the children's orgasms.

This is a huge piece of his history which seems to have been overlooked.

Please include the data and elaborate on the controversy to explain a bit about his studies of children.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/f/Talk%7EAlfred_Kinsey_8259.html"