Sexuality of Kinsey Destroys Women and Marriage

I want to understand the secular idea of sexuality to better complement my position. My dear friend the noted expert on homosexuality Arthur Goldberg, of NARTH, the family oriented organization of psychiatrists, suggested that I contact Dr. Neil Whitehead of New Zealand. Dr. Whitehead was kind enough to send me a lengthy letter filled with sources about sexuality.  He quotes sources and supplies comments of his own. I, in turn, comment.

Dr. Whiteheads quotes Flandrin, 1985, who maintains that the West traditionally did not see sex as an affair of love, but rather a capacity for procreation that ensured property inheritance by the extended family. Dr. Whitehead writes, “The ethologist Luc Thoré maintains our contemporary society is the only one in the world to have made love the basis of marriage. All others are suspicious of love matches because they disrupt society.”

Could it be that our society is so much stronger and successful than other societies precisely because of this? The Talmud and Zohar teach that the level of the child is impacted by the love or other emotion that exists during procreation. The idea that a woman is a thing to produce an heir obviously invokes a soul that is less successful than a soul born of love. But even in the American society and surely in the Western world, although love is an ideal, marriage does not have the success it should. Therefore, we live in a world, even in America, where we idealize love in marriage, but with almost two thirds of marriages ending in divorce, and many others continuing in misery, we cannot say that we practice what we preach. Finding love in marriage is the great challenge, and everything, including the level of the soul of the child, depends upon it.

Family is the unit of society. Were love to be the factor that enables sexuality inevitably people would have babies for reasons that were not commensurate with social property and social status. Therefore, marriage and sexuality became coldly calculated matters to support the monetary status, estate, and honor of the family.

Where did love go? It went underground. People had mistresses. Thus, the man did not have pleasure with his wife, but only outside of the marriage.

A Greek scholar said that women depicted in ancient Grecian drawings at dinners with men were not wives. The man wanted a picture of himself and his mistress, not his wife. The wife was like a coin or contract, a monetary or social tool that not only did not have anything to do with love, but marital love threatened society!

This led to a great denigration of women, who were either social ciphers who lived and labored without love, or mistresses whose entire claim to love was by nature transitory and highly competitive. A woman who wanted love had to commit adultery, become a prostitute, or remain single and live in sin.

In countries where divorce was banned marriage was surely removed from love, and society found pleasures in forbidden pastures. Thus, in such communities, love could only come with sin. Therefore, from earliest times in Western society, sexuality and sin were related. If today sexuality has an aura of naughtiness, this is simply a continuum.

Indeed, in world history, where and when were biblical ideas of sexuality honored? Popes had children and some priests are homosexuals or child molesters. Recently, several senior Protestant leaders of large communities were caught with sexual sin. This is history and this is the present. Biblical marriage exists as an ideal but what society obeys it in practical terms? The Jewish community is very faithful but not everyone is faithful, as Rambam tells us, “There is no city pure of adultery.”

In Judaism, divorce is permitted in extreme circumstances but loveless marriage is denigrated. The mother alone receives the sexuality of the husband. There are no mistresses. Therefore sex must be with honor and love. Judaism greatly honors the female, while other cultures denigrate her.

But the Jewish standard is very hard. Only in marriage may one have sex. And even in marriage, the woman is forbidden during her menstrual period. This creates a great tension, and is part of the Jewish Torah commitment that requires enormous effort and struggle.

In the time of the great French kings, men would approach the monarch to offer their wives when he tired of his old mistress. This descended from ancient Rome where a Senator once offered his wife to the Emperor. Wives were like a good horse. They had a price and a monetary value that was not bound by emotion.

The ancient Christian world denigrated women and even today Catholics priests are forbidden to marry. Women were said to be not worthy of a truly spiritual person. This is a far cry from the Zohar that declares that the highest spiritual level of humans is marital intimacy, and the happiness of the woman is the happiness of the Schechinah, the Divine Presence.

Dr. Whitehead next describes Kinsey 1948:1953 as one who initiated the “modern attitudes to sexuality.” “The main emphasis is physical rather than social, thus he talks very little about engagement, marriage, divorce, rape or abortion, birth” says Dr. Whitehead.

I agree that Kinsey initiated the modern attitudes to sexuality, but he did not do so in a vacuum. If we reflect on the denigration of women and sexuality in past centuries, we see that a woman and relations with her were the dregs of society. Either one had a loveless wife that made sex sickening, or he had an illicit affair with someone who may be married to someone else, and love and sex became an evil act. Is there any surprise therefore that eventually the steam in the pot blew off the lid and Kinsey came along and suggested that sex be physical and anything goes? After all, if adultery was common and tolerated, why not tolerate everything else?

Thus, the fabric of Western society from earliest times denigrates the female and automatically denigrates sexuality. Conversely, G‑d told Abraham “all that Sarah your wife tells you, hearken to her voice.” A Jewish female is sacerdotal and spiritually superior. In a nation of spiritualists, this accords the female a high status as the “crown of her husband.” Patriarchal society places the man as the public face of the family, but the internal and actual face is the female. “A man does not enter his home without the permission of his wife.” The street is the man and the home is the wife. Publicly, even in the home, the man is the leader, but he thrives in proportion to “honoring his wife more than himself.”

