The End of Moral Relativism: A Chain of Perverts

If you are not familiar with the name Alfred Kinsey, you might want to look him up, and you might want to start with Judith Reisman‘s, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America. In it, Reisman chronicles Kinsey’s recognition as the America’s expert on “sex education” whose studies have influenced our cultural institutions since 1948 when his book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, along with his 1953 follow-up, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female hit the higher education marketplace. In these books Kinsey pronounced untold “facts” about human sexuality that many in the culture and education have used as the standard by which the topic is addressed in academia to this day.

Here’s the problem. Kinsey’s studies were conducted on test cases made up of:

“… draft dodgers, violent felons, homosexuals and other aberrants … By 1946 Kinsey added ‘1400 convicted sex offenders in penal institutions,’ ‘two hundred sexual psychopath patients’ and well over 600 sexually abused boys. In sum, 86% of deviant ‘subjects’ [were used to define] the Libido of The Greatest Generation … [As for women], Kinsey selected — and paid — prostitutes to represent American womanhood. He loosely defined a ‘wife’ as someone who had lived ‘at least a year’ with a man.”*

And what about Kinsey himself? In perversions that are unrepeatable here, Kinsey began “sexual experimentation” at age 7 in the basement of his Hoboken, New Jersey home. I’ll spare the details but suffice it to say that by the time he conducted the studies that became his books, Kinsey had assembled a staff where “everyone was a bisexual, homosexual, pedophile, pederast, or just wholly amoral … [and whose studies involved] 214 children ranging in age from 1 to 14 years.”**

That’s not a typo. Age ONE to FOURTEEN. And, yes, that means that Kinsey’s “research” involved a staff who arranged and observed “sex play” in children age 4 to 15. As Reisman puts it, “Kinsey fed America a pack of lies, starting with his claim that sexual behavior widely accepted as wrong was, in fact, commonplace. From there, he pushed the lie that such behavior was normal, and finally, he advanced the lie that it was good, healthy, and to be encouraged. Thus, by degrees, Kinsey and his minions turned America’s moral compass upside down …”***

On Kinsey’s cue, Hugh Hefner began to mainstream pornography. But what is worse, Hefner and other Kinsey disciples founded the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). If that acronym sounds familiar it is because SIECUS is the foremost provider of sex education in American public schools.

So what am I getting at?

Well, in 1972, a man named Graham Spanier endorsed Kinsey’s research to the Midwest Sociological Society and, in 1976, under a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Development, he also validated Kinsey’s data on “childhood sex play” for similar “scholars.” In 2002, Spanier also approved Pat Califia, a “transgendered advocate of sado-masochism and pedophilia” as the keynote speaker for a women’s health conference at his place of employment. The year before he allowed the group, Womyn’s Concerns to hold a “Sex Faire” at the same location which featured activities like “orgasm bingo” and “the tent of consent.” When asked if the “fair” was morally wrong, Spanier replied, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.”****

That location was a college campus. Spanier was the President of Penn State University — the leader of the gang of cowards who knew about, covered for, and lied about the activities the child rapist, Jerry Sandusky.

There has been a lot written about the disgusting story of the Penn State football program. One of my favorites comes from Rick Reilly’s self-confessed failure to not see the hagiography that was going on at PSU for so many years that allowed such a thing to occur. Many have commented on the deceit and perversion, but I haven’t seen any attempt to expose the chain of perverts that leads from Kinsey to Spanier to Sandusky. Nor have I seen anyone try to explain why someone like Joe Paterno, who had no apparent tolerance for the despicable actions of his defensive coach, would be willing to stay quiet about it. I believe this goes beyond his being embarrassed for, and trying to protect, the school or his football program. At its core, this is one of the many fruits of moral relativism — the unwillingness to acknowledge that something is objectively wrong in and of itself.

