See Luminosity

Part 3: The Man Who Changed Morality – Alfred Kinsey, Sex Researcher

Part 3: The Man Who Changed Morality – Alfred Kinsey, Sex Researcher

**WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC, DISTURBING SEXUAL MATERIAL**

Part 1: Secular Sex Values: The New Standard for the World

Part 2: Comprehensive Sex Education, Secular Sex Coming to Your Children

Part 3: The Man Who Changed Morality: Sex Researcher Alfred Kinsey

Part 4: Alfred Kinsey and Cultural Moral Transformation

Part 5: The Power of Biblical Sex

Part 6: The Power of Sex Gone Wrong

Part 7: Sex and Worldview: A Battle for the Soul

Part 8: Summary: How Sex Has Changed the World

******************************************************************************

Part 1 and Part 2 addressed the principles of secular sexuality that are prevalent in sexual education guidelines and curricula around the world and in the United States. These principles, which are based on the idea that sexual pleasure is a fundamental human right for both adults and children, and that any sexual expression between consenting persons is natural, are being disseminated worldwide to children as young as 5. Few parents are aware of the decidedly value-based sexuality that sexual education now indoctrinates; values that germinate from a purely secular worldview.

And these secular principles are not merely different from traditional Judeo-Christian principles; they are completely antagonistic to them. Traditional morality is identified as an insidious threat to the values of secular sexuality, which encourage sexual expression with few restraints. In situations when faith conviction and secular sexual principles collide – such as beliefs about gay marriage, choosing gender identity, abortion on demand, or childhood sexuality – proponents of this secular worldview believe that religious conviction must abdicate every time.

Even for parents who do not adhere to a Christian worldview, the content of many sexual education programs, and the principles behind them, can be shocking. The question begs,

“How did we get here? How is it that these secular sexual principles have become the baseline for American (and worldwide) education, policy and culture?”

The answer to that question is helpful for understanding the full picture of how secular sexuality has been utilized as an extremely effective vehicle for ushering in a secular worldview – and how that worldview threatens the fabric and foundation of our lives.

And the secular worldview, and particularly secular sexuality, cannot be understood without learning about a man by the name of Alfred C. Kinsey.

Kinsey and Secular Sexuality

There is no one who has had more influence on the way the world understands and approaches sex than Alfred Kinsey. The roots of secular sexuality began with this groundbreaking researcher, who is considered to be a “pioneer” and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century.[1]

Kinsey completely revolutionized the way the world viewed sexuality, with his scientific study of sex in the 1940s.  He propagated a radical, scandalous view of sex never before seen on a widespread scale in culture – one in which sex was viewed as being completely physiological, disconnected from emotional or spiritual aspects. Kinsey’s fundamental premise was that any and all forms of expression of sexuality (including homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestitism, pedophilia, incest, sadomasochism, and bestiality) were natural – and even necessary – for people to have full lives as human beings. This idea, accompanied by what Kinsey purported to be scientific evidence, rocked the world.

Kinsey’s embrace of aberrant sexuality was not only professional; in a private life to which few were privy, he regularly engaged in radical, variant sex acts, including homosexual orgies with his staff, making and participating in sex films, and sexual masochism. He conducted research to back up his beliefs, and, his work, believed by the world to be “scientific proof” about the reality of human sexuality, has formed the basis for public policy, educational curricula, and cultural values of sexuality ever since.

Devastatingly, due to a number of factors, Kinsey’s research was largely unquestioned until approximately 40 years after his work.  Investigation into Kinsey’s data and methods has revealed that much of his work was not only scientifically unreliable, but a personally-driven effort to normalize deviant sexual behavior. Even worse (and incredibly), much of his work was based on data provided by pedophiles who actively sexually abused children in the most heinous of ways. In spite of these facts, Kinsey’s “truths” about sexuality, and his subsequent success in impacting public policy and sexual education in academia, have rooted his secular sexual beliefs into the fabric of American (and worldwide) cultural life.

Let’s meet the man who changed the world’s morality.

Alfred Kinsey, Sex Researcher

Kinsey’s Beginnings

Alfred Charles Kinsey was born in Hoboken, New Jersey in 1894. He grew up in a poor, strictly religious family, and his domineering, legalistic father was one of the most defining influences of his life.  Kinsey’s young years were spent working to live up to the pious moral expectations of his father, who used religion as a means of family control.[2] Kinsey was sickly as a child, suffering from measles, rickets, rheumatic fever, and typhoid. This kept him ensconced at home for much of his childhood, which restricted his freedom, kept him under the thumb of his parents, and limited his social life. Kinsey was shy and a loner; not interested in girls or sex as a young man, preferring the companionship of boys.[3] According to Kinsey’s colleague and friend Paul Gebhard, he began being in turmoil about his sexuality during childhood, when he engaged in “preadolescent sex play” in the basement with some other children.[4]

Kinsey fell in love with the outdoors; in his teen and young adult years, he was an avid Boy Scout, and later served as a counselor for outdoor boys’ camps.[5] The outdoors allowed Kinsey to demonstrate a prowess he was unable to attain in other arenas typical of boys in his time, such as sports, and also provided opportunities for sexual exploration.  He later studied biology in college, where he furthered his intense interest in nature. Kinsey later became well noted for his research on gall wasps, which had a strong influence on his philosophy of human sexual behavior.[6]

During college, Kinsey became an atheist, after seeing incongruities between science and religion, and from experiencing guilt related to his own aberrant sexual desires – desires for persons of the same sex, and for pain in order to obtain sexual pleasure[7], as well as exhibitionism and voyeurism.[8] Kinsey married the only woman he is known to have dated, in 1921, at age 26.[9] Clara McMillan Kinsey, whom he called “Mac”, supported Kinsey’s research wholeheartedly, even to the point of later engaging in sex, at Kinsey’s encouragement, with Kinsey’s colleagues.[10] However, at the beginning of their marriage, Kinsey and Mac had some significant problems in their sexual relationship, which helped spur Kinsey to begin educating himself about sex.[11] As they became less inhibited and more educated about sexuality, the Kinseys came to be seen as local “authorities in the field of sex education”, which would pave the way for him to begin researching sexuality later on.[12] Although in his public life he was appeared to be a respectable, married professor with children, Kinsey struggled with culturally condemned sexual proclivities that shaped his outlook, as well as his personal and professional life.[13]

After earning his Ph.D. from the Bussey Institute at Harvard, Kinsey accepted a job as professor of zoology at Indiana University.  He gained a reputation as an unrelentingly driven, controlling researcher who was obsessed about his work – particularly in his efforts to obtain huge sample sizes. He soon gained the opportunity to merge his obsession for research with his keen interest in sexuality, when he was asked to teach a marriage course at Indiana University in the 1930s. It was through teaching this course that Kinsey discovered that little data existed on human sexual behavior, and that sex research would provide him a unique opportunity to legitimately pursue a hidden passion. He launched a sex studies program in 1938, and began researching human sexuality in the 1940s[14], with fellow researchers Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard, and, later, John Gagnon, William Simon, Martin Weinberg, and Alan Bell.[15] These names would become foundational for the future of sexuality.