Thus, sexuality in Judaism is much different than sexuality elsewhere. Elsewhere, the female is denigrated and sexuality automatically suffers. In Judaism, the Torah elevates the female and thus sexuality is sacred and honored. It goes without saying that children born in a home that honors the mother turn out differently from children who grow up disdaining the mother.

Kinsey’s revolution and his radical sexuality did not improve the lot of the female. Promoting a purely physical pleasure sex did not improve the lot of women. Gone was the honor and dignity of the woman. Thus, rather than seeing Kinsey as a revolution, it was actually a logical continuum of the earlier Western approach to sexuality. Sexuality was always illicit. Love was dangerous to society. Therefore, Kinsey merely put the icing on the cake, removed religious hypocrisy and spoke kind words to Western men who could now have their sexual pleasure without guilt.

Kinsey left women without a stable marriage or home. Children now became targets of fathers who believed as Kinsey did that any pleasure from sex was valid; there are no rules. A policeman told me that in a study, most children were molested by their fathers, and many said they would molest their children. This is Kinsey revealed; sexuality is pleasure, and pleasure is permitted, all pleasure.

Kinsey destroyed women and children. Even the men who followed his path to sexual freedom soon found that perverse sexual pleasures lead to addiction. More and more until disaster: that is where drugs and unlimited sex lead to.

Dr. Whitehead writes of Kinsey: “the tone of his books is quite moralizing, saying that people should be free to do whatever sexual acts they prefer.”

I believe in the Torah: G‑d gave us laws how we behave. But a secular person, or one who is religious but believes religion a human invention, or one who believes that even divine revelation changes or can be altered by people, why should they refrain from bestiality?

Yet the Talmud says that even pagans who fell to the lowest levels knew there were limits in how they behave sexually. They accepted homosexuality, but the refused to call it marriage. Kinsey ushered in a new age where people do want to call it marriage.

The Western world suffered mightily from religious wars. The Treaty of Westphalia ended generations of bloody wars between Catholics and Protestants. It removed religion from government. But people still harbored respect for Sinai and its values. Even those cut off from Sinai retain a spark of holiness that rebels against bestiality and homosexuality. Kinsey as a moralist felt this was inconsistent with human freedom. Why deny someone a pleasure? Kinsey’s ideas have additional cogency in a time where marriage doesn’t work well. We cannot return to the old way of wives as baby machines and sex privately with other women. If society demands love for a wife, and we cannot provide it properly, why should we force people into marriage? The decline of marriage thus opens the door to Kinsey. Biblical people who believe that the laws of the bible cannot be changed are not so affected. But those who believe that religion is tailored by the times find the arguments of Kinsey relevant.

As we will discuss, this problem is pertinent, as my friend Dr. Eichal says, to the gay movement. The decline of marriage, the inability of huge numbers of women to enjoy marriage, is partially responsible for the rise of the homosexual movement, as we will discuss. Our point here is, as Dr. Eichal believes, that it is not enough to attack Kinsey without addressing the core problems that propelled such hideous ideas into the forefront. Either we make marriage successful or we will fail. People don’t like to suffer.

Dr. Whitehead adds that Kinsey “thought the ideal sexuality was highly adaptable, and that quite different acts and preferences should exist at different times. This ideal was bisexual at least. But he would have included bestiality and pedophilia in the list. The ideal was pleasure.”

This is not a new idea. The beginning of the world had this philosophy that led to the Flood of Noah and the destruction of the world. It led to the radical lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah. We will study these separately, but we mention this now. In fact, as biblical history and secular history reveal, the human race is very vulnerable to Kinsey’s ideas and practiced them for centuries and millenniums. We will discuss the biblical stories in more detail, but for now, let us return to discussing Dr. Whitehead’s remarks about Kinsey.

Is the ideal pleasure? If so, who gets the pleasure? The man who contemplates Kinsey’s ideas wants to have pleasure; the partner is only there to enable it. The partner is therefore a tool and removed from anything else, such as respect and love.

Today the style in some quarters is for a boy to date a girl, and when the time comes, he turns on pornography and watches it while he concludes his date. The girl of course must smile and not complain otherwise she may be ignored. This is a logical extension of Kinsey’s pleasure principle. The woman is only there to assist in the pleasure. If no woman is available, an animal will do, or a child, or anything. The woman knows this, and because of her social predicament, and because she is secular and accepts Kinsey, she goes along. But inside of her is a terrible pain. A woman’s sexual experience is tied into the deepest recess of her soul, while that of the man is tied to his nerve endings. A woman must be treated properly, or else, as in the secular world, the pain pierces her soul but she must smile, and this makes her even more filled with suppressed anger and hopeless hate. One day, she will marry, and at last, she turns off the smile. That is why we are in the post-marital age in the secular world.

A religious but modern father told me he married off his daughter and said to the groom, “If you hit her I will kill you.” I just listened. I am not in that world, and am I happy. But my children, and of course my daughters, are even happier.

I was once on television with prominent New York State Senator Joseph Holland. It was right after a Jewish woman was killed in Central Park by a man she met at a bar. I commented bitterly about girls who must go to bars to find men. I said, “If you want my daughter you will get down on your knees.” The producer, a secular lady, said, “We want to hear more of this.” She was gratified that someone understood.

Recently I was on NYC radio and discussed the crisis of divorce. I blamed it largely on the hidden anger of women as men mistreat them, taking them for free, not marrying and not paying, the first time in history that this has happened. Women are today at their historical nadir of women and the amazing thing is, they are trained to relish this! The producer of the radio show who heard my comment asked a woman who had a divorce about my remarks and she agreed that I was right. Anger is there from long before the marriage begins, long before the husband even meets the wife. A bitter woman produces the post-marital age. And our culture produces angry women.

There is a gender factor in sexuality. Bitter women don’t make for great sex. When sex fails, men seek alternative ways, and listen to Kinsey. As long as society forces the woman from the home, mixes her with men, demands that she behave like a man in a man’s world, and then sacrifice her honor for nothing, we will have problems. Thus, sexuality cannot succeed until we make women fulfilled in the natural way, by enabling marriage with a woman in the home caring for children, honored and respected by her husband and society. This happens in my community, but elsewhere, the woman is confused, and so is marriage.

Today, January 13, 2008, the New York Times featured an article from a woman about a movie. The movie shows a girl getting pregnant, giving away the baby surreptitiously, and then resuming life with her boyfriend as if nothing had happened. The writer calls this film a “fairy tale” because a woman suffers greatly when she gives away a baby, and when she has an abortion.[1]

Men therefore do what they want with women, and society, through its movies and fantasies, deprives the women of the knowledge of the dangers.

Here are the words of the above writer: “Pregnancy robs a teenager of her girlhood. This stark fact is one reason girls used to be so carefully guarded and protected — in a system that at once limited their horizons and safeguarded them from devastating consequences. The feminist historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has written that ‘however prudish and ‘uptight’ the Victorians were, our ancestors had a deep commitment to girls.’

“We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?”

This is the crucial question. Can we have our cake and eat it too? Can we turn girls out of the protective home into the street with boys and expect her to be safe from the worst pain, of pregnancy? What about the other pains that girls have, of being used and then dumped, of being pleasure tools without love? What kind of freedom is that for a girl, to be miserable? It seems a woman in the general culture is either a baby machine, a paid prostitute, or a modern pleasure machine who works for free.

When my children grew up, I spoke every Sabbath for a long time at the table. One fine day when I was in a lather about the Conservative Jewish movement’s ordaining of women rabbis, I spoke about that. I stopped in the middle. My daughters were not prepared to listen to that. They sensed that such an idea of turning women into men was the worst possible thing. And it is.

Dr. Whitehead continues, “Kinsey was concerned to show that taboo behaviors were relatively common and hence “normal”. The highly fallacious follow-on was that therefore they were moral. Any Philosophy 101 student could point out the ridiculousness of this, but few in the general public study philosophy.”

Here we get into tricky waters. A behavior is taboo; society denigrates it a moral turpitude. But some people practice it. Does this make the practice “normal”? Let us return to the earlier generations in Europe when people married and had a mistress. The wife was denied and the mistress was not. Is this right? Is this normal? Surely, since most people had a mistress, it is not unheard of and was statistically “normal.” But is it moral and is it right?

Let us go further. Since marriage was without love people shopped around. Since many or most people a man knew about and had contact with were married, this led to adultery. Common it was, but was it normal? Maybe it was, but does this make it moral?

Was adultery in France and Spain centuries ago, and even today, moral? Was it normal? Was it common? It was and is common, and in a sense, it is therefore, in purely social terms, “normal.” But is adultery moral?

If everyone commits adultery, even if everyone agrees that it is immoral and wrong, we are troubled fighting against it. Ultimately, we end up allowing morality to slip, and go from a moral society to an amoral one. If we demand obedience to a remote morality we become either hypocrites or openly evil. Therefore, the only proper path is to establish morality that will succeed and be obeyed. If society establishes a morality and makes it very difficult to obey, society has failed.

There are societies, major countries, such as India and France, that, at least when I read about it years ago, had tax laws and practices that were clearly ridiculous. This accommodated the cheats, because so many people cheated, and yet the ridiculous demands of the government for taxes allowed the government to have an income. People were asked how much they earn and were told to pay a hundred percent or more of this. Everyone had a job on the record and made money off the record. So the job on the record was taxed a hundred percent and everyone was satisfied.

Here we have a society whose morality in paying taxes has failed. The solution is to accept this aberration and to work around it, even if that means being ridiculous. The government must be paid.

But all of this means that the government and society don’t care about cheating on taxes. This message effectively removed from the list of moral rules the sin of cheating on taxes.

Have generations of cheating in marriage loosened the morality of adultery? And if so, what is left of the morality regarding polygamy, prostitution, adultery, incest, etc.?

We deal with a situation where society made standards that cannot be tolerated, and people violate them. What then happens to the standards?  Is defying these standards “radical”? We will return to these issues.