In 1993, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put forward the thesis that:

“…over the past generation, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can ‘afford to recognize’ and that, accordingly, we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of ‘old’ standards, and accounts for much of the present ‘cultural war’ …

The American Scholar, (Winter 1993)

Our culture has surely been “defining deviancy down” for quite some time. We are willing to “exempt conduct previously stigmatized” because it has become more unacceptable to be thought an arrogant or oppressive defender of objective moral truth, than it has to become complicit in the rape of little boys.
_______________

* Marcia Segelstein, “Lie Charts,” Salvo (Autumn 2011, p. 36)

** Ibid, 40-41.

*** Ibid, 36.

**** Judith Reisman, “It’s Academic,” Salvo (Spring 2012, p. 40-41)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
31 replies
  1. Stephen B says:

    You can blame Sandursky etc on moral relativism, but the worst sustained case of systemic child abuse of the past forty or so years was that carried out worldwide by the Catholic Church – with thousands of cases, all covered up and lied about by the high echelons of the Church’s leaders for several decades. Seeing as moral relativism is not part of Catholic Doctrine, I don’t see how you can blame it for the shameful conduct of the Church.

    “Kinsey had assembled a staff where “everyone was a bisexual, homosexual, pedophile, pederast, or just wholly amoral …”

    I’m not saying I disagree or agree with what’s being said there (though I don’t quite see the relevance of including gays and bisexuals with pedophiles and pedophiles – the latter two are rapists), but I’d need to see a list of what Marcia Segelstein means by ‘wholly amoral’. It is unquestioned editorialising on her part.

    “SIECUS is the foremost provider of sex education in American public schools.”

    You’ve not shown a link between SIECUS and Kinsey. You’ve not shown that SIECUS uses the same faulty test case studies as Kinsey is alleged to do here. On the subject of the test cases, the same problems were present with the old studies of gays – all the test cases were drawn from prisons! When studies were instead drawn from the general population, the evidence for homosexuality as a mental problem disappeared, leading to its removal from the list of pathologies by the American Psychiatric Association.

    Reply
  2. Bob Perry says:

    Stephen:
    You said, the worst sustained case of systemic child abuse of the past forty or so years was that carried out worldwide by the Catholic Church – with thousands of cases, all covered up and lied about by the high echelons of the Church’s leaders for several decades. Seeing as moral relativism is not part of Catholic Doctrine, I don’t see how you can blame it for the shameful conduct of the Church

    The official doctrinal position of the Catholic Church is irrelevant. In fact, by bringing this up you are helping to prove my point. As far as I know, moral relativism is not the “doctrine” of any church (though I admit there are probably some out there, and there are plenty of mainline/liberal churches that adopt that point of view). But, regardless of the doctrine of the Catholic Church you and I (and anyone with a moral conscience) recognizes that this type of behavior is morally repugnant. In other words, you are using an objective moral standard to attempt to defend moral relativism. That is a self-defeating.

    I don’t quite see the relevance of including gays and bisexuals with pedophiles and pedophiles – the latter two are rapists

    I agree with the last point but when these men are raping little boys, I think it ‘s hard to claim that homosexual tendencies are not playing a part in their behavior.

    You’ve not shown a link between SIECUS and Kinsey…

    Maybe I wasn’t clear enough because I did fail to spell out the entire connection, so I’ll quote Segelstein further (Salvo 18, p. 39):

    “Hugh Hefner’s work was also kindled by Kinsey’s work, according to biographer Russell Miller. The first Playboy magazine was published in 1953, five years after Kinsey unleashed Human Male on America. In Playboy’s inaugural issue, Hefner paid tribute to Kinsey, writing that, ‘we are filling a publishing need only slightly less important that the one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report.’ … funding from Hugh Hefner, Wardell Pomeroy and other Kinsey devotees [that] founded SIECUS.”

    Reply
  3. Stephen B says:

    “As far as I know, moral relativism is not the “doctrine” of any church ”

    Right, so the thousands of Catholic priests and their superiors involved in the worst paeodiphile scandal of modern times did what they did despite presumably rejecting moral relativism.