After receiving support from the Rockefeller Foundation and other sources, the “Institute for Sex Research” was established at Indiana University as a permanent location for housing Kinsey’s growing sexual histories and data in 1947. Kinsey transferred ownership of his research materials to the institute for $1.[16] Kinsey co-authored the book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (commonly referred to as the Male volume), and, a few years later, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (the Female volume). These shocking books, and Kinsey’s “ground-breaking” research on sexuality, fueled the sexual revolution, as well as the push for values of secular sexuality in America.[17]

Kinsey’s View of Sex

Kinsey’s view of human sexuality was rooted in his understanding of animal sexual behavior, and the belief that human sexuality is the “capacity to respond to any…stimulus”.[18] In other words, sex was simply an issue of positive physiological sensations to stimuli, and anything negative from sexual experiences was learned (particularly from repressive religious or moral strictures).[19] Kinsey felt that all sexuality was natural[20], and that a wide range of sexual activity helped free people from the repressive restrictions imposed by society. He adhered to the principle that the most uninhibited, desired form of sexuality (as opposed to one bound by morality and a view of things being “right” or “wrong”) is the natural one in which an individual is willing to use any sexual outlet to obtain orgasm.[21]

Kinsey’s Methodology

Kinsey’s research was descriptive in nature – he sought to find out what kind of sex people were having. His main method was through taking people’s sex histories, and he and his team were prolific in gathering samples – securing the sex histories of thousands of people. Kinsey perfected a groundbreaking interviewing technique, which involved asking his interviewees detailed questions about their sex lives, moving from innocuous questions to significant ones.[22] Kinsey’s baseline unit of sex measurement was orgasm; sexual behavior only counted as relevant for Kinsey if it led to orgasm.[23] This was in keeping with Kinsey’s humans-as-animals view of the world, and his emphasis on stimulus/response.

Kinsey also developed a highly secretive interviewing instrument, known only to his closest co-researchers. Kinsey researchers used a memorized code by which they recorded the interviewee’s responses on a single sheet, in order to assure absolute anonymity, so that no one who might have gotten a hold of the response sheet would have understood what they were seeing. His interviewing approach was to be completely non-judgmental, regardless of what participants told him, and to assume that everyone had engaged in every possible type of sexual behavior imaginable. In other words, he would not ask “Have you ever?” but “When did you first…?”.[24]

Kinsey followed the methods from his gall-wasp collecting days, believing that if he collected a large enough sample, he would be able to discover the scientific truth he was seeking.[25] And he was certainly successful in collecting large numbers of sex histories, and, by doing so, describing the prevalence of sexual behaviors within the sample of people he interviewed. Unfortunately for the viability of Kinsey’s research, the people from whom he took sex histories were not representative of the larger American population, an issue that will be addressed shortly. In short, his research only described the sexual behavior of a small, sexually-abnormal segment of the population, although he claimed that it described the sexual behavior of the vast majority of America.

The Impact of Kinsey’s Research

The “data” from Kinsey’s sex histories purportedly showed that sexual behaviors which were typically considered abnormal were, in fact, prevalent and, therefore, “normal”. Kinsey, in effect, redefined how people understood sexuality, and what “normal behavior” is considered to be. Traditional morality, particularly with its guidelines that sexual expression was appropriate only between a man and a woman in marriage, was suddenly rendered non-scientific. “Science” showed that these previously-considered-deviant behaviors were normal, and so people’s perceptions and actions began to be adapted to meet this new “truth”. Kinsey’s work was tremendously impactful for normalizing and encouraging the acceptance of sexual expression (including pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transvestitism) that had historically been considered “aberrant” and “deviant”. His beliefs and findings have driven American sexuality since the 1950s in all areas of public life.[26]

Problems with Kinsey’s Research

Although Kinsey is considered to be one of the foremost researchers in the world, much of his work was fatally flawed, although this was not uncovered on a widespread scale until 1981.[27]

Sampling Errors

In spite of the fact that Kinsey’s work was recognized as scientific truth, it suffered from detrimental problems. Some of the most egregious errors were in sampling (how the research’s subjects were chosen). The persons from whom Kinsey obtained his data were not representative of the general population – including a high percentage of prisoners and sex offenders – although Kinsey generalized his findings to the general population as if they were.[28] 86% of Kinsey’s sample was based on aberrant males, a fact conceded by one of Kinsey’s co-authors and researchers, Paul Gebhard, in 1990.[29]  Kinsey also covered up limitations and selectivity in his sampling, omitted information about his subjects, and specifically recruited sexually promiscuous and sexually aberrant subjects (such as sexual offenders and prostitutes) from places such as bars, psychiatric clinics, and prisons, whose sexual behavior would demonstrate the agenda he was trying to push – as opposed to choosing subjects randomly from all walks of life that would have truly represented the general population.[30]

Other Methodological Problems

In addition, much of Kinsey’s work exemplified tremendous bias (he even chose his research staff for their bias toward radical sexuality)[31], and lack of scientific integrity. Although he was committed to the scientific method as the primary means for gaining truth, his own sexual demons, and his passion for reforming what he saw as repressive sexual norms, superseded his quest for scientific integrity.

Kinsey omitted information about his methods for data collection, and deliberately skewed data to greatly exaggerate the incidence of homosexuality, bisexuality, and other non-traditional sexual behavior. He and his team used coercive questioning techniques; in their process of taking sexual histories, Kinsey’s team, according to the interview in the Male volume, were to “assume that everyone has engaged in every type of [sexual] activity”, and employ techniques such as denouncing “with considerable severity” an interviewee that was perceived to not be giving an honest record of his or her sexual history.[32] Many of the interviews were held in secret, so they could not be independently verified.[33] Kinsey also made sweeping generalizations and conclusions in his research that were unsubstantiated by any data.[34] Because of the lack of scientific validity and reliability of his work, the bulk of Kinsey’s results have, understandably, never been replicated.[35] In short, Kinsey violated one of the most important tenets of scientific research – he manipulated his “research” to support his pre-conceived beliefs.

Kinsey’s “Data” Secrets

But that wasn’t even the worst problem. Kinsey’s research was not only scientifically fraudulent, it was morally reprehensible. Kinsey took sexual histories from children, as well, in sessions where the researchers would join in games with young children, “romp”, and “tussle” with them – while asking them questions about their sex play.[36] However, it was difficult to get “good” information from simply children’s responses about their so-called sex lives, so Kinsey turned to more direct sources for his data on children – pedophiles.  A good portion of Kinsey’s research was based on information gained from the sexual abuse of children, and from experiments in which “trained observers” repeatedly stimulated children as young as 2 months in an attempt to induce orgasm, and then timed with a stopwatch, in order to study pre-adolescent sexual response.[37] Kinsey, then, without any means of verification of the information, simply reproduced sections of the pedophiles’ data from this abuse as scientific “proof” that children were sexual from birth.[38] This issue will be explored further, below.

