Alfred Kinsey - Father of the Sexual Revolution [Historical Perspective]

[EyelessMC]

[...] Also around this time was the Bloomsbury Set that was linked to Cambridge. Bloomsbury Set was one of the core of British art scene.

Very interesting stuff and yeah, the art scene was also growing more Post Modernist from what I recall. I like the way you put it:
"The old world was slowly crumbling by the time Kinsey hit the scene. All he did was hasten it to a conclusion."
Couldn't have said it better myself.

For the same reason John Money wasn't thrown in prison for what he did to David Remar. If it's in the name of academic progress the police get their arms tied.

David Reimer was the first "transgender" and the first transgender suicide. Whenever people try to say the 41% 50% is just because of an unhelpful and intolerant society, remind them of the first. Remind them of why he was the first.

(Archive)

the JewSA at any point in its history was far from anything traditional.

Spoiler: Explaining how wrong this is

That's factually inaccurate, though. You can still find real PSAs shown to school children and the public on social mores and "rules" of behavior. They range from politeness at home to how to behave when on a date and what age to get married.
Society recoiled at the beginnings of the leather-jacket "rebel" types seen on the silver screen because it was believed (arguably rightfully so) that it was inspiring that rough behavior among teenager boys (the Greaser counterculture etc.)

Then there was the gathering of Catholics to propose what would later be instituted laws regarding the film industry after the rape and murder of Virginia Rap. Then the outrage about Rock and Roll, the Elvis Pelvis outrage, the reaction to an episode of Lassie which had the dog giving birth (apparently people wrote in angry letters to the TV station about how angry they were about such "pornography" on their family show), outrage about the growing irreverence and profanity of stand-up and televised comedy which continued well into the 80's and we even had reactions in the 90's to Halloween becoming a potentially demonic or evil holiday, openly anti-Christian bands like Nine Inch Nails and death metal music, etc.

Of course you know about the "Jesus Freak" movement (a nasty name for a funny little pro-Christian reaction to the growing counterculture of the decade where figures like Billy Graham were even invited to the White House) and you already know about the "Satanic Panic" of the 90's (which evidently wasn't as much of an unwarranted panic as the media still wants us to believe).

TL;DR We have ample evidence that American culture was very traditional at one point and routinely reacted at every new shift being introduced. Watch the video embedded into the OP of this thread. It shows that the US government actually did hold an official investigation into what groups like the Rockefellers, Guggenheim, etc. were doing. That was all the way back in the 50's when the SexRev was revving up. However, despite all that, it seems big money influence won in the end.

TL;DR for the TL;DR Just wanted to explain that you're parroting a false image of America past.

You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them.

You need to learn about the Weimar Republic, mate. That's for a different thread, though.

 

[Bum Driller]

To be honest, OP had so many errors and outright lies regarding several occultists, that it's a tad hard to take anything else in it seriously.

To add, it's a tad hyperbolic to say that Kinsey would've caused the sexual revolution single-handedly by himself, but if he did he should be fucking worshipped. Best thing to happen to the humanity in a looong time.

 

[Lemmingwise]

To be honest, OP had so many errors and outright lies regarding several occultists, that it's a tad hard to take anything else in it seriously.

To add, it's a tad hyperbolic to say that Kinsey would've caused the sexual revolution single-handedly by himself, but if he did he should be fucking worshipped. Best thing to happen to the humanity in a looong time.

You've said before that you know a good number of satanists and that they're just normal people tm.

Should it really be surprising that you believe this occultist should be worshipped?

If you think there are obvious errors and lies, why not point them out?

 

[EyelessMC]

To be honest, OP had so many errors and outright lies regarding several occultists

I only mentioned the one, though, unless you count the passing mention of Crowley.

To add, it's a tad hyperbolic to say that Kinsey would've caused the sexual revolution single-handedly by himself

Never said it was by himself

if he did he should be fucking worshipped. Best thing to happen to the humanity in a looong time.

