What a shame you had to go Grace. I have nowhere near the knowledge base or eloquence but agree with all your posts. What I find puzzling is assertions made in the original article and by some posters, once put in context or disproved, are still adhered to by subsequent posters.

Regards

Jo

Excrutiatingly long posts; narrow views and hysteria is all ensuring that the point here has been missed entirely...most widely by the original author...St Bill.

The fact remains, that science is dispassionate. It does not take morals into account, only outcomes. Scientific experiments are rarely conducted in the ruthless and barbaric way in which they once were many years ago . Regardless of the moral repugnancy of the collected data and where it was obtained - the outcomes of those experiments should not be ignored - because rather than encourage paedophilia, this data helps to prevent it. By acknowledging that Children can respond to sexual stimuli, we are forced to acknowledge that children can therefore become unwitting accomplices in their own abuse. In ignoring the sexuality of children we are helping to shroud paedophilia in a cloak of denial. By arming parents with the knowledge that they have to educate their children about their sexual boundaries EARLY in their lives (ignorance is not bliss in this day and age) they are equipping them with the tools to protect themselves from predators.

As for the other homophobic claptrap in Bill's article it doesn't deserve a lucid response.

Just wise-up people. Your irational fears based on moral grounds is not protecting the kids...it's allowing the secret society of paedophiles to proliferate unabated - because they know their guilty secret (that children are sexual - at least in the physical sense and therefore vulnerable) remains SAFE. The truth is out there, stop sweeping it under the carpet.

Kinsey lost his credibility in sexualising children, the recent arrests Australia wide in the Internet crackdown of child pornography and the severe jail sentences that followed are a testament to how society feels . The movie based on Kinsey's life is just another Hollywood creation that is beyond belief. Is it truth or lies? As educated adults we know better!

Hugh Hefner More then you will ever want to read!

I have read your article and want to share my book with you so you could see a much more deep insight as well about the inner world of Hugh Hefner. It tells what really goes on in current time in Hugh Hefners bedroom and how your article is so correct that it is like Hef has taken much of Kinseys advice. Not only with his own love of men but so much more. Here is the download of my book Bill.

http://jillannupstairs.com/book

Password IVY

Yours,

Jill Ann

Kinsey's own book "Sexual Behaviour In The Human Male" chapter 5 shows in Tables 30-34 that 131 young boys, some as young as 5 months were masturbated by another person [or persons] to observe their reactions.

Some of the children became very distressed, but the "trained observers" claimed they were enjoying it despite their distress.

Read Chapter 5 and then try to deny that Kinsey was a twisted child abuser who doesn't deserve to be whitewashed by this movie.

Bill Muhlenberg is to be congratulated for exposing this perverted behaviour.

The evidence is still that children were shamelessly abused in long sessions which clearly distressed them. That's wrong, is it not? End of story. Or do you say it's right?

There was some mind-blowing rewriting of history re all the improvements that alegedly happened despite christianity! You forgot to mention science! But you would get that wrong too. Science took off because of Christians believing in a logical consistent knowable God. But some of you will believe the myths re Gallileo being alegedly supressed by the church etc (but the Jesuits taught the same stuff) is was just that Gallileo was an arrogant so-and-so who had his friend, the Pope's, permission to publish but proceeded to belittle the his friend's favourite theory - the Pope was not amused!

Re Hollywood. Surveys repeatedly show that the general public has higher moral values than media people, who have higher values than movie producers.

Re sex: Christians like sex and have avery healthy attitude to it! God invented sex. The objective evidence is that health and satisfaction of individuals and the community is best when sex is kept where the designer intended it - in marriage.

Surveys regularly show that in the following areas married religious folk do better than married folk, who do better than defacto folk who do better than same-sex folk and divorcees: The areas are:-
sexual satisfaction; health; wealth; longevity.

That's better for the community too. Not only that but any kids involved fare better at school and in health etc reflecting how their parents are going.

And while I'm at it, statistics show that, on average, kids are abused the least to the most as they go from: married biological parents; to biological unmarried parents; to blended families; to same sex families etc. Further, stats show that same-sex couples are over-represented in violence and child abuse and in health problems. Since these trends are well established, it would seem that we have a social and health duty to make such objective evidence well known so that everyone gets a chance at the best.

We must face the real world. If we ignore the facts, we turn our backs on those who are doing it tough! Christians have something good going and need to tell others! And we should not apologise for recommending that others take a little more notice of the manufacturer's instruction book!

Follow the book - the sex gets better and other benefits - the down side may include religious villification and state sponsored persecution but that pales into insignificance if the Bible is right that after death comes the judgement?