Biased Science

Kinsey’s research was widely accepted as scientific truth until approximately 40 years later, when Dr. Judith Reisman presented a paper challenging Kinsey’s research at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology in 1981. The paper questioned how Kinsey obtained his data on childhood sexuality, and called for an investigation of Kinsey’s work. Subsequent examination by Reisman and others has revealed Kinsey’s work to be devastatingly biased, scientifically untenable, and reliant upon the sexual abuse of children.[39]

In 1991, the British Medical journal Lancet published support of Reisman’s findings, confirming Kinsey’s “unrepresentative” population, concluding that “Kinsey…has left his former co-workers some explaining to do”.[40] In 1999, The American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC), called for an investigative study into Kinsey’s work, led by Senator Ray Haynes. ALEC published its report in 2004, which confirmed Kinsey’s work as “junk science”[41]. And even Kinsey’s senior colleague, Paul Gebhard, confirmed that Kinsey skewed his data by including subjects unrepresentative of the general public in a 1990 letter. When then-director of the Kinsey Institute, Dr. June Reinisch, claimed that Kinsey “never used data from…special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public”, Gebhard corrected her in a letter, writing that her statement was “incorrect”, that Kinsey did include these skewed populations, and that he had erroneously generalized from those populations to the general public.[42]

As a hallmark of the deplorable science Kinsey’s research displayed, in 1999 Intercollegiate Review ranked Kinsey’s Male volume as the 3rd “worst book of the century”, stating, “So mesmerized were Americans by the authority of Science, with a capital S, that it took 40 years for anyone to wonder how data is gathered on the sexual responses of children as young as five.” The review summarized Kinsey’s work as “A pervert’s attempt to demonstrate that perversion is “statistically” normal.”[43]

The public’s acceptance of Kinsey’s work resulted in federal funding going to the Kinsey Institute for years. However, in 2003, Congress objected to federal funds being used by the Institute. The last record of taxpayer funding to the Institute was in 2004.[44]

The bottom line? The “scientific truths” and values upon which America has founded its beliefs and policies are based on the unscientific personal agenda of a sexual deviant, who used the abuse of children to further his cause. And, in spite of the fact that his research has been demonstrated to be fraudulent, Kinseyan sexuality has become the defining sexual norm for our mainstream culture, having infiltrated public perception, media, policy, and education.

“Science” Based on Child Abuse

The most disturbing aspect of Kinsey’s work is his data and conclusions related to childhood sexuality. The Kinsey team knew that their research was illegal. Fellow researcher John Gagnon writes, “Much of [Kinsey’s] information comes from adults who were in active sexual contact with…boys and who were interested in producing orgasms in them…A less neutral observer than Kinsey would have described these events as sex crimes”[45]. When asked in an interview about the ethics of their methods for getting participants, Kinsey researcher and co-author Paul Gebhard agreed: “Well, it is definitely coercion…. I think a certain amount of coercion is acceptable in the interest of encouraging research participation. I wouldn’t hesitate to use that tactic again– though I might not spell it out in my proposal to the committee on human subjects”.[46] Gebhard provided a good summary of the group’s ethics: “We [were]… amoral at best and criminal at worst…”[47]

Kinsey’s Pedophile Reporter

Although Kinsey asserts in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male that “nine” men were involved in the experiments with children[48], it is now known that Kinsey’s main source of information about child sexuality (although unknown by the public at the time his work was published) came from a pedophile by the name of Rex King.  The Kinsey team referred to King as “Mr. Green”, or “Mr. X”, in order to protect his anonymity. Kinsey was referred to King by gynecologist Dr. Robert Dickinson – a man who had been Kinsey’s mentor. King, a depraved sexual addict, had sex with almost all of his family members, and men, women, and children of every age (including babies), as well as animals. King had sex with at least 800 boys and girls, and meticulously recorded the explicit details in diaries that he gave to Kinsey. Dickenson collaborated with King for years and taught him how to record his abuse in scientific detail. King’s diaries document 20 years of the most heinous forms of sexual abuse. [49]

King’s “Scientific Data” of Child Sex Abuse

King masturbated 317 infants and children from 2 months-15 years old, recording which ones achieved what he interpreted as orgasms. Kinsey published this data as Table 31 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. In Table 32, Kinsey reproduced King’s data on the time it took for each child to reach “orgasm”. The table also indicated that a 4-year-old boy had been masturbated over a 24-hour period of time, with a stopwatch used to record the number of “climaxes”.[50] And the descriptions of some of these so-called orgasms included “extreme tension”, “violent convulsion”, “groaning”, “sobbing”, “extreme trembling”, “fainting”, “pained or frightened”, and ”violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears, especially among younger children” – obvious signs of children being traumatized from horrific, repeated sexual abuse.[51]

Abuse of children is evident in the Female volume, as well, where Kinsey reports that 80% of girls molested reported some fear, terror, and/or guilt, and that the offenders gained pleasure from this.[52] Far from condemning this abuse (a term Kinsey never used), Kinsey believed that children benefited from sexual contact with adults, a concept that will be further explored in Part 4. This sentiment is clear, however, in the Male volume’s notes on the childhood orgasms, which stated that the subjects “will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive definite pleasure from the situation” (Emphasis mine).[53]

The Female volume provides a graphic description about a mother who allegedly “observed” her 3-year-old daughter masturbating. However, Kinsey biographer Gathorne-Hardy found, in his review of King’s notes, that King had his girlfriend masturbate her daughter to orgasm.[54] Gathorne-Hardy, in the transcript for the “Kinsey’s Paedophiles” documentary, explained what he saw in King’s data: “Out of 317 cases [King] records having to force cooperation on five occasions: aged 2, 4, 7, 10, 15…He likes to arouse boys. King records in the history the color, taste and smell of the semen…Does it with mother and son. Some of his women masturbate their children for him…” . And then in the interview, Gathorne-Hardy also read directly from King’s reports: “In a few minutes [the boy] was laughing and did not hold it against me. Fact is he seemed proud he had done it. I praised him and told him he was some kid to take a 7” **** down his throat and up his *** the same night…”[55]

It is the data obtained from this and similar childhood sex abuse that became the foundation for the idea, now widely propagated as truth within the principles of secular sexuality, that children are sexual beings from birth.

Respect for and Protection of Pedophiles

Kinsey admired King, corresponding regularly with him, and writing to thank King for his “valuable” work.  Kinsey biographer James H. Jones tells of how, in written correspondence with King, Kinsey gushes, “I congratulate you on the research spirit which has lead you to collect data over these many years[56]…This is one of the most valuable things we have ever gotten and I want to thank you most abundantly for the time you put into it and for your willingness to cooperate…”[57] Kinsey even offered to let the child molester stay in his home.[58] According to biographer Jones, Kinsey considered King to be a “scientific treasure” and living proof of his own beliefs about human pansexual behavior.[59]

Yet King was not the only pedophile with whom Kinsey worked closely. During this period, Kinsey also corresponded with and collected data from one of the most notorious pedophiles of the time – Dr. Fritz von Balluseck of Germany. This former Nazi party official had commanded a ghetto during the war, and had sexually abused hundreds of pre-adolescent boys and girls – forcing them to choose between sex or the gas chamber – in addition to his own children, for over three decades. Von Balluseck, like Rex King, kept explicitly detailed diaries of his sexual abuse, which he sent to Kinsey. Balluseck was implicated in the sex murder of a young girl in 1957. When Interpol found Balluseck’s correspondence with Kinsey, they sought Kinsey’s help, but Kinsey refused to release any of Balluseck’s journals or information.[60]

Paul Gebhard wrote, of this fact: “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”.[61] At von Balluseck’s trial, the judge criticized Kinsey for failing to report him. Furthermore, testimony from von Balluseck during the trial indicated that Kinsey requested the sex abuse data from the pedophile.  The judge asked von Balluseck, “I had the impression that you got to the children in order to impress Kinsey, and to deliver him material. And von Balluseck replied, “Kinsey himself asked me for that”.[62] It is highly likely that some of Kinsey’s “data” on childhood sexuality may have come from the abuse of children in the Nazi death camps.