Your account name makes sense

 

[Lemmingwise]

David Reimer was the first "transgender" and the first transgender

No he was not. The term transexual was coined in 1919 by Hirschfeld in Germany. He ended up planning 4 operations for a danish man who went by the name of Elbe and who died during the operation where they tried to do a womb transplant.

You need to learn about the Weimar Republic, mate. That's for a different thread, though.

Seems like you do.

 

[Bum Driller]

You've said before that you know a good number of satanists and that they're just normal people tm.

Should it really be surprising that you believe this occultist should be worshipped?

If you think there are obvious errors and lies, why not point them out?

Yes, I've. You should too get to know some of them, perhaps you might notice that they are not the same as thelemites. It doesn't change the fact that neither Crowley, nor Kenneth Anger were satanists. Claiming such gives off serious religious right, in other words, "I'm ignorant and retarded" -vibes.

And I don't personally believe Kinsey had anything to do with occultism as a practice, beyond perhaps knowing some of those people. The fact simply is that the sexual revolution has been one of the big cultural evolutionary leaps our society has made, and while it's extremely simplistic to think that Kinsey alone would've been the one who kicked it off, his contributions to it should be honored.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Very interesting stuff and yeah, the art scene was also growing more Post Modernist from what I recall. I like the way you put it:
"The old world was slowly crumbling by the time Kinsey hit the scene. All he did was hasten it to a conclusion."
Couldn't have said it better myself.


David Reimer was the first "transgender" and the first transgender suicide. Whenever people try to say the 41% 50% is just because of an unhelpful and intolerant society, remind them of the first. Remind them of why he was the first.
View attachment 2119811View attachment 2119812
(Archive)

Spoiler: Explaining how wrong this is

That's factually inaccurate, though. You can still find real PSAs shown to school children and the public on social mores and "rules" of behavior. They range from politeness at home to how to behave when on a date and what age to get married.
Society recoiled at the beginnings of the leather-jacket "rebel" types seen on the silver screen because it was believed (arguably rightfully so) that it was inspiring that rough behavior among teenager boys (the Greaser counterculture etc.)
View attachment 2119781
Then there was the gathering of Catholics to propose what would later be instituted laws regarding the film industry after the rape and murder of Virginia Rap. Then the outrage about Rock and Roll, the Elvis Pelvis outrage, the reaction to an episode of Lassie which had the dog giving birth (apparently people wrote in angry letters to the TV station about how angry they were about such "pornography" on their family show), outrage about the growing irreverence and profanity of stand-up and televised comedy which continued well into the 80's and we even had reactions in the 90's to Halloween becoming a potentially demonic or evil holiday, openly anti-Christian bands like Nine Inch Nails and death metal music, etc.

Of course you know about the "Jesus Freak" movement (a nasty name for a funny little pro-Christian reaction to the growing counterculture of the decade where figures like Billy Graham were even invited to the White House) and you already know about the "Satanic Panic" of the 90's (which evidently wasn't as much of an unwarranted panic as the media still wants us to believe).

TL;DR We have ample evidence that American culture was very traditional at one point and routinely reacted at every new shift being introduced. Watch the video embedded into the OP of this thread. It shows that the US government actually did hold an official investigation into what groups like the Rockefellers, Guggenheim, etc. were doing. That was all the way back in the 50's when the SexRev was revving up. However, despite all that, it seems big money influence won in the end.

TL;DR for the TL;DR Just wanted to explain that you're parroting a false image of America past.

You need to learn about the Weimar Republic, mate. That's for a different thread, though.

>You need to learn about the Weimar Republic, mate.
Who established the Weimar Republic? It seems to me Germany was under a Kaiser before secular republics like the JewSA forcibly altered their system of governance, and then when they tried to go back to a Kaiser, they got into another world war with liberal republics. Likewise, a few retarded modernist Christians realizing way too late that their libertarian offshoot of Christianity was doomed to lose control and then firing off wildly into the moral crowd so to speak does not equal there having been a "traditional" society. The US had a chance to actually embrace traditional western Christian culture by not tolerating heresy like the Anglican church, and they didn't do it because they wanted culture and religion to be based on popular opinion and that's what they got.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Claiming such gives off serious religious right, in other words, "I'm ignorant and retarded" -vibes

If I have a couple of nice and wise religious right neighbours, should that be enough of a defense? That's all the support you have offered to satanism so far.

