You'd be forgiven for not knowing who these two people were, and there's a reason you don't. These "fathers of the Sexual Revolution" form the intellectual and supposedly moral basis of modern thinking around gender and sexuality. However, if you take a look at the men behind the ideas, what you find is so repulsive it would damage any reasonable person's adoption of them as orthodoxy.
Many of these men - such as paedophile rapist Michel Foucault - seemed to have been hellbent on using academic theory to justify their horrifying sociopathy and its ghastly sexual expression.
Update: if you want to know who inspired these monsters, check out the newer article on Magnus Hirschfield: https://devilslane.com/magnus-hirschfeld-the-fraudulent-reinvention-of-a-depraved-german-butcher/
Why Are These Men Important?
Before the 1950s, "sex education" was extremely controversial. Sex itself was somewhat private and taboo, mostly for understandable reasons further than Victorian prudence: venereal disease and unexpected pregnancy were lethal. The first lessons on sexuality were devised in 1919 communist Hungary by Georg Lukacs, Deputy Commissar for Culture in the provisional Bolshevik Bela Kun government, whose publicly-stated mission was to remove the "roadblock" of religious morality.
Alfred Kinsey's bestselling hooks provided the foundation of the claims made for the "Sexual Revolution" and gay rights movements.
John Money's literature provided the foundation of revolutionary thinking on "sex change" and "gender identity".
The very idea the state or the education system should provide lessons on sexuality is the result of these people's ideas.
These men are to sexuality what Josef Mengele was to genetics.
Our modern, contemporary attitudes to sexuality and gender are based on the social sciences' academic laundering of these individual's so-called "groundbreaking" material. Money's notions of "gender roles" are accepted as gospel, as is Kinsey's "scale", due to political groups leveraging them as "evidence" for moral claims which become laws and curricula.
Their ideas are celebrated and constituted as Western "sex education" we take for granted as part of the topic list for schoolchildren.
As with all the social sciences, the corruption follows a similar modus operandi: these politicised "academics" started with the conclusion they wanted to reach, and made sure the methodology and evidence "proved" it.
Kinsey & Table 34: The "Spectrum" of Sexuality
Between 1948 and 1953, Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist at Indiana University, published two "reports" which are cited as "evidence" human sexuality is "fluid" and exists on a continuum scale. The first was composed of interview with 5,300 "men" (ahem) and the other, around 8,000 "women" (ahem).
- Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)
- Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953)
Kinsey's work is cited as authoritative "evidence" on human sexuality, and popularised the contemporary belief people aren't necessarily born heterosexual, but vary in their disposition. His "Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating Scale" ran from 1-6 (1 hetero, 6 homo) with an additional classification of X (asexual).
In 1949, he testified before the California General Assembly’s Subcommittee on Sex Crimes, urging them to liberalise sex offense statutes. He argued specifically for granting immediate paroles to suspected child molesters, and warned that societal “hysteria” does more harm to children than the actual molestation: "It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts."
What's most disturbing is who this man was and what his intentions were. We know now thanks to what you might call the outright harassment of him by a fundamentalist Christian campaigner Dr. Judith Reisman. Despite being a controversial character herself, the evidence form Reisman's investigations are startling.
Dr Miriam Grossman puts it this way:
"When I say that Kinsey was a deeply disturbed individual, it fails to capture the level of his psychopathology. I’ve been a psychiatrist for thirty years, and trust me, I’ve met some very strange people. I am not easily shocked.
But when I began to read Kinsey’s official biography…what can I tell you? He was—please excuse the technical jargon—a real mental case.
Kinsey was afflicted at his core. He was a depraved human being, and his emotional illness expressed itself through his sexuality. He was consumed by a grotesque, debilitating obsession with a wide range of abnormal behaviors—I’ll spare you the details, but I doubt very much that in all the 62 years of Kinsey’s miserable life he knew even one day of what we would consider healthy sexuality."
The New York Times questioned his character extensively:
"If the field of sex studies owes its existence to Kinsey, the field of Kinsey studies owes its existence to James H. Jones , whose "Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life" appeared in 1997, and Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, who published "Sex, the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey" in 1998.