Not only did Kinsey refuse to give evidence of Von Balluseck’s abuse during the trial; he and his team never reported the pedophile’s crimes to the police, and eagerly accepted Balluseck’s diaries of his abuse. Balluseck was protected by the Nazis, as well as Kinsey, all of whom knew of his atrocities. The pedophile sent detailed diaries to Kinsey of such crimes as sexually abusing children as young as 7, molesting his own niece with “hardly any serious resistance”, forcing his own 14-year-old daughter to perform sex acts with a 16-year-old boy, molesting a 10-year-old boy (who later, upon getting arrested for offered his services to other men, explained that Balluseck had taught him everything he knew), and requiring an 11-year-old boy to keep an explicit record of the vile sex acts Balluseck made him perform. Kinsey not only thanked Balluseck for his information, but warned him, in one letter, to “Sehen Sie sich vor”, or “Be careful”. Balluseck , in his trial, named Kinsey’s work as the role model for his perverse behavior.[63]

Passive Data Collectors or Active Participants?

The Kinsey Institute acknowledges the scientific unreliability of Kinsey’s data, but defends Kinsey’s use of pedophiles’ data. They maintain that Kinsey never carried out any sexual experiments on children himself, but simply asked the pedophiles to share their data with him. Kinsey claimed that his data on childhood sexuality came from “the histories of adult males who have sexual contacts with younger boys”.[64]

“Trained Observers”

However, Kinsey team researcher Paul Gebhard has admitted, in an audio taped interview, that the team (including Kinsey) did, in fact, participate in the experiments[65]. Even Kinsey himself writes, in the Male volume, “Complying with the statistically fair demand for records from trained observers…we have now reported observations on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrusts, and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 boys ranging between infants of five months and adolescence in age” (Emphasis mine).[66] In other words, someone knowledgeable, who was involved with the research, trained the pedophiles in how to accurately record data on the abuse they perpetuated on children, and the response of those children.

It turns out that that person (as revealed years later by Kinsey researcher Paul Gebhard) was Kinsey’s mentor, Dr. Robert Dickinson. Dickinson collaborated with King for years, teaching him “how to measure things, and time things, and encouraged him…”.[67] The Kinsey Institute refuses to release King’s diaries to anyone, with the exception of biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, who was given permission to view them. Gathorne-Hardy’s review of King’s notes show that King was sexually active until 1954, more than 10 years after meeting Kinsey, which means King was actively abusing children throughout the entire time Kinsey was collecting data, and afterward.[68]

Those “scientifically trained” individuals were mentioned again in the Female volume, where Kinsey’s words make it clear that the team actually solicited information on the sexual abuse of children: “Many of the [sex activity] calendars area product of our call for such material….Persons… who are willing to begin keeping day-by-day calendars showing the sources and frequencies of their outlet [sexual activity], are urged to write us for instructions. Many of the calendars have come from scientifically trained persons” (Emphases mine).[69] The Kinsey team actually called for people to send them information on all sexual outlets – including those with children – and then gave those abusers “instructions” in how to scientifically record their abusive experiments.

“Kinsey’s Own Research”

Co-researcher Wardell Pomeroy implicates Kinsey as being directly involved with collecting sperm from pre-adolescents. He writes, “He [Kinsey] believed that students in the field had been ‘too prudish’ to make an actual investigation of sperm count in early-adolescent males. [Kinsey’s] own research for the Male volume [Sexual Behavior in the Human Male] had produced some material, but not enough. [Kinsey] could report, however, that there were more mature sperm even in the first ejaculation, although he did not yet have any actual counts”.[70]

The fact that Kinsey actively encouraged pedophiles to abuse children and send their “data” to him is supported by the testimony of victim Esther White. White’s grandfather attended Indiana University with Kinsey, and both her grandfather and father sexually abused her. White gave testimony that her father would sexually abuse her, while using a stopwatch to time her climaxes. He then mailed in questionnaires to the Kinsey Institute about the abuse. She believes that information from her abuse was used in Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Female book, but she cannot corroborate this with certainty because the Kinsey Institute refuses to release any of Kinsey’s research data. [71]

Follow-Up

Additional evidence that the childhood data was not simply gained from pedophiles’ recall, but part of Kinsey’s planned research, is found in the Male volume itself. In reference to Table 31, which records the orgasms of children as young as 2 months, Kinsey writes, “In 5 cases of young pre-adolescents, observations were continued over periods of months or years, until the individuals were old enough to make it certain that true orgasm was involved” (Emphasis mine).[72] If follow-up was done on these children for the purpose of scientific research, then clearly the data was not obtained simply from the pedophiles’ memories of past sexual experiences with children, but from an ongoing process of scientific “data collection” (abuse).

Co-Workers Admit Involvement

In addition to Gebhard’s audiotaped admission of the team’s participation in experiments with children, the best proof of Kinsey’s direct involvement in the experiments came years after Kinsey’s death (in 1998) in the transcript of an interview with Kinsey colleague Clarence Tripp, for the Yorkshire Television documentary “Kinsey’s Paedophiles”. Tripp acknowledges that “[Kinsey] was often observing it….there is no mention of his observing people. But he did. He wanted to see everything. This is a hands-on scientist….But he had to see it to really believe it… Nobody ever knew that he had observed. I think you will find that nobody, in any documentary, ever mentions it. That I am the first one that ever told you! Or told anybody. It is guarded like a secret”.[73]

Kinsey went to any lengths necessary to prove that all manner of sex, outside that between a man and a woman in marriage, was normal and natural. Kinsey’s collaboration with, protection of, and respect for pedophiles, as well as his personal involvement with conducting research involving the sexual abuse of children, are illustrative of the level of moral depravity to which this world-renowned sex researcher fell. However, Kinsey’s moral decay was not simply evident in his work; his sexual obsessions took over his personal life as well.

Kinsey’s Private Life and Staff

Kinsey’s work with sexuality mirrored his own sexual predilections and obsessions. Kinsey Biographer James H. Jones, author of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Life, writes that Kinsey “was a man with secrets, a man who…lived with secrets about his own sexuality, and he had spent his life deeply conflicted.”[74] Specifically, he struggled with homosexuality, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and sexual masochism at a time when such sexual behaviors were beyond the pale. Kinsey’s taste for alternative forms of sexuality became the driving force in his life, and science gave him a legitimate outlet through which he could indulge his aberrant passions.[75] He began leading a double life in which to the outside world he was a respectable married academic with children, yet in his private life he began engaging in a wide range of radical, alternative sex.[76] As Jones puts it, “He had sexual needs and desires that could not be met within the confines of middle class morality. That made him, of necessity, cultivate two parallel existences: the one the world saw; the one that was private, sovereign, and known only to himself.”[77]

Kinsey’s Variant Sex Life

From graduate school (when he became an atheist) onward, Kinsey became more and more sexually radical. He exhibited and encouraged nudity in his household; he was known to shave nude in front of his children, take his family on nudist vacations to the mountains, and frolic nude as a family in the sprinkler.[78] He also received nudist magazines at the family home.[79] Kinsey was known to work in the garden “clad only in a brief loin cloth that covered the bare essentials, but nothing more”, and colleague Clyde Martin, who became Kinsey’s lover, also joined Kinsey in similar lack of clothing to help him work outside. Jones quotes a university student with whom Kinsey worked as saying that he “would go around naked if we were in a campground”, that he didn’t “show any inhibitions”. [80]

Kinsey flouted sexual norms with others, including abusing his role as a professor to indulge his sexual addiction. Describing Kinsey as a “manipulative and aggressive… sexual rebel”, [81] Jones details how Kinsey used his status as a faculty member, with the power to control his students’ futures, to satisfy his sexual proclivities.[82] Much of this exploitation happened on trips to various locations (including Mexico) in which Kinsey and his graduate students went to trap gall wasps for their research.