The fact simply is that the sexual revolution has been one of the big cultural evolutionary leaps our society has made, and while it's extremely simplistic to think that Kinsey alone would've been the one who kicked it off, his contributions to it should be honored.

There has been sourced evidence in this thread for engaging in and protecting pedofilia, as well as falsified research. And you still think he should be honored.

Juxtapose that with loving satanists and trying to claim they're good people too. Can you see why you will not make many converts to your point of view? Unless they already are completely corrupt?

It doesn't change the fact that neither Crowley, nor Kenneth Anger were satanists.

Crowley called himself "the beast 666" for a good portion of his life. Why is it then such a stretch to conflate thelemites with satanists, the way, say lollardism is conflated with christianity?

Or apparently any point of view you don't like with "religious right"?

Edit: I never really known much about Kenneth Anger, so this is just the result of a percuntory google search. But he made a movie "lucifer rising" about egyptians summoning satan to usher in a new occult age. And somehow I am to believe calling this man a satanist is some sort of grand travesty?

Oh no he's just a filmmaker! He isn't a satanist!

You mean the guy who has "Lucifer" tattood across his chest isn't a satanist?

 

[Bum Driller]

If I have a couple of nice and wise religious right neighbours, should that be enough of a defense? That's all the support you have offered to satanism so far.



There has been sourced evidence in this thread for engaging in and protecting pedofilia, as well as falsified research. And you still think he should be honored.

Juxtapose that with loving satanists and trying to claim they're good people too. Can you see why you will not make many converts to your point of view? Unless they already are completely corrupt?


Crowley called himself "the beast 666" for a good portion of his life. Why is it then such a stretch to conflate thelemites with satanists, the way, say lollardism is conflated with christianity?

Or apparently any point of view you don't like with "religious right" to the point it causes vibrations to your spidey sense?

Lets' break this in to pieces:

a) Crowley called himself "To Mega Therion", or "The Great Beast", the beast in this sense being the great beast upon which Babalon, the wicked whore-goddess of all existence rides. This has nothing to do with any christian retardations about Satan, although Crowley probably was thrilled to scare idiots with the double-meaning. Thelema, which I don't personally like any more I like satanists, has nothing to do with satanism. But at least they aren't conservatives, if something good can be said about them.

b) I think that you've previously misunderstood my point about satanists. Like I've said, they are quite normal people, mostly. In my opinion they are almost as dull and stupid conservatives as the christian religious right, and I certainly hold no love for them as such. Sometimes, they are even more conservative than christians these days.

c) I've not had time to read all stuff posted about Kinsey on this thread, nor will I probably ever have. On general principle I don't believe any sources posted on this den of faggotry.

d) On general principles, yeah, you guessed it right; I absolutely fucking hate conservative mindsets of all stripes: christians, nazis, satanists and what have you, because I think that their mindset is travesty and a crime against all that is holy. All of that shit is based on fear and self-loathing, and neither of those are qualities that lead to truth. But then again, I don't really hate these people, I'm rather quite sad about them.

 

[EyelessMC]

No he was not. The term transexual was coined in 1919 by Hirschfeld in Germany. He ended up planning 4 operations for a danish man who went by the name of Elbe and who died during the operation where they tried to do a womb transplant.

Spoiler: What's with the semantics?

I wasn't speaking about the term "transexual" but transgenderism itself as we know it today, as conceived largely by John Money. If you want to keep looking further and further back in history for similar notions we can see Roman Emperor Nero castrating a boy to "marry" him. Want to go back there and say that was the beginning of transgenderism/transexuality?

Look, I appreciate the info. I don't mean to sound like a jackass. These bits of historical information are always very useful for adding further context to our understanding of the world, however I'm getting a little annoyed by people coming up with obscure names and events to try and undercut the basic origin points of certain ideological movements which hold so much influence in American and global culture today.

