Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences - Judith Reismann [NOTES]

Post Notes/Outlines/Detailed discussion on non-fiction books for purposes of study
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:37 am

Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences - Judith Reismann [NOTES]

Post by Charlotte »

Here's my notes on Judith Resimann's book on Alfred Kinsey. Obviously I have not taken everything from the book just the notes I found important. Feel free to add if there are significant things I missed.

Significance Of Kinsey - Considered The "Einstein" of Sexuality
33 In 1990, when some of my child-abuse findings were printed in a small-circulation book, Phil Donahue, a popular talk show host and Kinsey devotee, telecast Kinsey’s general importance to the world. A boy in his audience asked why Kinsey should matter to him, today. Mr. Donahue instructed the youth, too young to remember: Kinsey was to sexuality what Freud was to psychiatry, what Madame Curie was to radiation, what Einstein was to physics. Comes along this woman [Reisman] saying, Holy cow! E doesn’t equal mc2. We’ve based an entire generation of education of sexologists on Kinsey, and Kinsey was a dirty old man.

42 In 1989, the National Research Council said American society can be divided into the “Preand Post-Kinsey Era.” I have no argument with that. Indeed, Kinsey has had a significant impact on all our lives. Today the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University celebrates Kinsey’s past 50 years of pioneering contributions to society. It is my greatest hope, as a scholar and as a grandmother, that the truth presented here will help many to understand the great significance Kinsey has had on their individual lives and the influence the Kinsey reports continue to have on the lives of their children and grandchildren. Then, whether a celebration is in order, is up to you.

420 By 1989, a Rockefeller-funded National Research Council AIDS report said America could be divided into “pre-Kinsey” and “post-Kinsey” eras.37

Alfred Kinsey The Eugenicist
54 Jones identifies Kinsey as one of the scholarly pre-World War II eugenicists who issued a “terrifying” call for the mass sterilization of “lower level” Americans and a breeding plan for superior classes.27

Like Congressman Reece, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis-- while supportive of the concept of evolutionary law--was concerned about philanthropies such as the Rockefeller Foundation. He issued this warning about their powerful special-interest influence under the guise of benevolence: “There develops within the State a state so powerful that the ordinary social and industrial forces existing are insuf- ficient to cope with it.… [Their power is] inconsistent with our demo- cratic aspirations.” 67 [Emphasis added.] The Foundation enthusiastically supported the concept of “eu- genics,” which encourages the reproductive efforts of those deemed Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis to have “good” (“eu” from the Greek for good) genes, while discour- aging or stopping procreation by undesirables. This view had motivated the Foundation’s earlier support of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and her eugenic and birth control move- ment. But Rockefeller and others were anxious to go even further to mold America’s breeding pat- terns along evolutionary lines. The Foundation considered Kinsey’s “quantitative content” sex research of critical importance to the “grand scheme.” As Professor Christopher Simpson wrote in Science of Coercion: The Founda- tion sought “quantitative” data to provide “a tool for social management” that is postwar “psycho- logical warfare” with which to impose the will of the elite “on the masses.” 68

In the introduction to Foundations, Wormser summarized the Reece Committee’s findings:
It is not easy to investigate foundations, not even for Congress to attempt it: the giant foundations are powerful and have powerful friends. A special committee was created by the House of Representatives of the 83rd Congress to investigate tax-exempt organiza- tions. It is generally referred to as the “Reece Committee” after its chairman, Congress- man B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee. It was successor, in a way, to the “Cox Committee,” created by the previous Congress. The Reece Committee had perhaps the most hazardous career of any committee in the history of Congress. It survived its many perils, however, to bring to the attention of Congress and the people grave dangers to our society. These dangers relate chiefly to the use of foundation funds for political ends; they arise out of the accumulation of substantial economic power and of cultural influence in the hands of a class of administrators of tax-exempt funds established in perpetuity. An “elite” has thus emerged, in control of gigantic financial resources operating outside of our democratic processes. 5

You will recall that his “network of connections” would reach almost “any group… anywhere.”25 Kinsey was indebted to the Rockefeller Foundation for providing such connections, and he dropped the Rockefeller name liberally (though requested not to do so) to gain entry into the networks and the halls of power. 26 Rockefeller connections were important in the scientific com- munity. Pomeroy states that “outside the boundaries of Bloomington, his [Kinsey’s] best friends were scientists like himself who, in one way or another, were a part of his grand scheme.” 27

Kinsey’s more than 6,000 citations in law, social science, and science journals attest to his consid- erable influence. But they do not indicate the extent to which his views have been further magnified by such key change agents as Ernst, Ploscowe, Wechsler, Tappan, Guttmacher, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Note, for instance, how Ploscowe uses a snippet of Kinsey’s misleading data to call for a change in U.S. law regarding sex:
These pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual and animal contacts, we are told, are eventually indulged in by 95 per cent of the population in violation of statutory prohibi- tions. If these conclusions are correct, then it is obvious that our sex crime legislation is completely out of touch with the realities of individual living and is just as inherently unenforceable as legislation which prohibits the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages or legislation which attempts to prohibit gambling. For in each case the law attempts to forbid an activity which responds to a wide human need. 81

From the Scandinavian countries, Kinsey traveled to England, where he helped craft the controversial 1957 Wolfenden Report. The report recommended the legalization and licensing of obscenity, homosexuality, and other activities previously understood to be perversions. After Kinsey’s visit, the Wolfenden Report became a cited authority in the United States; Wolfenden cited the Model Penal Code of the United States, while revolutionary American attorneys and judges cited Wolfenden. In England, [Kinsey attended]conferences with professional groups. The latter included prison and hospital staff as well as the British commission that was then working on the revision of the English sex law. This was the group that crafted the Wolfenden Report for Parliament in 1957. Lectures in London at the Institute of Psychiatry and at the Maudsley Hospital were high points. 34

The homosexual movement has long been campaigning for a lowered or eliminated age of con- sent, arguing that boys (and girls) are fully capable of “orgasm.” Thus, they should be allowed full sexual “rights,” including the “right” to sex with adults. New York University Press’s publication, Lavender Culture, by Jay and Young, was first published in 1978 and republished in 1994. It argues for this “right” in the chapter, “Gay Youth and the Question of Consent.” 158

Kinsey concentrated on negative eugenics, calling for a program of sterilization that was at once sweeping and terrifying. “The reduction of the birth rate of the lowest classes must depend upon the sterilization of perhaps a tenth of our population.” 1 James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Private/Public Life, 1997

Certain Rockefeller business activities had supplied war-making materials to Hitler’s war effort, causing then-Senator Harry Truman (D-Missouri) to use the word “treason” when describing Rockefeller (Standard Oil), during a Senate speech on March 27, 1942. Now the Rockefeller Foun- dation (and other foundations as well) were found to be funding questionable programs and research during the post-war era that were hav- ing a harmful impact in critical areas of America’s social, educational, and political life.

Kinsey’s preposterous statistical data served the Rockefeller Foundation’s larger purposes. You will recall that six years prior to the Reece Committee hearings the Foundation had been informed of the bad data by Warren Weaver, the head of its Natural Sciences Division. In 1948, Weaver had dis- cussed Kinsey’s lack of scientific methodology with Allen Wallis of the University of Chicago, 19 and later wrote that although monies for “the National Research Council Committee for Research in Problems of Sex were, from 1934 through 1941, recommended to the Trustees by me,” 20 the Kinsey research was a scientific farce. He had bluntly asserted, “I know of no evidence that Dr. Kinsey understands the underlying statistical character of his work,” and had charged that neither Kinsey nor his assistant, Clyde Martin, had “the competence… [or] interest” in correcting this shocking fault. Weaver was, for example, appalled to discover that “Kinsey quotes an ‘average,’ which on examination, turns out to be an average of just one case!” 21 Despite the exposure of Kinsey’s worthless research by Weaver, Wallis, Hobbs, and other cred- ible critics, Rockefeller Foundation trustees continued to fund the Kinsey sex studies until 1954, when the Reece Committee planned to publicly examine both Kinsey and his data.