Mr. Jones's book revealed that Kinsey had had affairs with men, encouraged open marriages among his staff, stimulated himself with urethral insertion and ropes, and filmed sex in his attic."
Another article is more explicit, quoting a documentary:
"He (describing Kinsey), circumcised himself with a pocket knife, without anesthesia. He encouraged his staff to have orgies with each other but warned them that they’d become desensitized due to the constant sexual activity/visual stimulation. He hired a film technician to tape his staff and other volunteers in “scientific” porn films. His book legitimized every form of sexuality, including bestiality."
Where it gets truly dark is McKinsey frenzied encouragement to 63 year-old paedophile Rex King, of whom he documented 17 hours of sexual crimes.
"Kinsey published much of King's data in "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," where tables summarized King's attempts to bring to orgasm boys between the ages of 2 months and 15 years, in some cases over a period as long as 24 hours. Kinsey attributed the data not to one source but to many. But in 1995 John Bancroft, who was director of the Kinsey Institute until this spring, discovered that all the data came from King."
Kinsey's response to King about his documentation of young childrens' tears and convulsions while being raped as "evidence of orgasm" was stark: "I commend you on the research spirit which has led you to collect data over these many years”.
Reisman's mantle was taken up by journalist Karolina Vidovic-Kristo, a Croatian immigrant to Canada angered by "sexual education" being adopted in her homeland.
"As the debate over sex education was heating up in Croatia, a country where 86% of the population identifies as Catholic, Vidovic Kristo found herself watching The Kinsey Syndrome and Kinsey's Pedophiles, documentaries exposing the horrors of Kinsey's research. These horrors include Kinsey paying pedophiles to rape children and time it with a stopwatch."
It beggars belief what this man was allowed to do.
"According to Kinsey's books, his published research, and the statements of his assistants in various interviews, not only was Kinsey's research flawed, but it was also criminal. Child sexuality research data was collected from the personal logs of several pedophiles – one in particular kept detailed diaries of over 800 sexual encounters with children, and even with babies as young as two months old. Kinsey also collected data and financially compensated fathers who were sexually abusing their own children. He even collaborated with infamous Nazi pedophile Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who diarized his sexual abuse of hundreds of pre-adolescent girls and boys. At the trial of von Balluseck, the judge criticized Kinsey for not having reported these crimes to police."
It really was that bad. Infants as young as two months old. Kinsey claimed the children could enjoy this behaviour and practices such as incest could be beneficial.
"Kinsey’s report reveals that one way the “subjects” defined an orgasm in their “partners” was marked by “violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).”
Infants aren't physically capable of orgasm. What is being described, and what Kinsey described in a 1954 episode of "Sexology" magazine is far simpler: child rape.
What were the consequences?
"Kinsey also presented his research as representing the average American man and woman. Yet to obtain his data during the war, many of the men he selected to represent the average male were prison inmates, many of whom were jailed for sexual crimes. Kinsey also included several hundred male prostitutes in his sampling. To collect data from married women, he broadened the definition of “married” to include any man who lived with a woman for a year, including prostitutes who lived with pimps.
As a result of his questionable “research,” Kinsey made unbelievable statistical claims, including the following: 10-36% of men are homosexual; homosexuality, incest, rape, pedophilia, and even bestiality are normal, and 95% of men engage in these behaviors; 40% of married women are having affairs; 25% of married women are having abortions."
The consequences to Kristo were being nominated for “Homophobe of the Year 2013” by Zagreb Pride, and received death threats to her children.
Hugh Hefner liked it immensely though.
"Hefner boasted of being “Kinsey’s pamphleteer,” proud to bruit the often-cited Kinsey mantra: “fornicate early, fornicate often, fornicate in every possible way” (including bestiality, which Kinsey described in more tender language than he applied to human sex).
The Playboy Advisor’s “Kinsey approach” urges college men to lean on Kinsey’s work, because “You can prove almost anything with [it] … The idea is to bowl her over with the sheer mass of your statistics — all proving that simply everybody is enjoying sex this season. Losing her virginity will seem very unimportant compared to the fear of being different.”
Kinsey is estimated to have victimised over 2000 children, directly or indirectly.
"The number of male infants and young boys observed undergoing sexual stimulation, as reported in the Male volume, is between 317 and 1,739 (seven girls were similarly tested). The child-subject totals may be calculated several ways, depending on the manner in which chart figures are tallied.”
Kinsey claimed children were "sexual from birth" and it was “clear” that “the earlier” they are started on “sex education,” the “more chance they will have” to supposedly “develop adjusted personalities and wholesome attitudes toward sexual behavior.”
Money: "Sexual Orientation", "Sex Change", "Gender Role", "Gender Identity"
Meanwhile New Zealand born psychologist - another "sexologist" - had emigrated to the US and got his PhD from Harvard in 1952 with a thesis on "Hermaphroditism: An Inquiry into the Nature of a Human Paradox." Although he had a doctorate, John Money was a professor of pediatrics and medical psychology, but was not a medical doctor or psychiatrist. This, as we will see, meant his detachment from biology and medical ethics became central to his "work".
In his lifetime, he received 60+ awards and published over 2000 pieces of writing. Like Foucault, another serial paedophile, he is a social science hero.
His obituary makes interesting reading when you consider the sophistry quoted today in social circles. Money's ideas make up the socially-accepted so-called armchair "academic" opinions found at fashionable Western liberal dinner parties:
"Dr. Money also theorized about the origins of sexual orientation, which he believed was attributable to a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors. In the early 1970s, he aided efforts to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders, and he conducted some of the first research suggesting that gay-bashers were motivated by their own repressed homosexuality.
In 1985, he testified before Attorney General Edwin Meese's commission that pornography was not detrimental to minors. Even more controversially, he believed childhood sexual play was a necessary aspect of development, claimed that pedophilia was not always harmful to children, and urged that adolescents should receive explicit instruction about masturbation.
Dr. Money was married briefly in the 1950s, but soon divorced; he had no children and lived alone most of his life. An acknowledged bisexual, he had several discreet affairs with both men and women. In the 1970s, he championed open marriage and nudism."
In 1946, "reconceptualised" the term "sexual preference" to the neologism "sexual orientation", which we can find mindless agitprop outlets like Slate repeating verbatim: https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/sexual-preference-is-wrong-say-sexual-orientation-instead.html
In 1955, he posited six categories of six variables from his studies into hermaphroditism: so-called "assigned" sex, genitals, internal organs, hormonal/secondary, gonads, and chromosomes. Which is repeated by trans campaigners, verbatim.
In 1965, he co-founded the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic, funded in part by female-to-male philanthropist Reed Erickson, which performed the first sex reassignment surgeries in the United States. Again, Money was not a medical doctor.
In 1986 he defined lists of "abnormal love" under the umbrella term "paraphilias" to replace "perversions". "Philia" being Greek for "love".
In 1988, he attempted to confront mind-body dualism with a particularly daft concept of "bodymind" in "Gay, Straight, and In-between - The Sexology of Erotic Orientation".
Money is the founder of the idea sex and gender are somehow "disconnected" from one another and the "father of transgenderism". In 1988, he wrote:
"Because sex differences are not only genitally sexual, although they may be secondarily derived from the procreative organs, I found a need some thirty years ago for a word under which to classify them. That word, which has now become accepted into language, is gender. Everyone has a gender identity/role, one part of which is ones genital or genitosexual gender identity/role....the masculinity and/or femininity of your gender role is like the outside of a revolving globe that everyone can observe and read the meaning of. Inside the globe are the private workings of your gender identity."
His description of the "role" humans "perform" was:
"all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to sexuality in the sense of eroticism. Gender role is appraised in relation to the following: general mannerisms, deportment and demeanor; play preferences and recreational interests; spontaneous topics of talk in unprompted conversation and casual comment; content of dreams, daydreams and fantasies; replies to oblique inquiries and projective tests; evidence of erotic practices, and, finally, the person’s own replies to direct inquiry."
As such, he is regarded as the progenitor of the terms "gender role" and "gender identity". A decade later, Judith Butler combined paedophile rapist Michel Foucault's idea of "body imprisonment" and radical neo-Marxism with these notions to establish "Queer theory" in her appallingly-bad book "Gender Trouble".
Money didn't keep his views as nuanced in public as Kinsey. To him, like the Gay Liberation Front, paedophilia (a "chronophilia") was merely "a love affair between an age-discrepant couple":
"If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way." (1991, Journal of Pedophilia)
And if they were related?
"For a child to have a sexual experience with a relative, [is/was] not necessarily a problem."
According to HardLeftipedia:
"Money held the view that affectional pedophilia is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioral disorder. Rather, he took the position that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore superficial, ideological concept."
Marxism has as one its core beliefs that capitalism as an "ideology" creates "surplus value" and "alienates" people.
Like Kinsey, mainstream outlets - even bad ones like Salon - examined his work, which also seemed to consist of a lot of time with (other) paedophiles:
"In a 1987 paper, Money claimed that he had been studying the use of the drug Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) with sex offenders at Johns Hopkins since as early as 1966, at which time the drug had not been approved for that usage. The uptake of his combination of drug therapy and “talking therapy” throughout the United States and Europe was intermittent, but not insignificant. Additionally, Money’s interventions in debates about pedophilia, arguing that there is a clinical distinction to be drawn between “affectional pedophilia” and “sadistic pedophilia,” and appearing ambivalently supportive of elements of the pro-pedophilia movement, led controversy to dog his reputation, a taint on his name that would become indelible once the outcome of the Reimer case was a matter of public knowledge."
("Pervert or sexual libertarian?: Meet John Money, "the father of f***ology", 2015)
The David Reimer "case" (aka John/Joan) wasn't just a file in a cabinet; a horror story of more immense proportions is hard to imagine. Rolling Stone immortalised it in an article, documentaries flowed; with the whole tragedy detailed infamously in the book "As Nature Made Him".
David was a Canadian Mennonite identical twin (ahem, Mengele) born in 1965. Both were diagnosed with phimosis (contracted foreskin) and prescribed circumcision. David's procedure went horribly wrong and he lost his penis. His parents took him to Money at Johns Hopkins after watching him on TV.
Like Mengele, Money saw twins as an opportunity to test his theories about gender being a social convention alone.
At two years old, David underwent the world's first "sex reassignment" - being castrated and having the remains shaped into a "vulva". He was given the new name "Brenda". "Brenda" didn't think he was a girl. He was bullied and suffered beyond imagination.
What happened next was something out of a snuff film.
As one agitprop site puts it, underplaying their hero's sin for their readership:
"Reimer was shown pictures of naked adults to “reinforce Brenda’s gender identity” and pressed by Money to endure more surgeries that would make him more feminine. Both of the twins would later accuse Money of making them pose in various sexual positions which, according to Money, was just another element of his theory that involved “sexual rehearsal play.”
The actual details are far worse. Money was a Jekyll/Hide monster Reimer described as "torturous and abusive".
"During the twin’s psychiatric visits with Money, and as part of his research, Reimer and his twin brother were directed to inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse. Reimer claimed that much of Money’s treatment involved the forced reenactment of sexual positions and motions with his brother. In some exercises, the brothers rehearsed missionary positions with thrusting motions, which Money justified as the rehearsal of healthy childhood sexual exploration. In his Rolling Stone interview, Reimer recalled that at least once, Money photographed those exercises. Money also made the brothers inspect one another’s pubic areas. Reimer stated that Money observed those exercises both alone and with as many as six colleagues. Reimer recounted anger and verbal abuse from Money if he or his brother resisted orders, in contrast to the calm and scientific demeanor Money presented to their parents."