For example, the contemporary "And Then There Were None" style murder mystery comes from Agatha Christie's novel. But someone might argue that similar concepts are found in some lesser known Akkadian playwright's unfinished script thousands of years ago, ergo it technically didn't start with Christie. Except it obviously did, regardless of that historical trivia. It's Christie's novel that brought it out, a story she imagined and wrote which ended up popularizing it. Same goes with DOOM the game inspiring its own shooter genre, but someone says technically the Atari 1488 had shooting physics in some Disney side-scroller whatever. We all know where it started despite elements of the premise being found in earlier works.

Hirschfeld isn't the name that's most broadly recognized as the starting point for transgenderism as it is today, especially not in the USA and as it relates to being one of the many aftershocks of the Sexual Revolution. It's specifically John Money and his experiment with David Reimer.

More information is always good but let's not confuse ourselves and pretend there aren't specific axis points we can identify as having truly effective and lasting ramifications in the world (medical, educational and legal).

Seems like you do.

Dude he said " You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them. "
I mentioned the Weimar Republic only as evidence that we did see it elsewhere. Regardless of whatever American involvement was in its establishment, it certainly was not indicative of American culture or broader society back then. That was my point. America today was not America of yesteryear and pretending it was or that all of this originated from the USA is incorrect.

Likewise, a few retarded modernist Christians realizing way too late that their libertarian offshoot of Christianity was[...]

I went to great lengths to explain how your preconceived notion of America and its past culture being like this from the start and never doing anything to counteract it was wrong, yet you continue to ramble blindly without giving it a glance. I already mentioned more than enough points in my spoilered explanation that you can research on your own. If you want to keep being retarded be my guest. I'm not ruining the thread for this.

Lets' break this in to pieces:

Spoiler: Response

a) Crowley called himself "To Mega Therion", or "The Great Beast", the beast in this sense being the great beast upon which Babalon, the wicked whore-goddess of all existence rides. This has nothing to do with any christian retardations about Satan

Firstly it's "Babylon". Secondly last I checked that's inspired directly from a Biblical eschatological figure which, in lore, is explicitly an agent of the literal Devil. Lastly she's never referred to as a goddess. All you're saying here is that you're uppity people didn't parse out Crowley's fan fiction.

But at least they aren't conservatives, if something good can be said about them.

Well at least now I know what stance you're arguing from. You've really got a drill up your bum about christians and conservatives. Still, more in-depth discussion on Satanism, its origins and the different subsets of Crowley's inspirations belongs in a different or original thread. This is Kinsey and Sexual Revolution, and occultists and occultism as it relates to the subject of the thread is what's important.

Stuff about Kinsey or his associates with Crowley, aspects of Crowley's teachings and behaviors which would have peaked Kinsey's interest, concepts and ideas from the occult and satanism which may have found influence in the Sexual Revolution, etc. Things like that are thread relevant I think. Otherwise it's for a different thread.

c) I've not had time to read all stuff posted about Kinsey on this thread, nor will I probably ever have. On general principle I don't believe any sources posted on this den of faggotry.

Why even bother posting then, let alone claim the OP misrepresents anything or imply I've been lying? Take it elsewhere instead of ignoring the entire point of the thread just to derail onto bitching about religion and Crowley and occultism. The OP didn't misrepresent a thing.

 

[L50LasPak]

I have no doubt Kinsey was a nightmarishly awful person with a degenerate worldview, who undoubtedly did damage to countless generations with his "Findings". But I also think the attempts to link this to Satanism just makes you people look incredibly stupid. This is why you can't win a battle to save your life.

 

[EyelessMC]

But I also think the attempts to link this to Satanism just makes you people look incredibly stupid. This is why you can't win a battle to save your life.

This thread isn't about Satanism or Satanic Ritual Abuse or whatever. I was listing basic facts and even posted a picture you can reverse image search for yourself. Nothing stupid about it. It's real.