By 1955, Kinsey was at the height of his renown. Homosexual author Gore Vidal described him as the “most famous man in America, the world, for about a decade.” 23

As for Kinsey’s own quest for personal liberation, it ended in pain and squalor: he developed a massive pelvic infection as the result of his masochistic practices, almost certainly hastening his death at the age of 62. Growing up at the turn of the century, he had been exposed to countless tracts warning that masturbation led to insanity and death. In his case, they may have been onto something. 76

Gebhard writes, We [were]… amoral at best and criminal at worst. Examples of amorality are our refusal to inform a wife that her husband has… an active venereal disease, and our refusal to tell parents that their child is involved in seriously deviant behavior. An example of criminality is our refusal to cooperate with authorities in apprehending a pedophile we had interviewed who was being sought for a [child] sex murder 13

Academics Are Stupid Fucks
I was also disturbed by what I privately considered a lack of intellectual curiosity and vigor among academics.

46 Alfred Charles Kinsey was born in Hoboken, New Jersey, on June 23, 1894. He grew up in South Orange, and was 16 when Congress halted the traffic in young girls (“White Slave Trade”) in 1910. It was largely to oppose such forced prostitution that religious women and feminists joined forces to encourage a return to virtue, temperance and chastity that would safeguard the institutions of marriage and family.

Nudist Culture Sprang Up During Weimar Era
58 The founder of the nudist or “physical culture” movement was Dr. Heinrich Pudor. He published the pamphlet Naked Humanity, Jubilant Future in 1893, followed by a monthly nudist journal entitled Strength and Beauty. Critics of the movement feared that it would ultimately weaken nations by promoting the “Greek vice.” Nevertheless, fully one-third of German youth, prior to Hitler, were staunch supporters.32

Kinsey As "Sexual Rebel"
65 Asked what Brayland’s wife thought about it, Jones recalled: “I can tell you that she didn’t like Alfred Kinsey. [She responded] that they were just kids from Mississippi and that Alfred Kinsey hurt them.” And in his recent biography, Jones notes, Kinsey bathed with his students… striding about camp naked… [Confided one student] “You’d see him… going to the bathroom, and all that sort of thing… He’d just take a leak right there in front of us…” Professors simply did not engage in that sort of behavior with their graduate students. Yet Kinsey seemed totally oblivious to sexual taboos… as though he was determined to flaunt them… Kinsey had become a sexual rebel… manipulative and aggressive, a man who abused his professional authority and betrayed his trust as a teacher… [O]nly… a compulsive man would have taken such risks.47

Rockefeller Funding
79 James Jones, in his doctoral dissertation on Kinsey, reveals that while an overwhelming number of faculty members strenuously objected to the course, Kinsey gave only glowing reports about its reception to the Rockefeller Foundation when requesting-and receiving—funds earmarked for sex “research.” The Foundation’s stated policy at the time was that “[n]othing was more highly valued in the Rockefeller camp than fact finding pursued without conscious bias. Only after all the facts were known could the proper action be taken.”6

97 According to the International Encyclopedia Social Sciences (1968), Kinsey “began search, unassisted, in 1938.… Support from the National Research Council and Division of The Rockefeller Foundation.”48

99 The Rockefeller Foundation’s statement filed with the Committee explained... [funding] the Kinsey studies. In 1931 it “became interested in systematic support for studies in sexual physiology and behavior.” Its work in these areas was chiefly in connection with the “committee for research in problems of sex of The National Research Council,” to which, by 1954, the Foundation had granted $1,755,000 in annual grants running from $75,000 to $240,000. Beginning about 1941, a considerable portion of these funds was supplied to Dr. Kinsey’s studies, and one grant was made direct to Dr. Kinsey. The work of the NRC produced some results of truly noteworthy importance. [However] the much-publicized “best-seller” Kinsey studies base an advocacy of criminal and social reform on the very unscientific material which Dr. Kinsey had collected and permitted to be widely disseminated.53

Rockefeller's Promoted Kinseys book And Received Much $ for Campaigns in Mass Media
114 T he immense amount of public interest in Kinsey’s first book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, supposedly came as a surprise to its authors and publisher. That is doubtful, however, considering the enormous advance effort to promote it, including efforts of the Rockefeller-connected mass media to effusively hype the book and its culturally corrosive message. Kinsey and his benefactors set in motion massive publicity campaigns preceding release of both the Male volume in 1948 and the Female volume in 1953.86 Journalists were briefed and courted, and as publication date approached, wined and dined (occasionally at taxpayers’ expense). In addition to print advertisements, an unprecedented number of gratis copies of the first book (primarily targeting the medical profession) were distributed nationally. Allen Wallis, past president of the American Statistical Association, recalls, “Yes, the book was promoted commercially in a big way and they were taking sort of a holier-than-thou attitude, saying we’re not promoting it at all, it’s just that the public is naturally interested in the subject.”87

117 But how did this bow-tied, Midwestern biology professor become a savvy public relations wizard capable of conducting a book promotion rivaling that of a Madison Avenue ad agency? An indication of the answer is found in the record of the Rockefeller Foundation’s extensive influence on mass communication. During the late 1930s, writes Christopher Simpson in Science of Coercion, the Foundation “believed mass media... constituted a uniquely powerful force in modern society” for imposing the will of the elite “on the masses.”93 According to Simpson, “secret psychological war projects” to control public opinion were supported by America’s tax-exempt foundations. For example, campaigns were developed to induce Americans to support U.S. entry into World War II. The Rockefeller Foundation funded communications experts from the field of social science to shape preand postwar public attitudes. In the postwar era, this experienced group of operatives turned its attention to our domestic population. Simpson continues:

Psychological Warfare, American intelligence, OSS and CIA and Rockefeller Foundation merge in World War 2
118 Simpson describes how agents trained in psychological warfare by the American intelligence and espionage apparatus (i.e., the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Office of War Information (OWI)) were infiltrated, with assistance from tax-exempt foundations, into influential positions in journalism, politics, university communications departments, and other powerful mass-media positions. There they could work to “engineer mass consent” as described by Christopher Simpson (addressed further in Chapter 10), and Simpson further states: In 1939 the [Rockefeller] Foundation organized a series of secret seminars with men it regarded as leading communication scholars, to enlist them in an effort to consolidate public opinion in the United States in favor of war against Nazi Germany-opposed by many conservatives, religious leaders, and liberals at the time.95

119 These secret psychological warfare projects] helped define U.S. social science and mass communication studies long after the war had drawn to a close. Virtually all of the scientific community that was to emerge during the 1950s as leaders in the field of mass communication research spent the war years performing applied studies on U.S. and foreign propaganda public opinion (both domestically and internationally), clandestine OSS operations. Among OWI alumni-in 1953, are, The publishers of Time, Look, Fortune and several dailies; editors of such magazines as Holiday, Coronet, Parade, and the Saturday Review, editors of The Denver Post, New Orleans’ The Times-Picayune, and others; the heads of the Viking Press, Harper & Brothers, and Farrar, Straus and Young; two Hollywood Oscar winners; a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner; the board chairman of CBS and a dozen key network executives; President Eisenhower's chief speech writer; the editor of Reader's Digest international editions; at least six partners of large advertising agencies; and a dozen noted social scientists; chief of the U.S. government's covert psychological warfare effort from 1950 to 1952 and later dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and founder of the Columbia Journalism Review.