    Reply
  4. Bob Perry says:

    Great, so we agree on the second two points.

    I’m not sure how you assume that because the Catholic Church as an institution presumably rejects moral relativism, that you can extrapolate that point to say that the priests who engaged in homosexuality/pedophilia also rejected moral relativism? Says who?

    I can’t prove that they were all moral relativists either (though their behavior is consistent with moral relativism) but the point is that, on moral relativism, there is no standard by which we could judge their behavior to be morally wrong. But since you do judge their behavior as wrong, you undermine the validity of moral relativism because you’re using an objective standard to judge their behavior.

    So, regardless of the official stance of the Catholic Church, we both agree that the priests who engaged in that behavior were engaging in morally repugnant acts. Turns out we agree on all three points!

    Cheers …

    Reply
  5. Stephen B says:

    “I agree with the last point but when these men are raping little boys, I think it ’s hard to claim that homosexual tendencies are not playing a part in their behavior.”

    I disagree. Many pedophiles target girls. We don’t tend to say their heterosexuality played a part. I’m not even sure I class pedophiles as straight or gay. As a straight man there are features I find attractive in women; they simply aren’t there in young girls. Similarly, young boys don’t have the features gay men find attractive.

    Reply
  6. Stephen B says:

    “that you can extrapolate that point to say that the priests who engaged in homosexuality/pedophilia also rejected moral relativism? Says who?”

    It was YOUR argument that moral relativism was at least partly to blame for the recent Sandursky scandal. Now you’re saying the burden of proof rests with me to say the Priests did NOT subscribe to that philosophy? And all the high up Vatican figures to

    Reply
  7. Stephen B says:

    Sorry, Now you’re saying the burden of proof rests with me to prove the Priests did NOT subscribe to that philosophy? And all the high up Vatican figures who covered up the crimes too? Seems a big stretch to me. You say it’s consistent with that philosophy; it’s also consistent with simple hypocrisy, or people being corrupted by power, or a religious organisation being a pass for decades simply because of the standing it has in society.

    Yes, we both agree that child abuse is damaging, and anyone who values the well being of children would agree with that. Cheers to you too!

    Reply
  8. Stephen B says:

    The Priests may well have believed in objective morality, but simply convinced themselves they weren’t in the wrong. Or they might have figured they were doing wrong but didn’t care. Or perhaps they thought it was wrong but couldn’t stop themselves.

    All of the above seems quite possible given that I’m sure we all know people who accept objective moral values, and yet are not sinless. The explanation each time is likely to be one of the above three – you know other Christians who disagree with you on certain ‘right or wrong’ questions, and surely you’ve acted against your own conscience yourself at least once, no?

    Reply
  9. Bob Perry says:

    Sure. I agree that all of those are possible and that I have acted against my own conscience more times than I care to admit.

    But, again, my point is that moral relativism is rampant in our society. It is the default position for many (most) in our culture and when it is, no one wants to be the one to say something is “wrong” because it brings the wrath of the (in)tolerant upon those who are labeled “judgmental.” I believe this plays a big part in allowing this kind of behavior to go on. No one wants to be the one to claim that someone else is doing something wrong … and so they stay quiet and we reap the havoc and degeneracy of PSU.

    Reply
  10. Stephen B says:

    Perhaps. To me it looks like lots of people arguing about what particular things are right and wrong. The people who think there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality disagree with those that think it’s sinful, for example, but I don’t see this is about moral relativism – it’s a big and strongly felt disagreement on whether it is wrong or not, rather than a disagreement on whether right and wrong are coherent concepts.

    But I can agree to disagree with you on that!

    Reply
  11. Luke says:

    Bob,

    I admit I have not paid intense attention to the sad, sad Penn State situation. It’s terrible and reprehensible.