Spoiler: However

I will say that the refusal to recognize connections, both written and even photographed right in front of our face, is an intellectual disability. People have been psychologically conditioned to view any connection of anything to Satanism with scoffing. It can be literally anything else, anything at all, any other kind of religion or cult--but the minute it's specifically Satanism people get sudden flashes of Hollywood horror films. Derisive remarks from stand-up comedians echo in their ears. Like Pavlov's bell bringing hounds to drool, we hear "Satan" anything and start mocking and ignoring everything.

People do the exact same thing with global/international pedophile conspiracies (not conspiracy theories, I mean conspiracies, as in "two or more scheming/plotting in secret, conspiring"). Even after Peter Scully and Jeffery Epstein, people still see "pedophile conspiracy" and immediately think of the term "Pedogate" only to start shaking their head with a chuckle.

Recognizing reality requires breaking that conditioning raaa

 

[Syaoran Li]

>Traditionalism
>Oppress
None of these fags were oppressed though, and the JewSA at any point in its history was far from anything traditional. Not oppressing them was what got these ideologies to the point at which they are. You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them. The JewSA and other liberal republics' grand experiments in secular individualism were what allowed for things like this to grow in prevalence and in extreme because there was never some figure in authority present to say "enough is enough," and then to take the necessary actions to stop this sort of thing from snowballing out of control.

Now, that's what I call edgy!

 

[L50LasPak]

Recognizing reality requires breaking that conditioning raaa

I'm of the opinion that the Satanism and occult connections of the elites are deliberate feint to make the people who criticize them look stupid, and that its unimportant overall to the larger narrative. It doesn't matter what a person worships, their guilt is found in their crimes.

Rich people are too egotistical and self-centered to ever properly serve another entity in the first place. The fundamental structure of their minds denies even accepting the idea that there are superior beings to them. That's why I'm convinced its just a LARP to distract people.

 

[Lemmingwise]

What's with the semantics?

It's not really a point of semantics. Let me be clear: I support and believe the thesis that Kinsey was an instrumental part in building the intellectual foundation for the sexual revolution. Roe v. Wade used his research, for example.

You're not likely to find a much more sympathetic poster than me, I think, so my advice would be: don't sweat the small disagreements.
If the topic is important, we should be above getting frustrated by whether we're right on every point.

--

I think it's likely that this revolution would have come from Germany instead; but they destroyed the entire archive of the institute of sexual research.

I thi k what you're saying is important, so I want you to be accurate. There wasn't anything fundamentally different from transexual or transgender. Both were also attempt to not just humor someone's delusion, but to also medically try to redesign their body. Both were also abject failures in their experiments to support their thesis of either transgenderism or transexuality.

It's also a specific continuation: John Money was involved in restarting where Hirschfeld left off, including rhe governing body of the DGSS, an institute witht the specific goal to continue where the destroyed hirschfeld institute had left off.

It went so far as to later award John Money the "Magnus Hirschfeld medal".
I think it's important history and connected, not just some random faffing ancient history.

Dude he said " You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them. "
I mentioned the Weimar Republic only as evidence that we did see it elsewhere

Yes and it led to the people so outraged by it that they ended up exiling hirschfeld and organised book burnings of his materials. Doesn't that support the idea that this wasn't tolerated by the host culture?

I've not had time to read all stuff posted about Kinsey on this thread, nor will I probably ever have. On general principle I don't believe any sources posted on this den of faggotry.

I was responding because knowledge never is complete and I was wondering if despite our different outlook you might have something to add anyways. But you are unwilling to take 5 minutes to read and another 5 to verify sources?

Kinsey, an object of worship then, but nevermind the pedofilia and falsified research?

It's funny that you use den of faggotry as a pejorative; shouldn't that be a term of high praise coming from you?

See how every endeavor becomes self-defeating when built on inverted principles?

Crowley called himself "To Mega Therion", or "The Great Beast", the beast in this sense being the great beast upon which Babalon, the wicked whore-goddess of all existence rides. This has nothing to do with any christian retardations about Satan

Nothing? It has nothing to do with it?

He also called himself "the beast 666" and for a longer part of his life. He imagined himself as the beast from the book of revelations; that is by his words, not mine. The beast in the book of relevations is a servant of satan. So he places himself exactly in the christian tradition with that.