Testimony and letters from Kinsey’s graduate students show that, on gall-wasp trapping trips, Kinsey required all of his students to take showers every day – even when it was winter – and he not only checked (ostensibly to make sure they were doing so), but bathed with them. He also regularly engaged his students in explicit conversations about sex – his own sex life as well as theirs – and gave them graphic tips on how to improve their sex lives. Letters between Kinsey and one graduate student – which reference Kinsey giving “instructions in technique”, refer to Kinsey’s “prick nibbling tent”, and provide veiled references to sexual activity on trips – indicate that Kinsey didn’t just talk about sex, but engaged in it. In later correspondence with former students who accompanied him on these trips, Kinsey sent them erotic material, and invited them to come stay with him in his home. The wife of one of these graduate students, decades later, refused to be interviewed about Kinsey, saying only that “He was a dirty old man” and that “He really hurt us. We were just kids from Mississippi. We didn’t know anything”. Kinsey instructed his students to destroy his letters to them, which they did.[83]

The personal and professional jeopardy in which Kinsey was willing to place himself, at a time when such abuse of professional authority and radical sexual behavior would have made him a pariah in society, demonstrates the overpowering influence sex had in his life. As Jones puts it, “Only a desperate man, indeed a compulsive man, would have taken such risks”.[84]

Homosexual Sex

Kinsey struggled with homosexual tendencies throughout his life, in a culture where all but two states classified sodomy as a felony offense.[85] Kinsey kept this part of himself deeply hidden. In addition to engaging in sexual correspondence and behavior with certain male students, Kinsey fell in love with one of them – a man named Ralph Voris. Although there is no definitive proof, because of the careful attention to secrecy the two maintained, innuendoes in personal letters between the two, and Kinsey’s continual pressure for Voris to meet him join him in hotel rooms at conferences, indicate the overwhelming likelihood that Kinsey’s first homosexual relationship was with Voris. Kinsey’s colleagues, likewise, later insisted that Kinsey “was in love with Voris from day one”, and that “the first homosexual contact he had of any significance was with his graduate student [Voris]”.[86] Even after Voris’s death as a relatively young man, Kinsey – who had very few emotional ties with anyone – kept Voris’ photo on his desk.[87]

It was really Kinsey’s sex research that allowed him, for the first time, to indulge in his homosexual proclivities. Kinsey not only researched the gay underworld of public urinals, bath houses, and all-night film shows and took sex histories from their patrons, but he also “was at last able to satisfy fully his longing for a homosexual physical outlet” by engaging in gay sex on his research trips to study gay culture.[88] Kinsey also fell in love with his colleague, Clyde Martin, and his affair with Martin paved the way for additional sexual experimentation,[89] which included numerous homosexual encounters, including ongoing homosexual relationships with professional contacts, over the years.[90]

Kinsey’s homosexuality was foundational to his view and experience of sex. Later, homosexuality became much more than this – it became Kinsey’s tool for widespread moral societal change.

Sex With Staff

Due to the prurient nature of his work, Kinsey chose his colleagues and staff carefully. Kinsey used power and control to manipulate his staff and gain full commitment from them, which benefitted him professionally as well as sexually.[91] One of the ways he did this is by choosing young, inexperienced assistants without doctorates or significant academic standing, thereby putting himself in the position of directing their professional careers.[92] He also had strict guidelines for who could work with him on his project, and required potential staff (as well as their spouses) to give their sex histories as a condition for employment.[93] Anyone who demonstrated the slightest evidence of moral equivocation around sexuality was denied, and he preferred that his staff had homosexual experience.[94] These sexual histories, which he also required of anyone (including funders from the Rockefeller Foundation) to whom he gave access to his work, gave Kinsey tremendous power over people, which helps explain why so many protected Kinsey (and still do, to this day).[95]

Kinsey not only took the sex histories of all of his staff, but he essentially made sex a condition of employment. Kinsey believed his staff needed personal encounters with a wide variety of sexual behavior in order to be able to carry out the research. Toward this end, Kinsey expected his co-authors to agree to participate in varied sexual activities, including wife-swapping and homosexual encounters.[96] Jones writes, “As an exhibitionist extraordinaire, Kinsey seldom passed up an opportunity to show off his genitals and demonstrate his various masturbatory techniques to staff members”. [97]Kinsey also regularly engaged in sexual intercourse with his co-workers, their wives, and others, and used tremendous pressure to coerce people into having sex with him and for him.[98] Sex research provided Kinsey the perfect opportunity to indulge his own sexual compulsions.

Even Mac, Kinsey’s wife, was a regular part of the sexual escapades. One of the individuals Kinsey brought in from outside his inner circle to participate commented on Kinsey’s wife, saying, “Kinsey and I’d be having sex upstairs and I’d go down[stairs] and have sex with Mac in the same house…Mac was tremendous. She looked like she was a little pip-squeak, you know….she didn’t look like she was all loose or open and she was open as hell”.[99]

One of Kinsey’s early staff persons, Vincent Nowlis, left Kinsey’s employ after being propositioned by Kinsey to engage with him in homosexual sex. Kinsey called Nowlis into a hotel room on one of their research trips and offered to provide him some “seductive instruction” that would include “learning plus pleasure”. Nowlis refused, and promptly announced his resignation the next morning.[100] Ironically, the man who considered himself to be a sexual liberator maintained domineering control over everyone around him. As Jones explains, “Staff members and their wives were not so much participants in sexual liberation as pawns for Kinsey to manipulate and control”.[101]

Making of Sex Videos

Kinsey also commissioned a series of explicit sex videos that included his staff, their spouses, outside volunteers, and even his own wife – a project known only to his inner circle, and a closely guarded secret.[102] Clarence Tripp, one of Kinsey’s closest friends and researchers, served as his photographer and helped make Kinsey’s movies. Tripp, who regularly masturbated dogs as a young boy,[103] also starred in some of the films.[104] Filming of these videos was conducted at the Institute (in Indiana University) and, later, in the attic of Kinsey’s house. Kinsey explained to university authorities that he was filming “animal behavior”, but, according to colleague Wardell Pomeroy, “He did not add that he included humans in this category”.[105] The movies included all different types of sexual activity including homosexual sex[106], masturbation and sadomasochism.[107] Kinsey even paid the fares for two homosexual sadomasochists (Samuel M. Steward and Mike Miksche) to come to the Institute so that he could film their brutality[108], which included burning private parts with a cigarette and hot wax. [109]

Kinsey’s co-author Gebhard confirmed in 1981 that Kinsey and his staff collected films of children engaged in sex acts, as well. He explained, “Since sexual experimentation with human infants and children is illegal, we have had to depend upon other sources of data…. 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.”[110] It is unknown whether or not the team created sex films involving children, since the Kinsey Institute refuses to allow anyone access to their storehouse of data.[111]

Sexual Masochism

Kinsey had some awareness of the kind of effect involvement in this kind of sex “research” would have on his staff: Tripp explained that Kinsey told him that “I want to warn you of something. As soon as we get you to photographing sex every day…pretty soon nothing will turn you on…nothing…visual will turn you on. Because you will lose all those sensitivities.”[112] Although it is ironic this statement was made by the man whose life work was based on the assumption that all sexual expression was good for people (and the more the better), Kinsey experienced the reality of this pronouncement in his own life.

