Alfred Kinsey

SE HACEN COMENTARIOS INTRODUCTORIOS A LA OBRA DE LOS PSCICÓLOGOS, PSICOANALISTAS Y EDUCADORES SEXUALES GALLEGOS A SU LIBRO "LA LUCHA SEXUAL DE LOS ADOLESCENTES EN LA HIPERMODERNIDAD", DESDE UNA PERSPECTIVA FREUDIANA Y REICHIANA ADAPTADA AL MOMENTO CONTEMPORÁNEO.

Homoseksüellik, Amerikan Psikiyatri Birliği (APA) tarafından 1973 yılına kadar kişilik bozukluğu, cinsel bozukluk, cinsel yönelim karmaşası, seksüel sapkınlıklar başlıkları altında hastalık olarak ele alınmaktaydı. 1973 yılına gelindiğinde ise eşcinsellik bilimsel verilerin kümülatif bir şekilde elde edilmesiyle değil, ‘’oylama’’ yapılarak hastalık olmaktan çıkarılmıştır.

Bu çalışma ile 1973 yılına giden yolun taşlarının nasıl döşendiği, bu süreçte neler olup bittiği ele alınacak; Lgbt hareketinin bugünkü popülarite ve meşruluğuna zemin hazırlayan önemli olaylar, tarihler ve şahıslar incelenecektir

This chapter examines the little discussed debts of Alfred Kinsey to his predecessor Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish homosexual rights activist who set up the first Institute of Sexual Science in Berlin in 1919. It argues that Kinsey's disavowal of Hirschfeld’s "homosexual sexology” indicates how homophobic ideas were transmitted in the 1950s via nationalist discourses that undermined the progressive aims of Kinsey sex research.

Dyskursy eksperckie często postrzega się – wzorem Michela Foucault – jako narzędzie normalizacji i ujarzmiania jednostek. Normalizacja jest z tej perspektywy sposobem regulowania jednostkowej praktyki i tożsamości przez podporządkowane jej kategoriom „normy” i „patologii”, będącym wytworem sieci wiedzy-władzy. W tekście podejmuję polemikę z tak jednostronnym ujęciem społecznego wpływu dyskursów eksperckich, wskazując na sposoby, w jakie „normalizacja” – rozumiana szerzej niż w nurcie Foucaultowskim – może wspierać podmiotowość i sprawczość jednostek, ułatwiając im wypracowanie spójnej i akceptowalnej społecznie tożsamości. Argumenty za takim stanowiskiem pochodzą z koncepcji refleksyjnej modernizacji Anthony’ego Giddensa oraz ze studium przypadku, w którym przeanalizuję wpływu, jaki raport Kinseya dotyczący seksualności amerykańskich mężczyzn i kobiet (będący modelowym wręcz przykładem „dyskursu normalizacyjnego”) wywarł na tożsamości seksualne w Stanach Zjednoczonych.

Sexual science has often been mobilized to advance progressive sexual rights agendas against conservative, religiously-driven political agendas. This chapter explores a different dynamic, where religious-conservative activists used sexual science to advance their ‘anti-homosexual’ campaign. We focus on the attacks on Kinsey in the US. While the historiography on religious conservatism has highlighted the centrality of religious/moralistic discourses, our analysis of textual sources (from archives of evangelical-political organizations and recently declassified FBI documents) shows that evangelical activists often foregrounded scientific arguments. Women activists played a particularly important role in this discursive battleground, as our political history of the attacks on Kinsey demonstrates.

It is hard to deny that Haeckel’s embryos are an “icon of evolution,” true even if “icon” now evokes Jonathan Wells’ “travesty” of a book. The embryos were reproduced in a majority of high school and college biology textbooks from the mid-1930s through at least the 1960s. Generations of students took away the incorrect but easy to accept and generally cool idea that we pass through a fish-like stage, complete with gill slits, on our way to becoming human.

Ironically, by the time Haeckel’s embryos appeared in an American textbook, Bigelow and Bigelow’s Applied Biology (1911), the “biogenetic law” the grid was created to illustrate – that the stage-by-stage development (ontogeny) of an embryo recapitulates its species’ evolutionary history (phylogeny) – was not just an anachronism, to a new generation of experimental biologists, it no longer qualified as science.

This paper examines the epistemological status of bisexuality in North America since the mid-20th century. It argues that the status of bisexuality remains marginal because of its capacity to destabilize a monosexual order. Using Alfred Kinsey’s research to anchor the discussion, the author demonstrates that the persistent rejection of bisexuality as a sexual identity category (and as a critical perspective) acts to contain the crisis of identity that haunts the supposed naturalness of the two privileged subject positions: homosexuality and heterosexuality. It also demonstrates how that same order is upheld by the epistemological and material banishment of the intersexed.

This essay considers the near simultaneity of The Second Sex and Alfred C. Kinsey's reports on sexual behavior. It shows how reviewers in both France and the United States paired the studies; it asks how that pairing shaped the reception of The Second Sex; and it situates the studies in their larger historical context—a moment in which sexuality commanded new and much broader attention. An ever-widening number of disciplines, institutions, sectors of mass culture, and representatives of an expanding consumer economy (from studies of the authoritarian personality or juvenile delinquency to advertising) insisted that sexuality was key to their concerns and enterprises. The ways in which sexuality might be understood multiplied—to the point where an all encompassing notion of "sex" collapsed, giving way, eventually, to a plurality of terms: sexuality, sex roles, and gender.

Modern developments in attitudes to human beings-notably, the idea that human beings are simply extremely sophisticated machines that can be programmed and reprogrammed at will (perhaps by "vaccine" injections), and that free will is in fact an illusion-are so important that it is necessary to inquire where they came from. The answer is that they came from both East and West, both from the Communist East (no surprise there) and from the Capitalist West (more surprisingly) in the years after World War Two. It is there, on both sides of the Cold War, that the psychological revolution-no less than the political revolutions that had taken place in the prewar decades-took its beginning.

In this essay, I build on the recent work of Donna J. Drucker [[2008, “Creating the Kinsey Reports: Intellectual and Methodological Influences on Alfred Kinsey’s Sex Research, 1919-1953.” Dissertation.] to see what a deep reading of "An Introduction to Biology", Kinsey's high school biology textbook, might offer us in understanding both Kinsey the enthusiastic if overreaching entomologist, and Kinsey the groundbreaking if complexly motivated behavioral scientist.

A close examination of the scientific career of Alfred Kinsey reveals his trip from scholar of the genus Cynipidae to a social revolutionary was smoother than commonly supposed. I suggest that Kinsey’s determination to demonstrate the utility of his “pre-synthesis” evolutionary ideas and scientific methodologies motivated his mid-career shift and influenced the topic and research design of his sex studies as much as any desire to challenge social norms.

This article, showing how ubiquitous male youth prostitution was in 1950s Italy,
exposes the pederastic and (homo)sexual vivacity of this decade. Moreover, this article also
suggests that even if police, the media, and medical institutions were trying to crystallize
a rigid chasm between homo- and heterosexuality, there were still forces in Italian society
that resisted such strict categorization. The young hustlers described by contemporary observers
bear witness to the sexual fl exibility of the 1950s in Italy. These youths inhabited
queer spaces lacking a clear-cut hetero–homo divide, spaces where “modern” sexological
categories and identities had not yet entered. Prior to the mass circulation of rigid sexual
labels, it was still possible for many Italian boys, youths, and young men to dwell in liminal
queer spaces. The exchange of money purifi ed their acts, guaranteed their maleness, and
eff aced potential stigmatization.