    Of the stories I have read, or discussions I have heard, one thing I have not EVER heard is anyone saying there was nothing wrong with what this coach did. I have not heard anyone postulate that maybe it’s okay and maybe we just misunderstand, or that we have no basis on which to judge?

    I have seen a lot of sadness and outrage at the wrongs that occurred. The man was punished and will spend the rest of his life behind bard (I don’t know what else as a society we can do, but my emotional reaction is that he deserves worse. My id would like to see worse.)

    Am I living in a bubble? Have you looked at newspaper editorials or other indicators of elite opinion to see what ratio condemns the coach vs those who defend him on the basis of our inability to judge someone else’s actions on a moral basis? What is this ratio?

    I suppose in the circles I’ve travelled everyone — everyone! — agrees that this was horrible, wrong and tragic.

    (I’m sure if I sought out NAMBLA they would say something stupid, horrible and offensive. If you propose this is someone we should take seriously, or worse is somehow representative of any mainstream views, I simply won’t be able to agree to that. There’s a reason I have no clue what they’ve said about it; they don’t deserve my time or yours.)

    How many people do you personally know who argue that no wrongs occurred here?

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
  12. Mark Ducharme says:

    Does the title of this column mean, “The (result) of Moral Relativism”?
    Because, even though I don’t own a TV, American culture would appear to be drawing feverishly toward it. That said, this piece is brilliant at illustrating the fact that our entire culture is stuck, inexorably, in a – decades developed – self made system of NOT seeking truth. Whether it be sports, politics, art, philosophy, religion – or whatever – we are all so enamored w/ the “freedom” of our nakedness we don’t even want to cover up. (other than to, instinctively, cover for our partners in moral crimes)

    let alone, hide our shame from God

    Hence, the connections shown here will likely never be investigated any more than Obama’s college transcripts.

    Reply
  13. Toby says:

    I think that’s a bunch of vague generalizations. You’re nervous or angry about something, but you don’t really know what other than you’re nervous or angry and very mad about.

    “Hence, the connections shown here will likely never be investigated any more than Obama’s college transcripts.”

    Aaaaaaaah. I see. Crazy birther nonsense.

    Reply
  14. Bob Perry says:

    @Mark Ducharme … Yes, by “end” I mean the goal, direction, or inevitable conclusion of moral relativism.

    And yes, it is so entrenched as the default position in the culture that I find it hard to imagine how humanity will be capable of turning it around.

    Reply
  15. Stephen B says:

    I’ve still yet to see anybody here providing an example of someone preaching moral relativism, rather than simply having different moral values to you (which is a different thing).

    Reply
  16. Bob Perry says:

    @Toby … nothing there to respond to beyond the vague generalizations you make but …

    it is quite obviously ridiculous to equate “birther nonsense” with a full disclosure of a “career” that seems to be completely devoid of documentation, especially when said documentation seems to support the anti-constitutional ideology we see in this president. The president’s defying the Constitution is a far more consequential topic … but then again, neither of these issues is the reason for this blog post.

    Reply
  17. Stephen B says:

    When’s he defied the Constitution – Use of Drones? Giving undue preference to Christianity? I’d have thought you’d be in favour of that kind of thing?

    Reply
  18. Bob Perry says:

    @Stephen B: If you read the original post, you noticed that Spanier, when asked about whether the garbage he condoned/allowed/encouraged at PSU was morally wrong, replied, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.”

    This is moral relativism … and the the history of his “leadership” at PSU gives us evidence of where it led. That’s the point. I’ve explained why I said it, you don’t accept it, so I guess you need to move on to other issues.

    Reply
  19. Bob Perry says:

    @Stephen B … telling his Attorney General to NOT enforce the duly passed laws of the elected legislature (DOMA, illegal immigration), using his recess appointment privilege when Congress is not in recess.

    Those are unconstitutional acts done blatantly and knowingly. For someone who “taught” constitutional law, he is well aware of this and did these things anyway. It’s not a matter of party affiliation. It’s a matter of whether the U.S. is a nation of laws or of men. This country was founded on the former. BO believes it to be the latter (as long as he, or those who share his radical ideology, are in charge that is).

