I believe every Christian Nudist should see this film. It does not matter if you totally agree. A friend in her 60's told me about it and she is reserved about nudity. Anyway, if you don't know who Alfred Kinslet is ( http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9275289 ). His father was a strict Christian pastor and false ideology and about sex. I focused on Kinsely father and son relationship and how society excepted his research on sexuality. It was interrest that when he research male anatonomy his book sold and then when he focused on women is folded. I see open regards to male nudity than female nudity. I am not totally into his study with homosexuality, multi partners and free sex because its more lust. I did see that Kinsely being a zoologist focused on sceintific finds and at morals. With morals we have respect and love.
Thats why I can relate to Kinsely study. If Sex is not Love. And nudity is not Sex. Therefore: Nudity is not Love. Love but be Love?
The similarity between the Playboy and homosexual ideal is no coincidence. "The Kinsey Report" (1948) shaped current mainstream attitudes to sex. It championed unfettered sexual expression and became the manifesto of the counterculture and sexual revolution. It inspired Hugh Hefner to start Playboy in 1953. Essentially it said that aberrant sexual behavior was so common as to be normal. Thanks to psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Alfred Kinsey and the "Kinsley Report" were frauds. Kinsey, a zoologist at the University of Indiana, pretended to be a Conservative family man. In fact, he was a child molester and homosexual pervert who seduced his male students and forced his wife and associates to perform in homemade pornographic films.
Kinsey's agenda, in Reisman's words, was "to supplant what he saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous "anything goes" bi/gay pedophile paradise." (Crafting Gay Children: An Inquiry, p.4) More than 25% of his sample were prostitutes and prison inmates including many sex offenders. Kinsey, who died prematurely of disease associated with excessive masturbation, said 10 per cent of American men were gay when, in fact, only two per cent were. Kinsey and his team of pedophiles abused 2,000 infants and children to prove that they have legitimate sexual needs. Reisman concludes: "America's growing libidinous pathologies...taught in schools...and reflected in our fine and popular arts, the press, law and public policylargely mirror the documented sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey team itself." (Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences)
Thank You for enlightening me even more. I am not unhappy that I saw Kinsey. And I am very glad you shown me your website. Yes, it seems that Kinsey allowed his research to get the best of individuals that shouldn't be apart of such a study. I can remember an instructor in home economics tells us that babies can.......... I had one idea where it can from and why someone would want to. I somewhat disagree that babies can be.......I even did my own research and read information too. It said anyone under 40 had no idea about Kinsey research. I can not even remember reading about him in my psychology classes in college. And yes, I am about to turn 40. I may have put my foot in my moth here, but I learned alot about what Kinsey may have done to naturism.
The website to which you refer is written by a person with a Ph.D. in English literature who claims to speak with authority about psychological evaluations of homosexuality. When he cites psychologists who claim that homosexuality is a disorder induced by alienation from one's father or anything of the sort, he fails to mention that such opinions are FAR out of the mainstream of current psychological thought. The vast majority of mental health professionals hold that homosexuality is not a disorder and, even if it were, relations with one's parents would not be sufficient cause to produce it. (otherwise there would be many more homosexuals than there, in fact, are.)
As for Kinsey, it seems important to me to evaluate him in as respectful and accurate a way as one should any human being. To accuse him of being a child molester is simply slanderous and without foundation. Apparently he did interview, as a part of his research, one or more individuals who were child molesters, and it's reasonable to raise questions about the legitimacy, appropriateness, and ethical judgment of doing so. But that is a long way from establishing that he was himself a molester.
All scientific research has its limitations and is legitimately challenged and called into question by successive research projects. Since Kinsey was the first to engage in a broad survey of sexual behaviors, his research is vulnerable to critique. The fact that it had flaws does not call the whole project into question or wholly negate his findings. They simply need to be placed in the context of subsequent research which has partly confirmed and partly disconfirmed his findings. In that respect his research is like all scientific research: because it is the product of fallible human efforts, it offers probabilities, not certain truths.
As a Christian I take seriously the command not to bear false witness against my neighbors. That means not to make accusations against others based on ignorance, gossip, or unfounded assumptions (or reliance on questionable sources whom I may value because they share my viewpoint). As a nudist I want others to treat me with the same sort of respect. If we in this forum, who call ourselves Christian nudists, are unable to discuss other controversial issues without the same level of reason, compassion, and respect that we bring to our discussions of nudism, then maybe we had better just stick to nudism, the topic of this forum.
I attended a Christian college and was taught to see both sides before making a decision. I did enjoy seeing Kinsey and grew up in a similar Christian style family an sex was not for making babies as Kinsey did. Part of it hit home. Yet after seeing a response to Child molester, I typed in Kinsey and yes that are reports that he study babies (penis' and vigina's) is see if they was stilulated. I do believe that much of his research turned up useful information. But, I do not support his free sex and homosexual finding. Yet, I do not the Homosexual behavior did not begin with Kinsey. In fact it was a greek practice. Personally, I would have thought with all kinsey findings on foreplay(that was anti-christian yrs ago), he would have taught men how to love us women only.
I'm not sure of your logic: "If Sex is not Love. And nudity is not Sex. Therefore: Nudity is not Love."
I think you may have meant: "Nudity is not sex" (If you look at the wrap of the sentences creating that logic).
I am not sure of the Kinsley report, I have not read it nor seen the movie. But if he is responsible for the sexual revolution that caused the diseased and sexually perverted world we live in, I'm not sure if I want to.
In fact, that may have lead to the repulsion of the body and caused more damage to the nudist lifestyle than we may have believed. Even then, men went to YMCA and swam nude, we can't do that today.
I know people were getting rather strict about the body then, and already had issues about sex, but our views of sex today is not any better as a society. It may be better in the long run with us being able to be free about looking into it and finding the truth, which was hard then, but at first, we were first fighting to be allowed to see the truth, only to be fighting again to go back to the truth we ran over to get to the other side.
Seems we ran so fast to seek the truth, we didn't recognize it in time, and we overshot it and now have to find our way back again. Like passing up an exit off the freeway in any major over crowded city. Takes forever to get back on track again!
How can we do the same thing with naturism without damaging our society and causing a backlash affect?
Boyd "I'm a Libra...I like to keep things in balance" Allen
I was wondering about seeing Kinsey, the movie, showing at a theatre here.
Don't think I want to see it. The History of Sex on the History channel Friday night was interesting. Missed the first nearly 3/4 hour and the last hour. Wish I'd noticed it on beforehand to be able to tape it. Would be nice if they'd do a History of Nudity. They do a fairly good job.
We met a friend of a fellow master gardener near her house one day. It became evident in talking to her that she was in the legal profession, and she was gay.
My wife stated later, "What is this thing about dykes being in law?"
They and their male counterparts must have gotten into law in big numbers and got themselves into power positions regarding getting their "rights". Too bad we as nudists couldn't have gotten there first. I think their getting there first makes our position less acceptable by most people.
I've seen teenagers recoil back from being fairly liberated as far as wearing Speedo swimsuits to the wearing of those horribly baggy shorts on the guys. Doesn't seem to have affected the girls as much. Think those that were inclined not to show much are maybe showing less. Those inclined to showing more are showing the same and maybe more.
I understand about Kinsey's scientific background, but also about his neglecting, or possibly hostile rejecting, of divine revelation to guide the study of God's wonderful gift of our sexuality. He himself and his team were involved in perverting God's beautiful plan for sex, and his research and conclusions, while presuming to portray the United States social setting, actually portrayed only the mentality of those willing to participate in answering his questions, which quite possibly represented only a fringe of society that he found fruitful in that willingness. From that segment of society and their responses his conclusions were drawn. Unfortunately, when published as representing the mainstream of society, it painted a picture of aberrance in sexuality that encouraged many, who also failed to acknowledge divine revelation, to throw off the standards that society had inherited from Judeo-Christian faith and tradition. I watched the "new morality" or "do-your-own-thing philosophy of the sexual revolution" arise in my late teen years, and those who spoke loudest always used Kinsey as their quoted reference to validate their sexual liberation. The results have been devastating for our nation and its moral social life.
On the other hand, if social nudism had made rapid progress in our culture prior to Kinsey's "scientific" study, we might have had so many nudist/naturist voices, freed from body-shame and willing to talk about their healthy view of sexuality, that the Kinsey report, if honestly done in that ideal context, would probably have conveighed a totally different message to American culture. Now, however, reactionary thinking toward the excesses in Kinsey's work has so imbued the dominant social culture that the idea that "nude is lewd" is the common corollary assumed by those resisting Kinsey, which increases our difficulty in helping the dominant skeptical mind separate nudity from sex. No, I don't like Kinsey and I don't want to learn more about him than I already know. I think I do know where he's at right now, however, if I'm a good fruit inspector, as Jesus encourages (unless, of course, he had a sincere, last-minute, death-bed conversion that no one knows about).
I didn't realize that the movie may have been one sided. I did say that I wasn't for the homosexual, and free love lifestyle. I also said that he did not talk about or focus on Love. Yet the movie showed how he was raised with a father who was a pastor tht filled his mind with false stories about sex. It is very sad that he rebelled against his false teach to become and promotor of free sex and homosexual beliefs in our society. Much of his findings came from overseas. I had no idea about him molesting children. If I did I would have never seen the false. The movie did not show this side of him. I guess many of the movies are one sided. I did not realized because of Kinsey misleading studies nudity had been false recognized. I did do alot of typos in my first post and saw it later on. The part I focused on was Love. Kinsey didnt study Love.
It's easy to see the one sidedness of things, and be carried away with the ideals that many want to show.
It's quite obvious that the intent of the movie was to show the "good" side and get the public to view him as the "good" guy. Even in naturism, we have to make sure we are promoting the good side, yet not hide the fact that we too have our bad side. It's the hiding of the bad side and only showing the good side is what gets peoples ideas into trouble.
The problem with the clothist ideas is that they assume that wearing clothing keeps us moral. When in fact, it does hurt in many ways. However, we as nudists, especially Christian nudists must not deny the fact that there are evil intents in all walks of life, including clothing, but that alone does not make the idea bad.
I'm sure if it were not for Kinsey, we may not have as much freedom to speak out for naturism, but it may very well have been a subject (sex) that was due to be brought out anyway by somebody, thus opening the doors for naturists.
Unfortunately, it was Kinsey who did the ice breaking.
Well, let's pick up the pieces and keep our end of the bargain.
And then suddenly, my website got blocked for some reason. I think they are updating geocities, but not sure. When that happens, I tend to lose my hyperlinks and my picture was an angel reading a book. Oh well.