I think that you've previously misunderstood my point about satanists. Like I've said, they are quite normal people, mostly. In my opinion they are almost as dull and stupid conservatives as the christian religious right, and I certainly hold no love for them as such. Sometimes, they are even more conservative than christians these days

What is the relevance of how conservative people are to this conversation? I think it's because conservative is to your worldview something approximating what a christian would call evil?

Any ideology is going to have rank and file dullards in it; my point then and now is that you're not making any defense of its ideology.

Also that just because you greet people in the street, you don't necessarily know the content of their character and whether they are engaged with for example criminal activity or not.

As such both your defense of the ideology as even the specific satanists is quite meaningless; not because itcomes from you, but because your basis for defense is both flimsy and your statements are constantly self-contradictory.

You absolutely hate satanists; yet you defend satanists yet again. It's hard to believe.

You speak on terms of all that is "holy" which seems to be truth and self love, judging by your words. Yet not even willing to take 5 minutes to develop your knowledge on Kinsey. Is that really treating truth as something holy? Or more as a punch line?

I dunno, I was open to the idea that I might be missing something pertinent, but you aren't really offering any reason to believe you, while refusing to read sources that disprove you. What even is the point of that?

Yeah Kenneth Anger is on record saying "I am not a satanist, I am a pagan". The guy with "Lucifer" tattood across the chest and voice recordings in which he says he himself is lucifer.

How do people ever come up with the idea that he might be a satanist anyways? It's hard to imagine. Maybe one day we'll figure it out.

I'm of the opinion that the Satanism and occult connections of the elites are deliberate feint to make the people who criticize them look stupid, and that its unimportant overall to the larger narrative. It doesn't matter what a person worships, their guilt is found in their crimes.

Rich people are too egotistical and self-centered to ever properly serve another entity in the first place. The fundamental structure of their minds denies even accepting the idea that there are superior beings to them. That's why I'm convinced its just a LARP to distract people

Why wouldn't you use tools of cultism and religion to control people just because you have money?

But I also think the attempts to link this to Satanism just makes you people look incredibly stupid.

That depends on perspective. When Bumdriller mentioned that Kenneth Anger wasn't a satanist (something poorly supported, see my wall of text), even in my superficial search I couldn't stop stumbling over his connections to Kinsey.

I don't think this is a tenuous link at all.

Of course I recognise that the term "satanist" has a very different emotional impact to people; christians will probably consider it among the center of evil the way bumdriller thinks of conservatism as a center of evil. And non-christians will hear "satanist" and might like me, think of occultist ambitions or they might think of satanic panic and assume it's all nonsense.

That's the response you seem to be describing.

Yet why would someone's religious beliefs, thoughts, ideas, connections be unimportant? If humor the idea, Tom Cruise's ideas were hugely influential, could we divorce him from scientology when examining them or must the connection also be considered?

People also look stupid for critizing transgender ideas on twitter. There is a culture of censoring critics. My point is "look stupid" is a product of kneejerk responses, different from "is stupid".

Should we try to "look smart" by engaging in willful ignorance?

 

[L50LasPak]

Why wouldn't you use tools of cultism and religion to control people just because you have money?

They do that already. Its not called Satanism though, its called Christanity, Judaism and Islam. Satanism is just what the people in charge do for fun on the weekends.

Should we try to "look smart" by engaging in willful ignorance?

You should try to look sharp by not falling into obvious feints anyone can detect with even a cursory glance.

 

[Lemmingwise]

They do that already. Its not called Satanism though, its called Christanity, Judaism and Islam. Satanism is just what the people in charge do for fun on the weekends.

So which is it? Do they do it for fun or is it just a feint?

You already describe a situation where multiple religions/cults are used to control people. Why not one more for more elite circles?

Am I to believe that this one is unique and purely recreational to everyone involved?

 

[Bum Driller]

Spoiler: What's with the semantics?