117 There was] a remarkably tight circle of men and women who shared several important conceptions about mass communication research. They regarded mass communication as a tool for social management and as a weapon in social conflict, and they expressed common assumptions concerning the usefulness of quantitative research-particularly experimental and quasi-experimental effects research, opinion surveys, and quantitative content analysis as a means of illuminating what communication “is” and improving its application to social management. 94

121 Kinsey with members of the press. Such briefings were financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and Indiana University's public funds.

Kinsey view of Greek Pederasty
82 Knowing what I do of the human animal, I cannot believe that the love and affection which the older males bestowed upon Greek boys, and their aesthetic admiration for the bodies of Greek youth, could have failed to arouse specific sexual response [sic] which found their outlet in overt sexual relations.13

82 What I would have done without your earlier help, I do not know. . . . I have whole albums of photographs of their friends, or from commercial sources-fine art to putrid. Some of the art model material is gorgeous. I want you to see it....16

84 Despite the “dynamite” with which he was playing, and the open secret that his attitudes and behavior around students were highly irregular, Kinsey continued to benefit from the veneer of respectability, and continuing financial support, provided by Indiana University.

Pederasty Popular in Weimar Germany
85 He was, for instance, familiar with the work of Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld. Kinsey’s friend, Dr. Harry Benjamin, 25 had brought Hirschfeld to America to speak against the social reform accomplishments of the Purity Movement.26 In 1919, Hirschfeld established the world’s first Institute for Sexology in Berlin, organizing it into four departments: Sexual Biology, Sexual Medicine, Sexual Sociology, and Sexual Ethnology.27 Englishman Christopher Isherwood wrote three novels about life in Berlin at the time, from which the stage production and movie Caberet was drawn. Isherwood, a pederast, summarized his view of Germany as “Berlin is for boys.”28

Kinsey with Harry Benjamin and Magnus Hirschfield
86 Kinsey colleague Harry Benjamin (left), with Magnus Hirschfeld, in 1929. Benjamin wrote a glowing introduction to pedophile Rene Guyan’s 1948 book, The Ethics of Sexual Acts.

Kinsey's Colleagues Oversaw Child Abuse
90 Clarence Tripp, Kinsey’s early sex photographer and colleague, explained during his 1998 (British) Yorkshire television interview that Dickinson, Kinsey’s inspirational “mentor in sex research,” had “collaborated with [a] pedophile for several years, and taught him how to record his child abuse in scientific detail.”

98 The present volume is a progress report from a case history study on human sex behavior. The study has been underway during the past nine years. Throughout these years, it has had the sponsorship and support of Indiana University, and during the past six years the support of the National Research Council’s Committee for Research on Problems of Sex, with funds granted by the Medical Division of The Rockefeller Foundation. It is a fact-finding survey in which an attempt is being made to discover what people do sexually, and what factors account for differences in sexual behavior among individuals, and among various segments of the population.52

102 The publicity photographs of Kinsey and his team, staff, and family continue to portray them all as typical Americans. While Pomeroy states that Kinsey insisted on having only married men on the team, Jones found that claim to be less than candid. Several of Kinsey’s student research associates were unmarried. Presumably, if Kinsey claimed that his aides were all married, it was not because he believed the emotional health of husbands superior to that of bachelors, but because “people who had never married were suspect to a good many Americans.”58 Inclusion of single men could jeopardize the team’s public image.

Kinsey Portrays His Sample As Average Americans Instead Of Rapists, Paedophiles and Pederasts
102 Project secrecy was essential, since Kinsey was interviewing not only homosexuals, but rapists, pedophiles, pederasts, and other criminal types. Pomeroy writes:

103 Kinsey selected men who were not “prone to moral evaluations” 60 in the area of human sexuality. He hired no “prudes,” Jews, Blacks, or committed Christians. Pomeroy

104 Kinsey hired only men to interview women about their intimate sexual feelings and private experiences. So few women were willing to reveal their sexual histories that Kinsey resorted to reclassifying prostitutes as “married women.”

Kinsey Hated Beards
104 Kinsey, myself, Paul Gebhard and Clyde Martinwere quite unlike as human beings. To begin with, we differed physically. Kinsey dominated us in that respect, as he did in every other. He hated beards. Only a senior member such as Paul Gebhard could have survived Kinsey’s displeasure over mustaches...

More Kinsey Child Abuse
113 Kinsey often expressed an elitist right to unlimited, uncontrolled “scientific research” into everyone’s sexuality, including that of children from birth. It should hardly surprise us, then, that in the chapter on child sexuality in the Male volume he writes wistfully of the great things that science might accomplish with absolute freedom to conduct human experiments: “Erotic arousal [of children] could be subjected to precise instrumental measurement if objectivity among scientists and public respect for scientific research allowed such laboratory investigation.”84

166 Yet in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, such terms as “contacts,” “partners,” and “sex play” were utilized by Kinsey and his associates as euphemisms to cover what was in fact grown men forcibly sodomizing infants and children. Kinsey and his team went to great lengths to imply that such sex was consensual for all parties.

189 Kinsey and his team also collected films of children engaged in sex acts, a fact confirmed in 1981 by Kinsey’s coauthor Paul Gebhard. In a letter to this author, while he was director of the Kinsey Institute, Gebhard stated:

189 Since sexual experimentation with human infants and children is illegal, we have had to depend upon other sources of data. Some of these were parents, mostly college-educated, who observed their children and kept notes for us. A few were nursery school owners or teachers. Others were homosexual males interested in older, but still prepubertal, children. One was a man who had numerous sexual contacts with male and female infants and children and, being of a scientific bent, kept detailed records of each encounter. Some of these sources have added to their written or verbal reports photographs and, in a few instances, cinema…. The techniques involved [included] adult-child contacts—chiefly manual or oral. [While “Esther,” appearing on the British documentary, stated:] My father did mail some questionnaires… I believe to the Kinsey Institute about the sexual abuse he was doing on me… since 1938, which makes me about four years old... I know he had a… camera that he used.... There was one time when I do remember a movie camera was running and he says, oh, don’t pay attention to that.... You could only be a little girl to understand that it couldn’t possibly be enjoyed. That was slavery.36 [Emphasis in original

303 Kinsey relied upon [King] for the chapter on childhood sexuality in the male volume... I think that he was in the presence of pathology at large and... Kinsey... elevated to, you know, the realm of scientific information... what should have been dismissed as unreliable, self serving data provided by a predatory pedophile... I don’t have any doubt in my own mind that man wreaked havoc in a lot of lives. Many of his victims were infants and Kinsey in that chapter himself gives pretty graphic descriptions of their response to what he calls sexual stimulation. If you read those words, what he’s talking about is kids who are screaming. Kids who are protesting in every way they can the fact that their bodies or their persons are being violated.

