Jump to content

Talk:Kinsey Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

just thought you should check the punctuation, especially the comma that's supposed to be after "gender" in the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.186.133 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article title

[edit]

This article should be either "Kinsey Institute" or "The Kinsey Institute" per WP:TITLE, since that is the common name. The official name is actually "The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction". —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree see #Requested move 24 September 2018 below. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

issue that Kinsey interviewed people who sexually abused children---but didn't do enough to prevent it

[edit]

This is something we probably need to talk about. And here's a start, with a reference.

day before yesterday, someone made the following post (this IP address is a library computer spread over a number of branches):

"Ever since, the Institute, the reports and Kinsey himself have been the subject of controversy, especially for Kinsey's alleged collaboration with and protection of pedophiles.**ref**"The Kinsey Corruption: An Exposé on the Most Influential 'Scientist' of Our Time" Susan Brinkmann and Judith Reisman.**/ref**"

The person removed this part. And yes, it is inflammatory. But it is also, again, an issue that it seems like we need to discuss, at least in some fashion.

I re-added: "The Institute and Kinsey himself have been the subject of much controversy, initially for engaging in open discussion of sexuality, more recently for not doing enough to prevent child sex abuse." And I re-added the reference in the "Media" section.

So (1) yes, I wanted to demonstrate that we at the library can make some good changes, (2) Wow, this is an important issue, and it's important to get it right.

As I see the issue, Kinsey promised confidentiality, his work depended on confidentiality, and it's highly valuable to have a baseline. But still, Damn, if there's real human harm right in front of you, seems like he could have done something. So, there's a factual side--what did Kinsey do, and then the ethical side--what should he have done, and with the benefit of hindsight.

"A Question of Resilience," New York Times, April 30, 2006.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE7D8123FF933A05757C0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=6
‘ . . Historically, the study of resilience inadvertently collided with the movement to treat child abuse as a national cause for alarm. In the 1950's, experts like Alfred Kinsey minimized the damage of sexual abuse. The fright described by children who'd had sexual contact with adults was "nearer the level that children will show when they see insects [or] spiders," Kinsey wrote, as Joseph E. Davis, a sociologist, recounts in his recent book, "Accounts of Innocence." . . ’

Well, you don’t want to galvanize the child into having a negative label. But at the same time there is the possibility of real harm to the child. The adult, or in some cases the older adolescent, is lying to the child in a tricky way, and regarding something personal. And the adult usually pressures the child to keep quiet about it. And that’s not so cool. Not so cool at all.

Now, the figure I’ve heard is 1 out of 5. Approximately, 1 out of 5 children will be sexually abused. Usually by someone who knows the child or the family. So, it’s the nice grandpa who wrestles with the kids on the living room floor. But no, usually not this particular grandpa. But it is someone like him. It is usually someone who knows the child and/or the family. Giving the parents the much more difficult task of talking to their child ‘sometimes an adult, even someone you know . . ’ I am not not a parent. I certainly can’t recommend the details of such a conversation. However, it seems to me that if parents emphasize “stranger danger,” they are probably doing their kids a disservice.

So there you have it, at least a beginning. 74.124.35.214 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything that Kinsey surveyed was both illegal and widely considered immoral and harmful. So, about harm: where you draw the line? As a scientists and not a prosecutor, his problem wasn't putting criminals behind bars. Also, since the director of the Kinsey Institute has been described as a conservative scientist, how comes that she did not rally in support of Reisman? I mean with a liberal director, I would understand why he/she protects Kinsey's reputation. But why a conservative scientist do that? Actually, Reisman's books are paranoid rants. She is all about suppositions about what Kinsey did, and compared her imaginary perspective of Kinsey with Nazi war-criminals. In her view, sexologists are overwhelmingly "Nazi serial pedophiles". She of course does not have a shred of evidence, that's why Roman Polanski is still wanted in the US and Kinsey and his associates weren't. Of course Kinsey knew that if he snitched, it meant that his research was over. It's like wars: wars are profoundly unethical, but if nobody fights for your country, your country is doomed. There are also crime researches, wherein perpetrators self-report their crimes. Murders are quite rarely self-reported, but all participants are granted confidentiality, regardless of self-reported crime. And if it were to come before a court, one may simply say "I lied to the researchers." I mean: "I'm Jewish, rich and Freemason" did not work for Jeffrey Epstein, why do you think it would have worked for Kinsey? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reisman was so fringe, that according to her obituary from The Washington Times, For her courageous work, Judith endured the scorn of the media, academia and even conservatives who were afraid of guilt by association. (My own bold letters, not from the original).
Mutatis mutandis, Richard B. Spence wrote about Secret Agent 666: Whether these antics delighted Viereck is uncertain, but if they were not also intended to lampoon and discredit Irish separatism, they certainly should have been. As such, they suited British interests very well.
The obit is right: conservatives who aren't foolish avoided her as the pest. Her allegations were a house of cards and every aware intellectual could see that. Her strategy was bluff, like in Bluff Your Way in Philosophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Expansion

[edit]

I've expanded the article and incorporated information from the last revisions into the expanded version. Since new sections were added, information from previous revisions is now spread out throughout the different sections and also has had citations added.

The media section was removed since “Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles”, A Question of Resilience, and Kinsey since they seem to refer more to Alfred Kinsey and his work instead of the The Kinsey Institute as a whole. Maybe they would be better suited to be placed in the article on Alfred Kinsey. September 1, 2011

Wait, hold up!!! How are you going to mention the controversy in the opening and then nowhere in the article mention what that controversy is? That isn't being respectful. That is being biased. We know that it has been the subject of controversy and mentioning the details is not an attack. Why is that not in the conversation? Now you just have this sentence dangling there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.30.239 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Removed banner at top of article

[edit]

Since a large number of citations were added to the article, I have removed the banner at the top of the article that reads as follows: "Please help improve this article by adding inline citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Monha123 (talk) 9/9/2011

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 September 2018

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Although there is low participation in this discussion, it has drawn no opposition despite extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 03:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction → Kinsey Institute – The shorter name is unambiguous, redirects here and always has, and is obviously more concise. Not surprisingly, the shorter name gets ten times as many ghits; It is (trivially) more common, and all the hits appear to be relevant, confirming that the term is unambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Here are my Google searches for Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction and Kinsey Institute, I get 30,000 and 327,000 ghits respectively, but your results may vary.

The scope of the article appears to be the organisation from its original formation in 1947 to and including the present day. But the article lead needs some clarification on this point. Andrewa (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kinsey_Institute&oldid=1207988178"