I wasn't speaking about the term "transexual" but transgenderism itself as we know it today, as conceived largely by John Money. If you want to keep looking further and further back in history for similar notions we can see Roman Emperor Nero castrating a boy to "marry" him. Want to go back there and say that was the beginning of transgenderism/transexuality?

Look, I appreciate the info. I don't mean to sound like a jackass. These bits of historical information are always very useful for adding further context to our understanding of the world, however I'm getting a little annoyed by people coming up with obscure names and events to try and undercut the basic origin points of certain ideological movements which hold so much influence in American and global culture today.

For example, the contemporary "And Then There Were None" style murder mystery comes from Agatha Christie's novel. But someone might argue that similar concepts are found in some lesser known Akkadian playwright's unfinished script thousands of years ago, ergo it technically didn't start with Christie. Except it obviously did, regardless of that historical trivia. It's Christie's novel that brought it out, a story she imagined and wrote which ended up popularizing it. Same goes with DOOM the game inspiring its own shooter genre, but someone says technically the Atari 1488 had shooting physics in some Disney side-scroller whatever. We all know where it started despite elements of the premise being found in earlier works.

Hirschfeld isn't the name that's most broadly recognized as the starting point for transgenderism as it is today, especially not in the USA and as it relates to being one of the many aftershocks of the Sexual Revolution. It's specifically John Money and his experiment with David Reimer.

More information is always good but let's not confuse ourselves and pretend there aren't specific axis points we can identify as having truly effective and lasting ramifications in the world (medical, educational and legal).

Dude he said " You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them. "
I mentioned the Weimar Republic only as evidence that we did see it elsewhere. Regardless of whatever American involvement was in its establishment, it certainly was not indicative of American culture or broader society back then. That was my point. America today was not America of yesteryear and pretending it was or that all of this originated from the USA is incorrect.


I went to great lengths to explain how your preconceived notion of America and its past culture being like this from the start and never doing anything to counteract it was wrong, yet you continue to ramble blindly without giving it a glance. I already mentioned more than enough points in my spoilered explanation that you can research on your own. If you want to keep being retarded be my guest. I'm not ruining the thread for this.

Spoiler: Response

Firstly it's "Babylon". Secondly last I checked that's inspired directly from a Biblical eschatological figure which, in lore, is explicitly an agent of the literal Devil. Lastly she's never referred to as a goddess. All you're saying here is that you're uppity people didn't parse out Crowley's fan fiction.

Well at least now I know what stance you're arguing from. You've really got a drill up your bum about christians and conservatives. Still, more in-depth discussion on Satanism, its origins and the different subsets of Crowley's inspirations belongs in a different or original thread. This is Kinsey and Sexual Revolution, and occultists and occultism as it relates to the subject of the thread is what's important.

Stuff about Kinsey or his associates with Crowley, aspects of Crowley's teachings and behaviors which would have peaked Kinsey's interest, concepts and ideas from the occult and satanism which may have found influence in the Sexual Revolution, etc. Things like that are thread relevant I think. Otherwise it's for a different thread.

Why even bother posting then, let alone claim the OP misrepresents anything or imply I've been lying? Take it elsewhere instead of ignoring the entire point of the thread just to derail onto bitching about religion and Crowley and occultism. The OP didn't misrepresent a thing.

It's Babalon(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babalon), you fucking philistine. It tells something of your ability to think at all, if it's this hard for you to grasp written facts.

Regarding more on-topic stuff, for example Kinsey's research:

Yes, he did some truly questionable stuff like interviewing pedophile(s), which I don't support at all. He also did some other stupid shit in the name of his agenda in regards to exaggerating certain research results. However, while none of this is good or recommendable, he is hardly the only scientific pioneer to have done so. In my opinion his worth was to get the ball rolling in regards to research in to human sexuality, and this is what we should honor him for. He also was important to the sexual revolution, which was one of the few good things last century brought us.

 

[L50LasPak]

So which is it? Do they do it for fun or is it just a feint?

Both. They probably get off on how much fear and anxiety it causes regular people for how little effort they put into it.

You already describe a situation where multiple religions/cults are used to control people. Why not one more for more elite circles?

Because they fundamentally cannot hold a religious belief in a higher power. Their egos contradict that. You cannot have a powerful rich person without their ego, as it is the asset that allows them to ignore morality and do terrible things with no remorse. Their egos hold that nothing in the universe is greater or more powerful than them, so they are at an extremely fundamental level incapable of accepting a genuine belief in religion, organized or Satanic.

Am I to believe that this one is unique and purely recreational to everyone involved?

Yes, you are. Satanism has no defining practices or doctrines. Its purely freeform autistic nonsense and guttural human instincts coming to the surface. That's what makes it so repulsive, and that's the draw of it for these people. The events allow them to drop the sophisticated faces they put on regularly and engage in all forms of debauchery for personal gratification.

 

[EyelessMC]

It's not really a point of semantics. Let me be clear: I support and believe the thesis that Kinsey was an instrumental part in building the intellectual foundation for the sexual revolution. Roe v. Wade used his research, for example.

You're not likely to find a much more sympathetic poster than me, I think, so my advice would be: don't sweat the small disagreements.
If the topic is important, we should be above getting frustrated by whether we're right on every point.

Agreed. I just didn't like people mocking the entire thing as "hurr Jewmerica", hand-waving the entire OP because of the mention of Satanism and saying the OP misrepresented or lied about things. As for my reply to you, I didn't mean to be snippy. It was with regard to the origin of transgenderism as we know it. Bringing up Hirschfeld can be incredibly beneficial, like when I brought up Wilhelm Reich, but you did so as if to contradict what I posted about Reimer and the importance of speaking about him and what happened to him. He's a sad but powerful counterpoint to the trans-movement which is at the root of its origin (again, as we know it in America and abroad today) and the otherwise positively regarded John Money.

"Many researchers have pointed to [Reimer's] case as evidence that gender is at least partially biologically determined, and intersex activists have used the case to point to the damage that genital surgery can cause to children. The dramatic interventions into Reimer's life have been heavily criticized on all sides of the political spectrum." - https://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/john-money.html

I think it's likely that this revolution would have come from Germany instead; but they destroyed the entire archive of the institute of sexual research.

I thi k what you're saying is important, so I want you to be accurate. There wasn't anything fundamentally different from transexual or transgender. Both were also attempt to not just humor someone's delusion, but to also medically try to redesign their body. Both were also abject failures in their experiments to support their thesis of either transgenderism or transexuality.

It's also a specific continuation: John Money was involved in restarting where Hirschfeld left off, including rhe governing body of the DGSS, an institute witht the specific goal to continue where the destroyed hirschfeld institute had left off.

It went so far as to later award John Money the "Magnus Hirschfeld medal".
I think it's important history and connected, not just some random faffing ancient history.

OH! Well dammit dude mention all that then! lol All you did was tell me the origin of the term "transexual". This is far more important than just that.

Taken from the DGSS's wikipedia: "The Magnus Hirschfeld Medal is awarded by the German Society for Social-Scientific Sexuality Research (DGSS) for outstanding service to sexual science, granted in the categories "Sexual Research" and "Sexual Reform".It is named in honour of German sexology pioneer Magnus Hirschfeld."

Yet another psychoanalyst, just like Sigmund Freud's apparent pupil Wilhelm Reich, yet perhaps even more influential. I find it interesting we keep running into psychoanalysts like this.
What more do you know about Hirschfeld, mate? Can you put it into a separate post for easy reference?

Yes and it led to the people so outraged by it that they ended up exiling hirschfeld and organised book burnings of his materials. Doesn't that support the idea that this wasn't tolerated by the host culture?

It certainly does, but you had brought it up in reply to my post you quoted regarding transgenderism and Reimer being the first. Two different subjects, mine being transgenderism's origin and the other guy's being the idea America never reacted against these kinds of things in its culture. As for book burning, I'm yet again getting flashbacks to what we read about Reich. Unlike Reich, though, it seems Hirschfeld's name didn't remain tarnished and forgotten. Guy had a medal named after him.