326 Dr. Lester Caplan, a Baltimore physician and member of the American Board of Pediatrics, confirmed in a letter to this author that the children could not have been voluntary participants in the Kinsey research protocol: Regarding the data in Chapter 5, I have come to the following conclusions: 1. That the data was not the norm—rather was data taken form abnormal sexual activities, by sex criminals and the like. 2. Unnatural stimulation was used by the researchers to get results. 3. The frequencies and the number of orgasms in 24 hours was not normal nor the mean. 4. One person could not do this to so many children—these children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly. 36

327 During their Yorkshire interviews, both Gathorne-Hardy and Gebhard stated that Kinsey’s books were meant to convince the public that we are all sexual, womb to tomb, so Kinsey had to “prove” infants were lustful, even if it meant tying them down and labeling their “hysterical weeping” an “orgasm”:

334 And he asked me to let him know when there was an orgasm. He always looked at his watch... he said, he had a deadline to meet and you had to send [the paper] away. So he put it in this envelope and I have never seen it since... ...I know he had a... camera that he used, but I don't know how much he took... one incident he could have taken... in the act... There was one time that may have been photographed... there was one time when I do remember it [a movie camera] was running and he says, oh, don't pay attention to that. ...I think what he did, at least in my case was use the figures for incest in the 1953 book... Now I understand, they have passed on that incest information onto someone else who is publishing a book and that makes me angry... They didn't ask my permission to publish... ...I went into a psychologist myself and I found Kinsey's lies coming right back at me. And then I realized that the Kinsey Institute is teaching the psychologist, I just got through paying money to see.. most people seek [help] from a psychologist or psychiatrist that was trained by [Kinseyans]. [The Kinsey books] are republished... reams of that information is going to be used in our public schools and perpetuate the lie again. Who is financing it...?

359 Nowlis saw things differently. He regarded Mr. X as a monster pure and simple and thought it was wrong to use data that came from immoral research. Decades later, he recalled telling Kinsey, “Look, that material on timing infants and youngsters to orgasm—I don’t think that belongs in this book.” But Kinsey was adamant.… Kinsey meant to change the public’s thinking on sexual matters… Kinsey was determined to provide those data.… The end justified the means.87

Kinsey Institute Associate, John Gagnon, Describes Kinseys Experiments as "Illegal" and "Sex Crimes"

161 In Human Sexualities (1997), John Gagnon, a Kinsey Institute associate, offhandedly acknowledges the illegality of the experiments: A less neutral observer than Kinsey would have described these events as sex crimes, since they involved sexual contact between adults and children. Whether or not these observers were “scientifically trained” [as Kinsey claimed] it seems advisable to use caution in interpreting their findings.60

163 Gebhard could have added that Kinsey once claimed that he and his team had earned the rights of “a priest or of a physician”63 to keep confidential the information provided by rapists, murderers, child-molesters, and pedophile murderers.

Kinsey Presented His Team As Normal Americans To Mass Media Instead of Perverts
122 Again, had the public known that Kinsey, his team and his male population were sexually aberrant, the popular use of their data to change American law, education, culture, and public policy would likely have come to the proverbial screeching halt. As Jones noted during the 1998 Yorkshire documentary, The Kinsey myth... the official version that Kinsey was prevailed upon by students to offer a sex education class [was] part of a larger [mythology] of the disinterested scientist, the person with no ax to grind, no vested interest, no desire to influence policy one way or the other, a kind of simple 19th century empiricist who is just collecting, assembling, and presenting data, a Victorian metric minded, morally neutral, totally dispassionate investigator who simply sees a hole in the literature... to just serve his students and science.107

139 Publicity photograph of Kinsey (left), pseudo-statistician Martin (right), and Pomeroy, with their IBM data processing equipment. Such photos were widely distributed to suggest that the excellence of the equipment meant that their own statistical efforts were of similar quality.

Lancet Noted His Fraudulent Science and Unethical, Possibly Criminal Observations of Children
133 In a review of my earlier book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Reisman, et al), the respected British medical journal The Lancet summarized Kinsey’s qualitative and quantitative research findings as follows: (1) “any questionnaire survey in a normally private area is subject to bias from differences in those who respond and those who refuse, and there is no ready means of checking the information”; and (2) Kinsey et al “questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of ‘normal’ sexual behavior.” In its March 1991 issue, The Lancet also noted that Kinsey’s “methodology” involved “unethical, possibly criminal, observations of children.”3

Kinsey's Team Produced Nonsense Statistics and Bunk Science
141 Although Wallis was one of the most perceptive and thorough critics of the Kinsey statistics, he was not alone in noting the methodological nonsense involved. It bears repeating here again that Warren Weaver, head of the Natural Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation, registered his concern in a letter to the Foundation dated May 7, 1951: In his own diary record of a visit to Kinsey in July 1950, Dr. Gregg said, under the heading of personnel: ‘Past and present needs remain unsatisfied in point of statistics. This fault-this admittedly absolutely basic fault-existed in the project in 1942, it has existed ever since, there is no promise whatsoever that it will cease to exist-and we do nothing about it.’15 That the fundamental flaws in Kinsey’s statistical analyses were allowed to stand despite such criticism points to willful deception, rather than mere confusion or negligence, as the likely explanation.

142 Dr. Albert H. Hobbs, a respected sociologist and author at the University of Pennsylvania, has also noted the Kinsey team’s departure from sound scientific methods, asserting that it violated elementary statistical rules to create nonexistent data by using a manipulative statistical device (“accumulative incidence”) to conjure up illusionary American men. In the same year that the Male volume was published, Dr. Hobbs wrote, The [accumulative incidence] technique used for expansion of the data is, briefly, to treat each case as if it were an additional case falling within each previous age group or previous experience category. Thus, a man who was 45 at the time of the interview would provide a case for each age group previous to that, and if he was married at the time of interview would constitute a case for the single tabulations in the years before he was married. With this technique one could demonstrate that well over 50% of the adult male white population is “exclusively unemployed” (have been unemployed for at least three years) and that over 90% is “exclusively employed,” according to the same criteria. Since the data from one age category are included in others, the age categories are not independent and cannot be designated as random samples. Comparison of one age group with another necessitates a degree of representativeness which is not present.17

143 In a subsequent unpublished manuscript, Hobbs further summarized the inconsistent and unscientific nature of the Kinsey team’s methodology: Kinsey, in his studies of sexual behavior, violated all three of the precepts necessary to scientific procedure. He denied, flatly and repeatedly, that he had any hypothesis, insisting that he merely, in his words, “presented the facts.” Yet to any observant reader, Kinsey obviously had a twopronged hypothesis. He vigorously promoted, juggling his figures to do so, a hedonistic, animalistic conception of sexual behavior, while at the same time he consistently denounced all biblical and conventional conceptions of sexual behavior. He refused to publish his basic data. He kept secret not only his hypotheses, but also refused to present the basic facts on which his conclusions rested. He also refused to reveal the questionnaire which was the basis for all of his facts. In addition, it is possible to derive conclusions opposite to Kinsey’s from his own data.18

144 Hobbs would later testify before a congressional committee regarding the shortcomings of the Kinsey statistics, asserting that these were pseudo-statistics in the service of ideology: Note how impressive is the word “scientific.” And how false. How dangerous to society if foundations support the theory that social problems can be scientifically solved by mere interviewing techniques. Apart from the doubtful veracity of the samples of men and women questioned by Kinsey, his statistical methods have been seriously criticized by organs of the American Statistical Association and several scholarly reviewers. But even if the sampling had been representative of American attitudes on sex, and even if all the persons interviewed had been willing to give truthful answers and were psychologically capable of doing so, it seems preposterous to propose that social change should be justified upon empirical inquiry alone.19

144 Kinsey’s Female volume generated additional criticism. Marital-adjustment consultant Harriet R. Mowrer warned of the danger of accepting Kinsey’s “findings” at face value. She wrote: To accept the Kinsey findings without exacting scrutiny and numerous qualifications would be to perpetuate the error, which Kinsey implies has characterized the work of many, if not all, of the others in the field-both researchers and clinicians-namely, the acceptance and application of unsubstantiated findings, sometimes with harmful results to society. The possible methodological fallacies in the collection and analysis of the data of the sexual activities of the 5,940 white females are numerous and can only be briefly mentioned here. There is no assurance that Kinsey’s findings are representative and can be extended population.20

154 Kinsey’s figure of 10 percent homosexuality, for example, mirrors what is called the statistical “fudge factor.” It can also be applied to his data on adultery, sodomy, etc. If a subject stubbornly refuses to admit committing acts recited by the interviewer, the latter simply speculates about what really happened. Among scientists, such manipulation is euphemistically termed “massaging the data.”

155 On the evidence, Kinsey’s methodology was designed to portray as “average” documentably “unconventional” men, women, and children. This was accomplished and concealed in such ways as, • Secret interviews which precluded scientific verification of answers by independent examination. • Courting and otherwise giving positive reinforcement to subjects deemed to be answering questions “correctly.” • Coercing and "forcing" those who answered “incorrectly” by expressing disbelief and threatening to terminate the interviews unless the subjects relented. • “Massaging the data” by altering answers thought to be incorrect or misleading. • Purging three-fourths of the total sample, including all black women and female prisoners.

159 "I don’t like Kinsey! I don’t like his report; I don’t like anything about it. Kinsey is not trained to do work in this field.... In his interviews, Kinsey employed a thoroughly objectionable technique. The interviews often have a serious effect on the subject’s nerves. Children, reluctant to be questioned, have been virtually forced to submit because of the possibility of being labeled “deficient.” The Kinsey Report might well be called the “Kinsey Inquisition.”57

Kinseys Fraud Science Try to Portray Paedophillia as Natural
149 Pomery and company, ask about very violent, sadistic acts. Then they query, “How much did you enjoy your first experience,” not, “Was your experience, a) enjoyable, b) unimpressive, c) painful, d) humiliating," or other queries likely to obtain a more negative response. It is pertinent to note that the authors also maintain that pedophilia is a natural act because “sex play among young animals and between adults and the young is commonplace. This would lead us to conclude that a ‘natural’ sex act is whatever people do sexually.”31 They suggest that sex with children is a problem only because we have laws against it in this country.

Kinsey Was Impotent, Like To Be Buggered And a Sadomasochist And Circumcised Himself
186 According to Gebhard, Kinsey was already having trouble with erectile impotence... [For the sex films, Dallenback said Kinsey] “had to go into the bathroom to work himself up.” .... Mr. Y [a Kinsey partner] revealed.... “[H]e liked for me to beat him with a cat-o-nine tails.... put ropes around his testicles.” Kinsey enjoyed oral sex (both giving and receiving), [but] he “loved anal intercourse,” particularly... as the active rather than the passive partner. Kinsey would “get a kind of long-suffering look on his face when he was having sex.... some of the [other] sex partners and I used to kind of smile about it because he... looked almost grotesque.” Kinsey’s decided preference was for sadomasochists… ”We had many people who came to visit who did lots of s/m.” ..."Tell your sadomasochistic friends to observe great caution” … Kinsey was speaking from experience. He “put ropes around his testicles” [and once] “climbed into a bathtub, unfolded the blade of his pocketknife, and circumcised himself without benefit of anesthesia.” ...Dallenback confirmed that it happened.... “God, it must have been damn painful. It must have bled a hell of a lot.” 31

151 This ominous photograph in shadow was not seen until December 1990 when it appeared in The Village Voice alongside a flattering article about Kinsey by Philip Nobile, a Kinsey disciple.
153 F]eebleminded individuals vary considerably in their capacities to remember. It is possible to get a fair record from most feebleminded individuals whose IQs are not below 50, although interviewing any person with a rating below 70 becomes slow. Each idea must penetrate endless repetition, a vocabulary confined to the simplest of words. With uneducated persons, and particularly with feebleminded individuals, it is sometimes effective to expose the truth by answering as though he had never given a negative reply. “Yes, I know you have never done that, but how old were you the first time that you did it?” Such questioning] may break down the cover-up of a feebleminded individual.40

Dr John Money (Founder of Modern Trans ideology) Was a Producer of Child Pornography
191 Dr. John Money’s creation/production of child pornography and his arrangement of brutal sex change operations have just been revealed in John Colapinto's book, As Nature Made Him (2000). It was John Money who established obscenity as medical instruction, Dr. Mark writes: Kinsey seems to have provided the impetus for showing sex movies to medical students and in 1967 they got to look at the materials from the archives of the Institute for Sex Research. Soon afterwards, Professor John Money compiled an illustrated presentation called Pornography in the Home, which became very popular with students at Johns Hopkins Medical School. Since Johns Hopkins enjoys a leadership role among American medical colleges it is not surprising that [roughly 90% of] medical schools followed its lead in initiating explicitly sexual films as part of the curriculum for their students. (After all, if it’s good enough for Johns Hopkins!)41

Money Argues Rough Sex Resulting In Child Victims Death Could Be Legal If 'Consent' Was Given Prior

198 The IASHS would legalize adult/child pornography and prostitution. Dr. John Money argues that "rough sex"– even resulting in death–be legal if the adult or child victim's prior "consent" was somehow obtained.

Kinsey Filmed People Having Sex And Library Was Funded By Rockefeller Fdn
192 Dr. Smith’s observations about the medical and therapeutic use of Kinsey’s sex-filming protocol are confirmed by a section in Pomeroy’s book that further describes Kinsey’s impact on the medical world: In 1963, when the [Rockefeller] foundation was celebrating its fiftieth anniversary, [IU president Herman] Wells was among the six hundred guests at a dinner in the Plaza Hotel in New York. [Secretary of State Dean] Rusk was the principal speaker, the Rockefeller family was present, and the guest list included, among others, university presidents and scientists from all over the world. Robert Sproul, who had recently retired as president of the University of California, sat next to Wells, and as the two men chatted amiably together, Wells inquired, “Do you know why we’re here, Bob?” Sproul said he assumed it was because their universities had been involved with research grants which the Foundation had made and considered important.

184 Writing in the November 13, 1980, issue of The Advocate, a homosexual monthly, Steward recalled the time he was flown to Indiana to be filmed in a sex sadism film produced and directed by Kinsey. Pomeroy described Steward as a “partner” in a “homosexual couple,”25 but Steward wrote that he had never met the “partner” (Mike Miksche) until they were introduced in Kinsey’s garden. Shortly thereafter, the two prepared for the filming of an act of sexual sadism as Kinsey’s “scientists” watched and took notes.

194 Moreover, in his May 7, 1951 letter to “CIB,” Warren Weaver complains that Kinsey’s “library of erotic literature, and a collection of pictures and other ‘art’ objects of erotic significance” were essentially funded by Rockefeller. Writing in 1951, Weaver recalled his 1946 objection to the funding of Kinsey’s “erotica”: The latter phase has become sufficiently important so that they have installed and equipped a complete photographic laboratory, and have a full-time photographer (I almost said full-time pornographer) who receives $4,800 per year…. This library was started with the aid of a grant, additional to his then general support, made directly from the RF to Kinsey and for the specified purpose. As a matter of record, I remind you that I opposed that grant when it was discussed in officers’ conference. Now this library-art aspect of their work surely requires, out of his total general budget… more than the total annual amount the RF is contributing. I contend that it is perfectly realistic to say that the RF is paying for this collection of erotica and for the activities directly associated with it. And I say further that I don’t think we need to, or ought to [Emphasis added.]46

Sexual/Violent Images Alter The brain Neurochemically
200 High resonance sexual and/or violent images alter human beings neurochemically. As neuroscientist Dr. Gary Lynch has writtenWhat we’re saying here is that an event which lasts half a second, within five or ten minutes has produced a structural change that is in some ways as profound as the structural changes one sees in [brain] damage… 51

Famous "Kinsey Scale 10%" Included Victims of Homosexual Sexual Assaults
216 The “Kinsey Scale,” best known for its ludicrous “10 percent” homosexuality claim. In fact, Kinsey cooked his 10 percent out of whole cloth, including the word of bisexual and homosexual interviewers who decided a subject was homosexual if they had "overt experience," or ifthey had some -anythoughts about homosexuality, which the Kinsey men called "psychological reactions." So, someone thinking negatively or recalling a homosexual assault becomes part of the homosexual 10%.

Rockefeller Foundation and Playboy Funded Kinsey Institute
238 The budding Playboy empire provided early and generous financial support for the Kinsey Institute. During five decades of saturation

372 The original patron of the Kinsey research in 1938 was publicly-funded Indiana University. Thereafter, the tax-exempt Rockefeller Foundation backed Kinsey’s work through the National Research Council. By the 1960s, the pornography industry, primarily Playboy, supported the Kinsey team’s “New Biology.”

438 Thus, the Rockefeller Foundation had great hope for developing a social scientist who would provide quantified data that could overturn the old moral order. In 1942, Kinsey and his behavioral “sex science” were receiving funds from The Rockefeller Foundation.

Kinsey Promotes Zoophillia
255 Having sex with] the male animal, whether it is a dog, horse, bull, or some other species, may provide considerable erotic excitement for the boy or older adult.… His enjoyment of the relationship is enhanced by the fact that the male animal responds to the point of orgasm.… Psychically, animal relations may become of considerable significance to the boy who is having regular experience… and] in no point basically different from those that are involved in erotic responses to human situations.17

256 Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin essentially held that “sexual contacts between the human and animals of other species are at no point basically different from those that are involved in erotic responses to human situations.”18 This gives perspective to the disordered admissions of Kinsey colleague Dr. Clarence Tripp during his interview for the August 1998 Yorkshire documentary "Kinsey Paedophiles." Dr. Tripp, sexologist and psychologist-author of The Homosexual Matrix (1975), candidly stated, If you go out and masturbate dogs—I was very good at this when I was a boy—the dog will love you to pieces because the dog has no efficient way to masturbate. He loves the orgasm as much as anybody else but he can’t self-produce it. Now you just do this a time or two. The dogs do various... things. You try this on all the neighborhood dogs.... Some dogs will always expect or try to talk you into doing it.... Other dogs will come to any human and say, please touch me here in a certain kind of way.

284 Kinsey does not define rape, incest, pederasty, bestiality, sodomy, peeping, exhibitionism, sadism, or masochism as perversions “of what is, in a biologic sense, normal sexuality.” But this “scientist” and his colleagues (and by implication his funders) agreed that women who wear nightgowns during sex are guilty of “a perversion” of “normal sexuality.”

Kinsey Insitute Paul Gebhard Claims Incest is Harmless
351 During a December 1977 Penthouse interview, past Kinsey Institute Director Paul Gebhard also claimed that incest was harmless. With their reputations enhanced as Kinsey co-authors, the opinions of Pomeroy and Gebhard have been widely quoted by others, and cited authoritatively in state and federal court decisions (see Chapter 9, “Kinsey and the Law”).

328 But the acceptance of infant and childhood sexuality is powerfully entrenched in sexology circles. The "given" factor can be clearly seen in statements from Mary Calderone (past president and co-founder, with Lester Kirkendall, of SIECUS). Speaking before the 1980 annual meeting of the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians, Dr. Calderone reportedly explained that providing today's society "very broadly and deeply with awareness of the vital importance of infant and childhood SIECUS.38
With knowledge to the contrary, Indiana University consistently presented Kinsey as working under their safe and respectable auspices.

One Of Kinsey's Sex Criminals Was a Nazi
362 At least one of Kinsey’s sex collaborators was a documented Nazi, the infamous George Sylvester Viereck, a convicted German spy who had worked among Washington D.C. power brokers.

364 Dr. von Balluseck’s trial for the murder of 10-yearold Loiselotte Has, who was “found… naked and throttled… on a piece of wasteland,” was widely covered in Germany. It was “completely unprecedented in the moral history of the post war era,” and von Balluseck was described as “the most important pedophile in the criminal history of Berlin.” Kinsey collaborator Balluseck was tried for the abuse of 50, or “more than 100,” or ”several hundred” children. As noted, he had sexually violated children for “over the last three decades” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 22, 1957).

364 News of Kinsey’s role in the case was splashed across the headlines of Germany’s largest newspapers. Judge Heinrich Berger “emphasized again and again the important function played by the press in warning the public against paedophiles like Balluseck, who approach children as understanding friends and helpers in their sexual need” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 22, 1957). Despite Alfred Kinsey’s shocking role in the explosive case, the U.S. press was uniformly silent about it.

364 According to Yorkshire Television’s research department, from 1942 to 1944 Dr. von Balluseck was the Department of Justice District Kreishauptmina, the commandant of the small Polish town of Jedrzejow. It was there that he targeted the children he sexually assaulted, warning them, according to German news accounts, that “It is either the gas chamber or me.” The Encyclopedia Judaica 94 reports that all Jedrejow Jews ended up in the gas chambers. All, including the children, were under the control of Dr. von Balluseck.

365 The Nazis knew and gave him the opportunity to practice his abnormal tendencies in occupied Poland on Polish children, who had to chose between Balluseck and the gas ovens. After the war, the children were dead, but Balluseck lived. [National-Zeitung, May 15, 1957] Balluseck’s career catapulted because he was a fanatical member of the Nazi party... he was a Nazi Occupational officer in Poland and he abused 10-12 year old girls. [Neues Deustschland, May 17, 1957] Balluseck... corresponded with the American Kinsey Institute for some time, and had also got books from them which dealt with child sexuality [Tagespiegel, October 1, 1957] [N]ot only did he commit his crimes in Germany, but also during the war as an occupation officer, he committed numerous sexual crimes against Polish girls of between 10 & 14 years old. [Der Morgen, May 15, 1957] Dr. Balluseck... [recorded measurements] of his crimes committed against children between 9 and 14 years old… in four thick diaries… of a pseudo-scientific character... while in correspondence with the American sexual researcher Kinsey... about his research results which as he said himself, took place over three decades. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 22, 1957]

366 Judge Berger: “I had the impression that you got to the children in order to impress Kinsey and to deliver him material.” Balluseck: “Kinsey himself asked me for that [asked me to do so]” As a role model for his perverse actions Balluseck named the so-called sexual psychologist Kinsey.... [Neuess Deutschland, May, 17, 1957] Today the court has got four diaries, and in these diaries, with cynicism and passion, he recorded his crimes against 100 children in the smallest detail. He sent the detail of his experiences regularly to the US sex researcher, Kinsey. The latter was very interested and kept up a regular and lively correspondence with Balluseck [NationalZeitung, May 15, 1957] Sharp criticism of American sex researcher by presiding Judge... Heinrich Berger... because of the correspondence between Regierungsrat Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, accused of many counts of sexual crimes, and Kinsey. The presiding judge exclaimed, “Instead of answering his sordid letters, the strange American scholar should rather have made sure that Mister von Balluseck was put behind bars.” [Morgenpost, May 16, 1957]

370 Bancroft’s justification for immoral and unethical conduct is that facts are needed to dispel “ignorance,” yet he falsely claims that Kinsey made no “moral judgments”; that Rex King died before Kinsey’s books were completed; that the 40-year-old King was an adult molester “for about 30 years before Kinsey met him,” 98 and so on. Bancroft became increasingly hostile, finally blurting: All this crap about Table 31 and 34!.... [Kinsey] opened up the subject... made it possible to talk about in a sensible way... He has de-mystified the subject of sexuality.... He stands... above the rest of researchers in the field.... He is a superb scholar... a fine mind... a pioneer. I have great respect for the man and for his integrity. 99

Kinseyan Degress Offered by Homosexual Who Died of Aids in 1978 Legitimise "consentual" incest, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
373 In 1964, an accredited sexology degree became available from the New York University Health Department’s School of Education, under youthful homosexual activist Deryck Calderwood, who died of AIDS. In 1978, the University of Pennsylvania Department of Health’s School of Education began offering similar Kinseyan New Biology training and degrees, directed by homosexual advocate Kenneth George.

373 As of this writing, the Sex Institute offers a doctorate of education, four graduate programs, and seven basic credentials (including a “Safe Sex Certificate”) which can be obtained swiftly with little or no prior training. Pomeroy, the Institute’s then-academic dean, acknowledged that advanced sex degree applicants are accepted “off the street,” provided that they do not have traditional preconceptions about sexual mores. The demand for Kinseyan-only standards is evident in the Institute’s codified “Basic Sexual Rights” ethical oath, which legitimizes the Kinsey New Biology model of “consensual” adultchild sex, incest, child prostitution, and child pornography.

Sensory Overload To Prolonged Sexual Acts And Neurochemical pathways in the Brain

375 The sensory overload culminated on Saturday night in a multi-media event called the F—korama… in the darkness… images of human beings—and sometimes even animals—engaging in every conceivable sexual act, accompanied by wails, squeals, moans, shouts, and the first movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto. Some seventeen simultaneous moving pictures.… Over a period of several hours, there came a moment when the four images on the wall were of a gay male couple, a straight couple, a lesbian couple, and a bestial group. The subjects were nude.… I felt myself becoming disoriented… was she kissing a man or a woman? I struggled to force the acts I was watching into their proper boxes… and now I couldn’t remember which was which. Wasn’t I supposed to make these discriminations? I searched for clues. There were none. I began to feel uncomfortable. Soon I realized that to avoid vertigo and nausea I would have to give up the attempt to discriminate and simply surrender to the experience.… The differences for which lives have been ruined, were not only trivial, but invisible. By the end… [n]othing was shocking… but nothing was sacred either. But as I drove home, I began to get a slightly uneasy feeling. It was almost as if I had been conned… by my own conditioned response of taking the most liberated position… whatever my deeper feelings… love had not been mentioned a single time during the entire weekend.

377 Functionally speaking, the SAR, (and to a lesser degree, yet with more consistency, today’s mass media) breaks down the “inhibitions” of “the healthy brain.” The SAR is effective because all human brains obey what neurologists call “a law of strength.” Simply put, this means that novel, scary, exciting stimuli from the outside world are processed faster and with more force than non-threatening, pleasant stimuli. Neurochemical pathways in the brain are chemically imprinted by hetero-and homoerotic media stimuli; hence, they fuse sex, violence, fear, and anxiety into one felt emotion. The SAR reprograms students in education, medicine, psychology, criminals sexology and so on, by reconfiguring their neurochemistry—their human “nature”—producing a cadre of educated leaders who are part of Kinseyan deviance.

Planned Parenthood Given a Boost by Kinseys claims

390 Planned Parenthood (PP) has a history as fraught with special interests as has SIECUS and scores of books have been written about its movement into the schools, carrying the SIECUS banner of pseudo-science. PP was given a boost by Kinsey’s claims that children are sexual and that “normal” women commonly have sex prior to marriage. Kinsey also urged that abortion be legalized, based on his wholly spurious data on the commonality of abortion in the USA, and in April 1955 he delivered a preliminary report on his abortion data at a PP abortion conference at Columbia University’s Arden House which became a foundation for the pro-abortion movement.117

Kinsey Meant To Undermine Marriage and Change American Culture
407 Rather, Kinsey meant to undermine the legal protections for the institution of marriage, the smallest building block of American society.

407 Kinsey’s Sexual Revolution was not designed just as a trend meant to liberate America’s libido by influencing culture, as many may mistakenly think. Rather, Kinsey meant to undermine the legal protections for the institution of marriage, the smallest building block of American society. It is difficult in a single volume to untangle each tentacle of Kinsey’s effect on American law and public policy. This chapter, however, describes something of the far-reaching legal legacy of Kinsey’s specious data.

Kiney's Bunk Science Used to Change US Law

408 According to Kinsey’s authorized biographer, Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, “The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code of 1955 is virtually a Kinsey document…. At one point Kinsey is cited six times in twelve pages.”5 In 1954, Hardy reports, after reviewing “a list of the council of the American Law Institute,” Kinsey marked in red the name of Judge Hand, suggesting Hand “would probably support Kinsey’s attempts to change the sex laws.”6 In the end, the new code’s sex law reform was largely based on Kinsey’s data and would undermine the protections for marriage, then the only lawful place for coitus. THE AMERICAN LAW

411 Yet, the “blueprints for the atomic submarine” were covertly given to friends long before critics might read Kinsey’s books. For example, Kinsey had quietly aided legal and scientific scholars in their publication of four books, which were published in tandem with Kinsey’s Male volume. Each of the four books called for “reforms” which were in reality massive changes in long-settled law based on Kinsey’s findings which, as the books demonstrate, were widely received as truthful accounts of the sexual behavior of American men.

423 Then, by 1950, under cover of the American Bar Association and funded by Carnegie and Rockefeller grants, the tiny cadre of American Law InstituteModel Penal Code authors did not “clarify” America’s common law, but rather radically changed its sex laws based on Kinsey’s data. Kinsey would indeed impact the American justice system at-large by being cited as the “scientific” expert by both the authors of the four books and the MPC authors as supposedly proving that “sex offenders” were 95 percent of America’s fathers and beloved male family members.

437 In 1950 the American Law Institute began the monumental task of writing a Model Penal Code. I am told that a quarter of a century earlier the Institute had approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the funds needed to carry out this project, but at that time, Dr. Alan Gregg, a man of great wisdom counseled the Foundation to wait, that the behavioral sciences were on the threshold of development to the point at which they could be of great assistance. Apparently, the Institute concluded that the time had arrived.70

US Law Changed To Allow Leniency To Sex Offenders And Rapists

456 Kinsey’s more than 6,000 citations in law, social science, and science journals attest to his considerable influence. But they do not indicate the extent to which his views have been further magnified by such key change agents as Ernst, Ploscowe, Wechsler, Tappan, Guttmacher, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Note, for instance, how Ploscowe uses a snippet of Kinsey’s misleading data to call for a change in U.S. law regarding sex:

462 Finally, in a 1981 conference on “Victim’s Rights,” the family survivors of victims of murder and the survivors of rape and rape torture met to take action against the Justice system’s documented leniency for sex offenders versus its disdain for their innocent victims. Kinsey’s impact on attitudes, behavior and law regarding paroling violent sex criminals is seen in the following report:

477 Feminist lawyer and former Democratic presidential Campaign Manager for Michael Dukakis (1988), Susan Estrich was perplexed by the influence of the Carnegie/Rockefeller Foundation-funded ALI’s new MPC on rape.114 Before the MPC promoted Kinsey’s research, rape had been punishable by death in almost half of American states. The rape “innovations” of the ALI-MPC confounded Estrich. Unmindful of Kinsey’s fraud, she was incensed by the liberal changes to rape laws.

479 These self-serving falsehoods confirm Kinsey’s claim that out of 4,441 female interviewees, “one” may have been injured by a child sexual assault. The Kinsey-ALI-MPC plan was to eliminate “unrealistic” rape and statutory rape laws. According to Morris Ploscowe, in the 1948 “Pre-Kinsey era” (see chart below), three states gave mandatory death sentences for simple rape—that is, one man convicted of raping one woman. Nineteen states provided the death penalty, life, or very long terms. Twenty-eight states gave the rapist 20 years or more, and one state gave 15 years or more. Post-Kinsey’s “data” stated that 95 percent of men were already sex offenders and most women were promiscuous—or wanted to be. Therefore, the justification for tough rape, child abuse and obscenity laws was largely moot.

481 Ploscowe reports that of 324 New York murders of females in 1930, 1935 and 1940, (average 108 per year) 17, or six per year, involved rape or suspicion of rape of women or children. FBI data for 1995 show that New Yorkers experienced 4,654 murders in 1995 and 3,333 rape/murders. The latter data do not appear to include rape and murder of children under 12 years of age. At the time of this writing, these children are not located in the sex crime database.124

504 Kinsey scoffed at the idea… Kinsey pointed out that what the nation and the FBI were calling heinous crimes against children were things that appeared in a fair number of our total histories, and in only a small number of cases was public attention ever aroused or the police involved. Kinsey… contended that, as far as so-called molestation of children was concerned, a great deal more damage was done to the child by adult hysteria [than by the sex crime against the child].170

Rockefeller Foundation Knew Kinseys Data Was Fraudulent - Promoted and Funded Him Anyway

424 These distinguished ALI-MPC authors hailed from august institutions and were leaders in their professions. They are culpable. They knew or should have known that Kinsey was a fraud. (The Rockefeller Foundation knew his data were totally unreliable.)

431 But, Wechsler knew, two years before his Harvard call for the production of the Model Penal Code, that after the requisite planning, proposals and indispensably numerous meetings, in 195052 the Rockefellar Foundation “granted funds which will permit the undertaking to proceed.”53

432 The Rockefeller Foundation’s 1950 funding of the MPC worked for the legal applications of Kinsey’s false “data.” A congressional finding of Kinsey’s research as criminal and fraudulent would destroy decades of labor for a legal revolution. While Kinsey was livid when Rockefeller pulled his bountiful fortune, the possibility of exposure by Congress more than justified the Kinsey defection. Those in the “inner circle” all knew that Kinsey’s contribution to the legal revolution would literally prove to be immeasurable. For as Reece wisely discerned, the Kinsey Reports gave “scientific” cover for the ALI authors to jettison America’s sexual “absolutes.” Future “social or juridical reasoning” would find rulings largely based on Kinsey’s fantasies, delusions and distortions of the sexual life.

434These are the facts.… The whole of our laws and customs in sexual matters is based on the avowed desire to protect the family, and at the base of the family is the father. His behavior is revealed by the Kinsey Report to be quite different from anything the general public had supposed possible or reasonable.64 [Emphasis added

Kinsey Undermind Fathers By Presenting Them As 95% Sex Offenders
435 Kinsey’s Report dealt with “males” and implicitly, with fathers. Yet, advocates for criminal law reform like Wechsler, Ploscowe, Guttmacher, Schwartz, Tappan, Ernst and Loth, etc., libeled American husbands and fathers, who fought in World War II, as sexual offenders and deviants. They based this on Kinsey’s “95 percent sex offenders” statistic. Kinsey assisted his colleagues greatly in undermining the role of “fathers” in their moral and legal responsibilities as providers for and protectors of their families.

Rockefeller Foundation Was a Eugenics Foundation
436 The Foundation enthusiastically supported the concept of “eugenics,” which encourages the reproductive efforts of those deemed to have “good” (“eu” from the Greek for good) genes, while discouraging or stopping procreation by undesirables. This view had motivated the Foundation’s earlier support of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and her eugenic and birth control movement. But Rockefeller and others were anxious to go even further to mold America’s breeding patterns along evolutionary lines.

436 The Foundation considered Kinsey’s “quantitative content” sex research of critical importance to the “grand scheme.” As Professor Christopher Simpson wrote in Science of Coercion: The Foundation sought “quantitative” data to provide “a tool for social management” that is postwar “psychological warfare” with which to impose the will of the elite “on the masses.”68

Kinsey's Data Produced Widespread Distrust Between Woman and men
473 Once believed, Kinsey’s fornication and adultery data created widespread distrust between women and men. “Love” became the reason for engaging in sex without a marriage license—a mere contract, a “piece of paper.” In fact, the covert suspicion that “good” women were secretly sexually promiscuous dramatically weakened women’s historic negotiating power to withhold sex until men contracted to love, honor and cherish via marriage, children, protection and provision. Once women lost their virginity as a marital bargaining chip, their sexual ability and availability became their backup bargaining tool.

Rise in Single Mothers in Poverty With The Free Access of Sex
477 And, once women’s sexual favors were easily available–-as the Kinsey team claimed they were all along–-“shot gun” weddings were outmoded. Instead, women of all races and religions were suddenly suspect, increasingly abandoned in single mother poverty. Or, having survived venereal diseases and traumatic abortions, they were too often left sterile, their health and welfare sorely compromised. The subsequent fallout from millions of fatherless children subjected to abuse and neglect has become a modern tragedy of epic proportions.

Homosexual Movement Has Long Campaigned for Lowering Age of Consent
501 The homosexual movement has long been campaigning for a lowered or eliminated age of consent, arguing that boys (and girls) are fully capable of “orgasm.” Thus, they should be allowed full sexual “rights,” including the “right” to sex with adults. New York University Press’s publication, Lavender Culture, by Jay and Young, was first published in 1978 and republished in 1994. It argues for this “right” in the chapter, “Gay Youth and the Question of Consent.”158 These activists base their arguments on Kinsey’s “children are sexual from birth” dogma, as well as the claim that men and women who have sex with children are largely harmless and in control of their abuse—if they are merely counseled. The ABA-ALI-MPC Code cites the California Sex Crime Reports, 1950-1953, which accepted Dr. Kinsey’s claims of low “recidivism” rates for child sex predators, pedophiles, and pederasts.

5043However, based on the then-Kinsey Institute Director Paul Gebhard’s March 11, 1981, letter to this author, homosexual boy abuse/incest was double that of heterosexual incest. Says

Sex Crimes Rise Since 1970s
506 Additionally, it appears that not only are sex crimes repeated by youths, but the offenses (consistent with the disturbing trend in all youth crimes) are increasingly “more lethal and threatening a wider sector of people since the mid-1970s.”176
Post Reply