Over time, as Kinsey got more involved in the world of sex, he became more self-destructive in the endeavor to elicit sexual response. Jones explained, “Something inside him would not let him satisfy his sexual urges without first paying a price in physical and emotional pain.”[113] Pain and pleasure became synonymous in sexual practice for Kinsey. He regularly inserted objects into his urethra as part of his sexual practices, gradually needing larger and larger objects to obtain pleasure, and eventually he even inserted “a toothbrush with the brush end first”. [114] While doing this, he would also tie a rope around his scrotum and tug on it while he masturbated.[115] To facilitate such large objects, he had to cut the entry to his urethra wide open, according to one of Kinsey’s sexual partners.[116] Another time, Kinsey circumcised himself without anesthesia, using a pocket knife.[117] Kinsey acknowledged the toll his radical sexual experiments could have, when he admonished a friend, “Tell your sadomasochistic friends to observe great caution. The human body adjusts rapidly and the levels are capable of escalating rapidly.”[118]

In 1954, after the Rockefeller Foundation did not renew his grant funding, Kinsey went to new lengths with his self-inflicted pain – he threw a rope over pipes in the basement, tied a knot around his testicles with one end, and then wrapped the other end around his hand. He then stepped up on to a chair and jumped off, suspending himself by his genitals,[119] an incident confirmed by colleague Paul Gebhard.[120] Very shortly afterward, Kinsey got a serious infection in his pelvic area, eventually leading to him being hospitalized.[121] Although he recovered to some degree, Kinsey’s health never returned completely.[122]

Eugenics

Kinsey had another, lesser known, but equally insidious interest – eugenics. Kinsey attended the Bussey School at Harvard during the height of the eugenics movement. This “New Biology”, architected by Jacque Loeb, promoted the idea advocated man could act as creator and could engineer nature according to his will.[123] Jones explicated: “Kinsey concentrated on negative eugenics, calling for a program of sterilization that was at once sweeping and terrifying. The reduction of the birthrate of the lowest classes must depend upon the sterilization of perhaps a tenth of our population.”[124] Kinsey’s research occurred simultaneously with the Nazi eugenics program in Germany, which was experimenting on and extermination of exterminating millions of undesirables (as exemplified by his relationship with German pedophile von Balluseck). One of Kinsey’s like-minded colleagues was eugenicist Hermann Muller, who came to work with Kinsey at the University of Indiana in 1945. In his earlier years, Muller worked in Berlin with Dr. Ernst Rudin, the father of the Nazi “racial hygiene” extermination program,[125] and also for the Moscow Institute for Genetics in the USSR under Stalin.[126] The Rockefeller Foundation, which funded both Kinsey and Muller’s work, bankrolled eugenics research.[127]

These ties to eugenics, and to the New Biology that undergirded it, were tremendously influential in Kinsey’s sexual outlook. It was Kinsey’s belief that biologists were to be “social engineers”[128], that set the stage for him to become a social reformer. Both New Biology and eugenics advocated social control via science, and, by doing so, both exercised moral control. Kinsey followed this lead, using sex as the means by which he executed cultural and moral power and transformation.

How Kinsey’s Research Became Truth

Widespread Acceptance of Kinsey’s Research

It was the widespread acceptance of Kinsey’s research at the time that opened the door for the future moral reformation of society. In spite of Kinsey’s flawed science, his reliance upon the sexual abuse of children and protection of pedophiles, and his radical personal sexual behavior, his work was largely accepted as truth.

At the time of Kinsey’s research, there were a few critiques of his work, including by the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology[129], the American Statistical Association[130], and Lewis M. Ternman of Stanford University.[131] Dr. Abraham Maslow (the father of Humanism) presented Kinsey with proof of his volunteer bias,[132] and reviews of Kinsey’s work at the time by sociologists Albert Hobbs and Richard Lambert from the University of Pennsylvania revealed that his methods served to cover up “selectivity” in his sample.[133] They found that Kinsey derived his conclusions from a “small, atypical segment of the population” and that he seemed “anxious to compound any possible errors in almost any way which would increase the apparent incident [of homosexuality]”.[134] Therefore there were warning signs, early on, about Kinsey’s work – warning signs that did not, however, get picked up by the general public.

Kinsey, driven by his need for moral reform to justify his own sexual proclivities, ignored critiques and the limitations of his work, and knowingly published biased, unrepresentative data as scientific truth that was generalizable to the public. [135]He purported a completely new, completely radical sexual morality to be natural and normal for the masses.

And the world believed him.

Why the World Believed

The reasons for this are complex. Although there were a few professionals at the time that recognized the flaws in Kinsey’s work, his research was accepted and virtually unchallenged on a widespread scale because nothing like it had ever been seen before. Prior to Kinsey’s time, no comprehensive scientific observation of human sexual behavior had been conducted; never before had sexual expression been put in the form of “scientific” numbers and statistics. Kinsey made sexuality scientific – particularly alternative sexuality – and the effect on cultural consciousness was powerful.[136]  This power was driven by the cultural shift, during Kinsey’s time, from religion to science as the primary source of truth, thanks to Darwin’s evolutionary theory.[137] The world was primed and ready for scientific explanations for the most fundamental aspects of life, and Kinsey’s sex research seemed to provide just that.

A number of other factors led to Kinsey’s data being readily sanctioned as “fact”, including the ground-breaking and salacious nature of Kinsey’s work in a conservative culture[138], a lack of scientific rigor by the primary readers of and advisors to Kinsey’s work[139], and strong political and financial influence by large foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation. For example, when Congressman Carroll Reese’s 1953 congressional committee began to target Kinsey’s research, and the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement with it, other members of congress threatened to deny funding to Reese’s committee if they continued the investigation. As a result, the examination of Kinsey’s work, and Rockefeller’s support of it, was halted, and Reese’s committee was shut down in 1954.[140]

The Rockefeller Foundation had a significant impact on the world’s receptivity to Kinsey’s research in another way, as well – through large scale publicity. Early on, The Rockefeller Foundation was phenomenally influential in promoting and publicizing his revolutionary view of sexuality. The Foundation had extensive influence over mass media in the 1930s, and often supported publicity campaigns for political purposes, such as influencing public attitudes about World War II. Backed by the Rockefeller Foundation’s almost limitless funding, similar massive publicity campaigns were launched prior to the release of Kinsey’s Male and Female volumes. The hype helped to fuel the widespread acceptance of this new “scientific” truth.[141]

Another important factor in the widespread acceptance of Kinsey’s work was the force of Kinsey’s controlling personality – Kinsey’s own manipulation and use of sex to dominate others. Kinsey employed sex as a means of power over people, and to help him control the narrative around his work.[142] He did this by taking the sexual histories of every person associated with his project in any way, (histories that, if made public, would have been socially, politically, and professionally damning),[143] expecting those closest to his research to engage in sex with him and each other,[144] and by giving influential power players access to his library of sexually explicit materials in order to gain their compliance and support.[145] By using sex as a weapon, Kinsey effectively ensured that he maintained complete charge over what the public knew about his research and life, even though what the public understood was not, in fact, the truth.

The specific processes by which Kinseyan sexual philosophy became the cultural standard will be investigated in Part 4. At any rate, with the force of cultural changes, money, and power behind Kinsey’s work, by the time the problems with Kinsey’s research were discovered, his understanding of sexuality had completely shaped the public consciousness.

The culture’s values about sexuality had become Kinseyan sexual values.

Kinsey’s End of Life

Not surprisingly, Kinsey’s radical lifestyle caught up with him, both physically and emotionally. He continued to suffer from significant physical problems, including congestive heart failure and pneumonia, which rendered him bedridden on and off for the last two years of his life.[146] As time went on, he also suffered from impotence, according to colleague Paul Gebhard, and struggled more and more to achieve sexual satisfaction. Even more concerning, biographer James Jones confirms that Kinsey began to require increasing levels of pain in order to receive sexual pleasure. As mentioned previously, he engaged in more and more dangerous and destructive sexual behaviors, including inserting objects into his urethra while he masturbated[147], and circumcising himself without anesthesia.[148] These self-destructive actions culminated in the episode in 1956, in which he suspended himself in midair with a rope tied to his genitals that was then suspended over a pipe.[149] Afterward, he incurred a pelvic infection that caused him to be hospitalized, which initiated a decline in health that continued, off and on, until his death two years later..[150] After struggling with a variety of health problems, particularly related to his heart, which intensified in the last 6 months of his life (and which were exacerbated by his obsessive inability to cease working) Kinsey died in 1958 as the result of an embolism from a bruise on his leg. He was only sixty-two years old.[151]

But physical ailments weren’t the only consequences of Kinsey’s life choices. At the end of his life, Kinsey struggled with nagging fears over what would happen to his Institute after he was gone, crippling anxieties over not being able to get funding, and overwhelming disappointment that his Male and Female volumes had not been recognized as he felt they deserved.[152] He became a slave to his research, telling his staff members, “I’d rather be dead than not put in a full day’s work”.[153] Kinsey maintained a deep anger toward his father throughout his life – an anger that only grew over time and became sublimated in his obsession with moral reform. He lost the passion in his relationship with his wife, and the two of them slept in different bedrooms toward the end of their marriage (even as she continued to have sex with his co-workers).[154]

Kinsey, in spite of his adherence to sexual freedom, never seemed to be free. Although he was revered by many as a scientist, hardly anyone liked Kinsey, and virtually all of his relationships (few of which were close) were characterized by him being in a position of domination or control over the other person.[155] Jones writes, “Ironically, the secular evangelist who advocated joy and abandonment in sex did not appear happy”.[156] Indeed, even sexual fulfillment eluded him, as evidenced by his increasing need for pain in order to experience pleasure. One of Kinsey’s sexual partners said that even when having sex, Kinsey looked sad, describing his facial expressions as “long-suffering” and “grotesque”.[157] Biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy summarizes, “Kinsey died a bitter man who, while disguising it, was almost, in the words of Dr. C.A. Tripp, ‘crushed by disappointment’”.[158] He became completely consumed by his passions, although they ultimately did not fulfill him.

Ironically, the man responsible for bringing sexual freedom to the world became enslaved by his own sexual obsessions. In spite of his passion to help release people from the repressive effects of Judeo-Christian sexuality, and his evangelism of the freedom and pleasure unrestricted sex would bring to everyone, Kinsey never experienced, in his own life, the fruits his philosophy promised. He died, still haunted by his own demons and possessed by both his work and his sexual obsessions, as Jones writes, “angry and bitter, like that of a man who had remembered everything and forgiven nothing.”[159]

It is a lesson for all of us –

Unrestricted “freedom” never really makes us free, but leaves us, instead, enslaved by its consequences.

Conclusion

Alfred Kinsey has been appropriately referred to as “the high priest of sexual liberation”.[160] His sex research went where no one had gone before – putting human sexuality into the framework of the scientific method. Reacting to his repressive religious upbringing and fueled by his own sexual demons, Kinsey attempted to use science to transform the way the world viewed sex – and he was successful.

However, his bias, unrepresentative samples, and flawed methods – not discovered until after his secular philosophy of sexuality had been successfully inculcated on a national scale – made his results scientifically untenable. Through means such as seeking out sexually deviant populations, using coercive questioning techniques, and relying upon the data obtained through the exploitation of children, Kinsey normalized, in the eyes of the world, sexuality that had previously been considered “wrong”.

Yet this social reformer was much more successful than simply causing people to think differently about sex – Kinsey sought to pioneer a societal revolution against what he understood to be the repressive effects of Judeo-Christian morality. The next article will illustrate the process by which Kinsey’s personal philosophy and flawed research became the tool for complete cultural change; the Kinseyan model of sexuality has effectively replaced, on a cultural level, the traditional Judeo-Christian model of sexuality in virtually every area of society. It is this new philosophy of sex that has been one of the most effective instruments for the ushering in of a secular worldview.

Kinsey’s view of sex, and its accompanying secular worldview, has effectively changed the world.

 


[1] Brown, T. M. & Fee, E. (2003, June). “Alfred C. Kinsey: A Pioneer of Sex Research”. American Journal of Public Health, 93(6). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447862/

[2] Gathorne-Hardy, J. (2004). Kinsey: Sex the Measure of All Things. Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN.

Jones, J. H. (1997). Alfred C. Kinsey: A Life. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York.

[3] Gathorne-Hardy.

Jones.

Reisman, J. (2011, May). Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences. Institute for Media Education, p. 11. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/76766448/Judith-A-Reisman-Kinsey-Crimes-and-Consequences

[4] Jones.

[5] Gathorne-Hardy, p. 17-18.

[6] Gathorne-Hardy.

Jones.

Reisman, J., & Eichel, E. W.. Muir, J. G. & Court, J. H. Eds. (1990). Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lochinvar-Huntington House, Lafayette, LA. pp. 3-4. Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Kinsey_Sex_and_Fraud.pdf

[7] Jones.

[8] Jones, pp. 80-81.

[9] Gathorne-Hardy.

Jones.

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 8, 13.

[10] Jones.

Gathorne-Hardy.

[11] Jones, pp. 174-176, 231-237, 290-295.

[12] Jones, p. 260.

[13] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 11.

[14] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud.

[15] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences.

[16] The Kinsey Institute. “Origins of the Institute”. Retrieved from http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/origins.html

[17] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud.

The Kinsey Institute. “Photo History”. Kinseyinstitute.org. Retrieved from http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/photo-tour.html

[18] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 33.

[19] Gathorne-Hardy, p. 223.

[20] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. p. 118.

[21] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. p. 33.

[22] Gathorne-Hardy pp. 174-5.

[23] Gathorne-Hardy pp. 171.

[24] Gathorne-Hardy pp. 175.

[25] Gathorne-Hardy.

Jones.

[26] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud.

[27] Reisman, J. (1981, June 21-26). “The Scientist as Contributing Agent to Child Sexual Abuse: A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations”. Paper presented to the 5th World Congress of Sexology. Jerusalem, Israel. Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/5th%20World%20Congress%20of%20Sexology.pdf

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 67-68.

[28]Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. p. 9.

[29] Letter from Paul Gebhard to Director June M. Reinisch at the Kinsey Institute, December 6, 1990.  As referenced in Jeffrey, L. & Ray, R. D. (2007). “A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code: The Kinsey Report’s Influence on ‘Science-Based’ Legal Reform”. First Principles, Inc. p. 11. Presented by RSVP America Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/monograph_opt.pdf

[30] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud.

[31] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 15.

[32] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 57-58.

[33] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 60.

[34] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 15.

[35] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 58-60.

[36] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 60-62.

[37] Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., and Martin, C. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. P. 180-181.

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences.

[38] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 181.

BBC Documentary, Part 2. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABPWRfvZLZg&list=PLFA7366A1D1D45D1F

[39] Reisman, J. (1981, June 21-26). “The Scientist as Contributing Agent to Child Sexual Abuse: A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations”. Paper presented to the 5th World Congress of Sexology. Jerusalem, Israel. Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/5th%20World%20Congress%20of%20Sexology.pdf

Muir, J. G. “Preface”. In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 67-68.

Court, J. H. “Foreward”. In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 67-68.

[40] The Lancet (1991, Mar. 2). 337: p. 547. Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Science_Pub_Brief_Time_Line.pdf

[41] Jeffrey, L. (2004, Apr.). “Restoring Legal Protections for Women and Children: A Historical Analysis of The States Criminal Codes”. American Legislative Executive Council. Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/ALEC%20paper.pdf

[42] Gebhard, P. (1990, Dec. 6). Letter to June Reinisch. Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Science_Pub_Brief_Time_Line.pdf

[43] The Intercollegiate Review (Fall 1999). “The Fifty Worst (and Best) Books of the Century”.  P. 4. http://www.mmisi.org/ir/35_01/50worst.pdf

[44] The Kinsey Institute (1996-2013). “Sex Research and Federal Funding”. Retrieved from http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/risk-research.html

[45] Gagnon, J. (1977). Human Sexualities. p. 84. In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 138.

[46] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 142.

[47] Masters, Johnson & Kolodny, Ed. (1977). Ethical Issues in Sex Therapy and Research, Reproductive Biology Research Foundation Conference. Little, Brown and Company: Boston. p. 13. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 294.

[48] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

[49] BBC Documentary, Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htAUysRPvNs&list=PLFA7366A1D1D45D1F

Jones, pp. 507-509.

[50] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

BBC Documentary, Part 1.

[51] BBC Documentary, Part 2.

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 40.

[52] Kinsey, A. et al. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. W.B. Saunders Co.: Bloomington, IN. p. 120. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 156.

[53] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 161.

[54] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 154.

[55] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 144-145.

[56] Jones, p. 508.

[57] Jones. p. 510.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 163.

[58] Jones, p. 508.

[59] Jones, p. 512.

[60] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 328-333.

[61] Wormser, R. (1958). Foundations. The Devin-Adair Company, New York. Pp. 102-103. In

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 294.

[62] BBC Documentary, Part 3. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCgD2AcOGY4

[63] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 328-333.

[64] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, pp. 165-166.

[65] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 141-142.

[66]Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 181.

[67] Testimony by Kinsey team member Paul Gebhard in BBC Documentary, Part 3.

[68] BBC Documentary, Part 3.

[69] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 84.

[70] In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 48.

[71] BBC Documentary, Part 3.

[72] Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 37.

[73] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 137.

Reisman, J. “’Kinsey’s Paedophiles’ Excerpts From Yorkshire Television Transcript of Interview With Dr. Clarence Tripp, May 5,6, 1998). Retrieved from http://www.drjudithreisman.com/kinseypedos.html

[74] Jones, p. 4.

[75] Jones.

[76] BBC Documentary, Part 3.

[77] BBC Documentary, Part 3.

[78] Jones, p. 261-2.

[79] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 12.

[80] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 18-19.

[81] Jones, p.  276.

[82] Jones, p. 273-286.

[83] Jones, p. 285.

[84] Jones, p. 276.

[85] Jones, p. 76.

[86] Jones, p. 272.

[87] Jones, p. 272.

[88] Gathorne-Hardy, p. 137.

[89] Gathorne-Hardy, p. 168.

[90] Gathorne-Hardy.

Jones.

[91] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 29-37.

[92] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 30.

Gathorne-Hardy.

Jones.

[93] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 10.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 35.

[94] Gathorne-Hardy, p. 238.

[95] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 35.

[96] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 29-30.

Gathorne-Hardy.

Jones.

[97] Jones, p. 609.

[98] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 31, 77.

Jones.

[99] Jones, p. 604.

[100] Jones, pp. 490-491.

[101] Jones, p. 608.

[102] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 71-75.

Jones.

[103] Reisman, “Kinsey’s Paedophiles’ Excerpts From Yorkshire Television Transcript of Interview With Dr. Clarence Tripp”.

[104] Gathorne-Hardy, p. 307.

[105] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. p. 49.

[106] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. p. 49.

[107] BBC Documentary, Part 3.

[108] Jones, pp. 612-614.

[109] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 75.

[110] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 78.

[111] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp 137, 152, 158, 319.

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 31.

[112] BBC Documentary, Part 3.

Gathorne-Hardy, p. 317.

[113] Jones, p. 83.

[114] Jones, pp. 609-610.

[115] Jones, p. 609.

[116] Jones, p. 609.

[117] Jones, p. 610.

BBC Documentary, Part 3.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 76-77.

[118] Jones, p. 610.

[119] Jones, p. 738-739.

[120] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 76-77.

[121] Jones, pp. 739-740.

[122] Jones, pp. 738-741, 759-768.

[123] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 297.

Jones, pp. 130-131.

[124] Jones, p. 809.

[125] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 303.

[126] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 307.

[127] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 199-300, 304.

[128] Jones, p. 154.

[129] Jones, pp. 153-154.

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. p. 184.

[130] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. p. 180.

[131] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 20-21

[132] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 20, 181-183.

Reisman, J. (2003). 3rd Ed. Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 112-113.

[133] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 24.

[134] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 189.

[135] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 112-113.

[136] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 13.

[137] Jones, pp. 130-136.

[138] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 2-4, 9, 13.

[139] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 14.

[140] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 269-279.

Wormser.

[141]Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 37-39.

[142] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 29-32, 35-36.

[143]Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 29-32.

[144] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 29-30, 31, 71-74, 77.

[145] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 35, 275.

[146] Jones, pp. 738-741, 759-768.

[147] Jones, p. 610.

[148] Jones, p. 610.

[149] Jones, pp. 738-739.

[150] Jones, pp. 738-741, 759-768.

[151] Jones, p. 768.

[152] Jones.

Gathorne-Hardy.

[153] Jones, p. 768.

[154] Jones, p. 604.

[155] Jones, p. 185.

[156] Jones, p. 604.

[157] Jones, pp. 604-605.

[158] Gathorne-Hardy, p. 439.

[159] Jones, p. 766.

[160] Jones, p. xi.

Leave a Reply

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