Or more bluntly:
"Some of the treatment involved David getting on the ground on all fours while his twin brother Brian placed his crotch up against David’s ass and simulated fucking him by making thrusting motions. Money would also force David to lay down and spread his legs while Brian climbed on top of him.He showed David graphic photographs of a seven year old girl giving birth."
How does a seven year-old girl get pregnant, and why were these photos in this man's possession?
It stopped at 10 after the parents balked at a surgical "vagina". Those years were unimaginable. The mother attempted suicide. The father became an alcoholic and rarely spoke. The twin began using drugs and stealing.
"As early as a few months after the initial operation, at age 2, "Brenda" would angrily tear off her dress, refused to play with dolls, would beat up her twin brother and steal his toy cars and guns. "She" complained to her teachers and parents that "she" felt like a boy. "She" loved running and climbing and fighting and hated playing with dolls. "She" had no friends, and was constantly teased and ridiculed by classmates for "her" masculine looks and interests."
After two unsuccessful attempts to kill himself after a life of misery, David finally blew his head off in 2004 at the age of 38. His brother, who suffered from depression and schizophrenia, died from an antidepressant drug overdose in July 2002.
In what will seem eerily familiar now, Money said it was a total success, and slandered the patient and critics.
"Reimer’s description of his childhood conflicted with the scientific consensus about sex reassignment at the time. According to NOVA, Money led scientists to believe that the John/Joan case demonstrated an unreservedly successful sex transition. Reimer’s parents later blamed Money’s methods and alleged surreptitiousness for the psychological illnesses of their sons, although the notes of a former graduate student in Money’s lab indicated that Reimer’s parents dishonestly represented the transition’s success to Money and his coworkers. Reimer was further alleged by supporters of Money to have incorrectly recalled the details of his treatment. On Reimer’s case, Money publicly dismissed his criticism as antifeminist and anti-trans bias, but, according to his colleagues, was personally ashamed of the failure."
A sexual predator grotesquely mutilates a young boy, then slanders the people pointing it out as biased "phobes".
As the Intersex Society of America pointed out:
"As it turns out, Money was lying. He knew Brenda was never happy as a girl, and he knew that as soon as David found out what happened to him, David reassumed the social identity of a boy."
Because he was a boy, and there was no "Brenda".
Money's successor at Johns Hopkins, Fred Berlin, - the most ardent apologist for pedophilia alive today - has a picture of Hitler on his wall: https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-professor-of-horrible-deeds/ .
You Will Know An Evil Tree By Its Evil Fruits
No reasonable human being can read Kinsey and Money's stories and fail to understand what was underneath them was an appalling evil. These men weren't just sick; they were voyeuristic, depraved, and macabre. It's so simple a child can perceive who they were, what they did, and why.
This is Mengele "science". It has been, and always will be. Somehow, it has emerged as fashionable on Twitter.
These men were evil. Both Alfred Kinsey and John Money, joint fathers of the "sexual revolution", were committed, sociopathic paedophiles. Social science "scholars" can dress it up all they want and even label their legacies "complex", but the simple truth is making children perform sexual acts for your own gratification or ends is paedophilia. Sexual abuse, plain and simple.
Social science launders their ideas and "research" as authoritative orthodoxy.
On September 11 2021, ex-Disney child star and gospel singer Demi Lovato posted on Instagram to her teenage female following:
Be a slut.
Show your body.
Have all the safe, different, consensual sex you want.
Just a reminder that being sexual is okay.
Just as these committed paedophiles evangelised.
Like Kinsey preached to Hefner, "fornicate early, fornicate often, fornicate in every possible way”, sixty years later, abused, deranged, drug-addicted female stars in Hollywood were proclaiming the exact siren song of two month-old infants being sexually tortured; totally ignorant of where their demented ideas were plagiarised from.
Academics - such as "sexologists" - tend to hysterically defend this "research" (which supports their political views) by claiming attacks on the character of these predators is unrelated to what they "discovered"; hoping to deflect attention away from criminality by appealing to sympathy for them over their "personal lives" being critiqued by prudes.
When you're an academic defending paedophiles and predators, what is that called again?