    Reply
  20. Stephen B says:

    Radical ideology? He looks pretty centralist to me – kept much of Bush’s ideas/wars going, friend to Wall Street, seems to agree with a large number of Americans on gay rights issues. I don’t see the radicalism.

    ““It depends on what your definition of immoral is.”
    This is moral relativism”

    I think he just meant he disagrees with you that it was immoral.

    Reply
  21. Bob Perry says:

    Well, Stephen, your response tells us all we need to know about your definition of “centralist.” That, combined with the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post, leads me to conclude that the discussion is over.

    Thanks for playing…

    Reply
  22. Toby says:

    “it is quite obviously ridiculous to equate “birther nonsense” with a full disclosure of a “career” that seems to be completely devoid of documentation . . .”

    Last I heard, the birthers wanted the college transcripts because they thought there was something that would indicate he was something other than a US citizen. I very much doubt they care about his grades.

    Reply
  23. Bob Perry says:

    @Toby … This post was about the PSU child rapist and his connection, through Spanier, to Alfred Kinsey. I tried to refrain from ignoring the “birther”/Obama nonsense but you want to keep heading down that rabbit trail … and now I’m “rather unpleasant” for not following you there?!

    I have to say I don’t see why that makes me “unpleasant.”

    Reply
  24. Stephen B says:

    “Those are unconstitutional acts done blatantly and knowingly”

    I believe Obama argued DOMA was unconstitutional in the first place, in which case his instruction to repeal was supporting the constitution, not opposing it.

    And it wasn’t us who brought up Obama. It was Mark, and then Bob posted his support.

    Reply
  25. Stephen B says:

    Sorry, I said “I believe…” when I should have checked first. I’ve just checked and I was right:

    “The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that section 3 [of DOMA] was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court.

    In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

    Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in seven federal courts on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration. Four of those cases are awaiting a response for review in the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    Reply
  26. Mark Ducharme says:

    And now for today’s Movie-Tone summary of the forgoing train wreck, er, dialogue:
    (original post – a paraphrase) “Sexual perverts tend to intersect w/ each other – either directly or not so directly – via their mutual ‘philosophy’ of moral relativism and general, overall ‘pervertyness’.”

    (general response from resident “M.R.s” {NO! That means “moral relativists” you judgmental, right-wing constitutionalista!!!})
    “OH YEAH!?!? Well that’s not even true and truth doesn’t even exist according to MY objective reality, so HA! And besides, conservatives are the REAL sickos in all of this if you ask me….relatively speaking.
    …p.s. the guy who promised to bankrupt American corporations & believes the founders really blew it by failing to include ‘The Bill of Things Big Bro Should do for Us’ when they wrote the Constitution is really a conservative because: he blows up terrorists real good – once said he supports traditional marriage – never fed even ONE Christian to a lion – gets MILLIONS from Wall Street – he DOES have college transcripts, just ask him, DUH!, you dumb birther – and he would NEVER refuse to enforce ANY law before first declaring it offensive, er, unconstitutional.”

    fin ~

    Reply
  27. Stephen B says:

    Mark, I can barely understand your post there, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with anything we’ve said. Perhaps you’ve mistakenly posted on the wrong thread?

    If you read what Toby or I actually posted, we asked for examples of people preaching moral relativism. All we’ve had in reply is a quote from a single person saying “It depends on what your definition of immoral is,” which strikes me as most likely simply meaning “That depends on whether you think x is immoral or not”, not “There’s no such thing as morality”.

    Someone disagreeing with you on whether something is immoral does not mean they reject the whole notion of morality. Equally, someone disagreeing with you on whether a bill is un/constitutional isn’t the same as them saying they disregard the constitution.

    And who said ‘truth doesn’t even exist’? Who said morality doesn’t exist? You’re dealing in straw men.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *