See Luminosity

Part 4: Alfred Kinsey and Cultural Moral Transformation

Part 4: Alfred Kinsey and Cultural Moral Transformation


Read the other parts of this series here:

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


Secular principles of sexuality predominate our culture. They are evident in policy, education, and cultural life throughout the world. These principles find their roots in Alfred Kinsey, sex researcher from the 1940s and 50s, who advocated a radical “all sexual expression is natural” view of sexuality, grounded in stimulus/response. Part 3 explained Kinsey’s background, view of sex, and research methodology – which included using data obtained from the sex abuse of children. Although not discovered until 40 years after his work, Kinsey’s samples and methodology were fatally flawed – driven by his own sexual obsessions and crusade to normalize variant sexual behavior. In spite of this fact, Kinsey’s view of sexuality was used in widespread moral reform, and has shaped the foundation of how the world understands sexuality today.

Let’s investigate how that occurred.

Social Reformer

Kinsey biographer James H. Jones writes, “More than any other American of the twentieth century, [Kinsey] was the architect of a new sensibility about a part of life that everyone experiences and no one escapes”.[1] Stemming from his experiences growing up in rigidly legalistic religious household, Kinsey found science as his new religion, and sought to use that new religion to metamorphasize the sexual norms of society. Jones describes him as a “crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States.”[2] How did he seek to do this? By using “science to strip human sexuality of its guilt and repression…to undermine traditional morality”.[3]

Science, in Kinsey’s time, was replacing religion as the dominant source of truth. Spurred by Darwin’s Origin of the Species, The Bussey Institute at Harvard, which Kinsey attended, became the center for what became termed “New Biology” – a discipline, based on evolution, that focused on man’s ability to understand and control nature through science.[4] Specifically, New Biology proposed the idea that “biologists should become social engineers, shaping public policy and altering private attitudes on a variety of issues, ranging from eugenics to private morality”[5].  Science, according to this New Biology, should be the basis for cultural (and moral) change. Kinsey espoused this New Biology wholeheartedly, (including its emphasis on eugenics) and began to pore into his role as researcher and cultural reformer, with an almost spiritual ferocity. Jones notes, “His devotion to research bore the unmistakable stamp of displaced religious fervor. It was as though science was his new religion”.[6]

Kinsey began, with dogmatic determination and staggering intensity, to spread his version of this “religion” – in which science was the means to social transformation – to the masses. His tool for doing so was sex. Kinsey and his team set out on a course to create a new sexual morality – one in which “anything goes”. This new, uninhibited experience of sexuality was based on Kinsey’s belief that sexuality was simply a physiological response to stimulation, regardless of the “partner” (be that heterosexual, homosexual, animal, or mechanical), and that any guilt or negative feelings about sexual acts being “wrong” were simply repressive, inhibiting cultural messages that had been learned. And those beliefs were, of course, fueled by Kinsey’s own aberrant sexual desires. This radical view of sexuality included the determination that sexual norms and guidelines must necessarily be eliminated in order for people to have full, positive sexual lives.

In order to usher in a new era of “natural” and “uninhibited” sexuality, it was necessary to dismantle the traditional heterosexual norm of sexuality that placed sex within the confines of marriage and family. Kinsey worked to replace the traditional heterosexual model of sexuality, and its “rights” and “wrongs”,  with a completely revolutionary model – one based in stimulus/response. Indeed, Kinsey saw sexuality as the “capacity to respond to any…stimulus”.[7] In order to move people away from the normative heterosexual, marriage-based standard for sexuality, Kinsey promoted a distinctly homosexual model of sexuality that emphasized promiscuity, variety, experimentation, and lack of inhibition. This model disconnected sexuality from any emotional, relational and spiritual realities, and emphasized sexual experiences from childhood.

Kinsey’s radical model of sexuality has permeated our culture and is the dominant standard for understanding sex today.

Recipe for Social Change

Promiscuity and Compartmentalization of Sex

Kinsey presented all people as being sexually promiscuous, claiming to provide “evidence” of widespread promiscuity, pre-marital and extra-marital sex, and variant sex acts[8], in spite of using subjects that were not representative of the general population (including sex offenders, prison inmates, psychiatric patients, burlesque dancers, strippers, and prostitutes[9], and those Kinsey described as “the underworld”[10]). For example, Kinsey used an ambiguous definition of what “married” meant for his subjects, including as “married” women who were cohabitating with men (women who, at that conservative time in which “fornication” was punishable by law in many states, would have been sexually radical).[11] Kinsey also did not provide any data on normal births or mothers – all of his data related to births came from single women, unmarried women, and women who conceived through affairs outside of marriage. He further neglected to address, in any significant way, the potential consequences of recreational sex, such as rape, disease, pregnancy, and abortion. On the contrary, Kinsey presented unrestricted sex as a normal, uninhibited, carefree way to live. Probably most damaging was the compartmentalization of sexuality from any emotional, spiritual, or familial impact[12] – a principle of sexuality that has become deeply rooted in modern culture.

Kinsey further separated sex from marriage, relationship, and family by concluding that individuals were not able to reach orgasm in marriage because they “had not experienced orgasm on even a single occasion, from any type of sexual activity, prior to marriage”. [13]  For the first time, the notion that sexual satisfaction should be found within marriage was challenged by a new notion – that sexual satisfaction could be (and should be) improved by sexual activity outside of and before marriage.[14]

Kinsey’s Strategy for Sexual Change

Kinsey’s larger goal toward establishing an uninhibited sexuality involved two major themes: [15]

  1. A new understanding of sexual orientation and behavior based on a model of homosexuality
  2. Unrestricted sexual expression for everyone, including children

Toward this end, Kinsey’s major strategies were to establish bisexuality as the most balanced or “normal” orientation, and to institute the acceptance of cross-generational sex (sex between adults and children).[16] Both of these pieces have become hallmarks of modern secular sexuality.

Kinsey’s View of Sex – Homosexuality

From Heterosexual to Homosexual Model

It was Kinsey who laid the foundations for the modern gay movement. His efforts to establish a new model of sexuality required replacing the heterosexual norm with a homosexual one. In order to promote this homosexual-based model of sexuality, Kinsey had to change the way people thought about homosexual sexual activities – behaviors that had previously been deemed “wrong” and “deviant”. Kinsey propagated the notion that anal intercourse was just as natural and pleasurable for heterosexuals as vaginal intercourse. Traditional intercourse was a threat to Kinsey’s homosexual model of sex, so homosexual behaviors, such as sodomy and oral-genital activity, were promoted “as part of the evolving deconstruction of the cultural paradigm that emphasizes coitus as the dominant organizing and culminating sexual event”.[17] Normalizing sodomy, and promoting sexual behaviors outside of intercourse, were critical for the acceptance of Kinsey’s homosexual model of sexuality.

One of the most influential ways Kinsey challenged the heterosexual model of sexuality, and normalized homosexual behavior, was through his revolutionary understanding of sexual orientation. The heterosexual model of sexuality understood that there was one sexual orientation (heterosexual) that was grounded by nature (or God) in complementary genders (male and female) – and any other expressions of sexuality were distortions of or deviances from this norm. The Kinseyan homosexual model of sexuality introduced a completely new understanding of sexual desire and expression – that sexual orientation was not fixed, and not based on gender, but rather fell onto a continuum based simply on responses to sexual stimuli. There was no “right” or “wrong” sexual expression – there just was “what is”. According to Kinsey, people only exhibited heterosexual tendencies because they were culturally conditioned to do so.[18]

Kinsey argued that sexual limits (such as sex only within the confines of marriage) prescribed by society were unnatural. Kinsey saw bisexuality as the most superior form of sexuality, because it offered the greatest variety.[19] In the Male volume, Kinsey gives this conclusion about all types of sexual activity (including homosexual and animal contacts), “…If circumstances had been propitious, most individuals might have become conditioned in any direction, even into activities which they now consider quite unacceptable”.[20] In other words, in Kinsey’s model of sexuality, if there were no cultural conditioning toward heterosexuality and its traditional norms, a person’s sexual predilections and response would be determined simply by the sexual stimulus experienced, not any innate characteristic.

Although Kinsey claimed his view of sexuality to be morally neutral, it is clear that he did not view all sexual response as equally natural; he in fact viewed monogamy and traditional moral sexuality as against nature, and sexual intercourse between a man and a woman to be a limited form of expression.[21] An example of this, found in Kinsey’s Female volume, is in a section where Kinsey explicates that “half of the married females in the sample slept nude”. Kinsey’s commentary about those women who had sex with clothes on reveals both his bias and tendency toward unsubstantiated generalizations: “…It seems reasonable to conclude that the avoidance of nudity during coitus is a perversion of what is, in a biologic sense, normal sexuality” (Emphasis mine).[22] Ironically, for Kinsey, having sex with clothes on was a perversion, but having sex with animals or children was not.

The Kinsey Scale

Although his data did not support his theory about orientation, Kinsey created a seven-point scale that he used to categorize the sexual orientation of his interviewees. This scale, known as the “Kinsey Scale”, represented 0 as persons who were exclusively heterosexual, and 6 as those who were exclusively homosexual. “Bisexual” represented the neutral, balanced orientation in the middle between the two. The determination of where his subjects were placed on this scale was completely subjective according to the judgment of Kinsey and his team.[23] The Kinsey Scale continues to be one of the most widely used concepts in the field of human sexuality. It is difficult to overstate the effect the Kinsey scale, and Kinsey’s assertions about sexual orientation, have had on the way the world understands sexuality – profoundly impacting cultural perception, law, policy, and education.[24]

New Prevalence of Homosexuality

Kinsey claimed to provide “scientific” evidence that 10% of population was exclusively homosexual,[25] and that 37% of all males have had homosexual experiences.[26] These figures shocked the world and still, today (particularly the 10% figure), are regularly quoted as evidence of the prevalence of homosexuality. With this “scientific” data, homosexuality became “normal”; if close to half of the male population had had homosexual experiences, clearly, the world thought, it cannot be “wrong”, as previously thought.

However, as mentioned previously, Kinsey’s data did not support what he claimed. His sampling was not remotely representative of the general population – the large majority having been obtained from pedophiles, sexual offenders, psychiatric patients, criminals, prostitutes, pimps, or homosexuals participating in the gay underworld, including child subjects[27] and those he referred to as “feebleminded individuals”, with IQs below 70 – although Kinsey generalized his findings as if they were.[28] In addition to plying prisons and psychiatric centers for potential interviewees, Kinsey and his team went to gay bars, bathhouses, “tearooms” and “rooming houses”. While there, they not only took the sexual histories of, according to Pomeroy, “a subculture that was unknown to people” [29], but both observed the “sex sessions” of this sexual underground, and also actively participated in them.[30] Kinsey also used all manner of “statistical hokum” (as described by one former Kinsey Institute staff member) and outright deception to make the “data” obtained fit his preconceived conclusions – that homosexual behavior was frequent amongst all people, and that a good percentage of persons were exclusively homosexual.[31]

The Spread of the Homosexual Model

In spite of this fact, Kinsey’s homosexual model of sexuality gained tremendous ground, and began to replace the previous heterosexually-based, gender-grounded model of sexuality. Surprisingly, it was the AIDS crisis that provided the perfect opportunity for the Kinsey Institute to begin disseminating this homosexually-oriented view of sexuality on a broad scale. In 1981, the Kinsey Institute held a symposium for medically-oriented researchers on “AIDS and Sex”, in which carefully-chosen Kinsey advocates presented leaders in the world of AIDS research with the idea that gay sexuality was the norm.[32] The AIDS crisis, as the world began looking to medically-based research organizations (including the Kinsey Institute) to mobilize new approaches for addressing this new health risk, provided the perfect opportunity for the alternative Kinseyan model of sexuality to be promoted on a worldwide scale.[33] For example, one AIDS researcher commented in an AIDS Task Force presentation that up until then, “AIDS…researchers have not had the privilege [of learning] and the [benefit of] knowledge of what human sexuality is really like.”[34] Ironically, the AIDS crisis provided the perfect forum for the widespread indoctrination of homosexual behavior, even though anal intercourse with an HIV-positive person is one of the most significant risk factors for a person contracting AIDS.

The effectiveness of the Kinseyan model of sexuality was marked, in an official way, by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 1972, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a pathology from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – the book of psychological disorders used by clinicians for diagnosing mental illness and psychological disorders.[35] The move showcased the way Kinseyan sexuality had taken root in the deepest soil of culture. Currently, the world-wide push for gay marriage, rhetoric about traditional marriage law “discriminating” against homosexuals, adoptions for gay couples, insurance companies paying for transgender sex change operations, “genderless” bathrooms in schools, and the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in non-discrimination laws are all examples of just how effectively the Kinseyan model of sexuality has supplanted the traditional heterosexual one.

The supplanting of the heterosexual model of sexuality by a homosexual one, in which the concept of distinct genders was replaced by the Kinsey Scale concept of orientation, went hand in hand with a second goal of Kinsey’s sexual revolution: cross-sectional sexuality, or sex between adults and children.

Kinsey’s View of Sex – Childhood Sexuality

Children Benefit From Sex With Adults

The Kinsey model of sexuality – any sex, of any kind, for all persons – was not limited to adults. The Kinsey team not only utilized data based on the sexual abuse of children and collaborated with and protect pedophiles; they supported sexual contacts between adults and children, including pedophilia and incest. The Kinsey team’s radical view of sexuality included the belief that children benefitted from sexual encounters with adults. Kinsey documented incidents of incestuous relationships between children and adults (to whom he referred as “adult partners”).[36] He tabulated the number and type of sexual abuse contacts with children, writing, “In many instances, the experiences were repeated because the children had become interested in the sexual activity and had more or less actively sought repetitions of their experience (emphasis mine).[37] In Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, Kinsey further writes, “The adult contacts are a source of pleasure to some children and sometimes may arouse the child erotically and bring it to orgasm. It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched.”[38]

Kinsey’s view was that any fears or negative experiences a child had from sexual encounters with adults were “culturally conditioned”, and that “the emotional reactions of the parents, police officers, and other adults who discover the child has had such a contact may disturb the child more seriously than the sexual contacts themselves”.[39] Kinsey believed, in his later years, that pedophilia was less of a problem than the public’s negative reaction to it, and he testified to this fact before legislatures and courts. [40]

In Support of Adult-Child Sex

Kinsey’s embrace of adult-child sexual relationships is evident in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, as he writes: “Without help from more experienced persons, many pre-adolescents take a good many years to discover good masturbatory techniques that are sexually effective. It is probable that half or more of the boys in an uninhibited society could reach climax by the time they were 3 or 4 years of age.”[41] Although he acknowledges that there were “few instances of vaginal bleeding [resulting from the sexual contacts]”, Kinsey explains that they “did not appear to do any appreciable damage”, and admonishes that “the public should learn to distinguish…serious contacts from other adult contacts which are not likely to do the child any appreciable harm…”.[42]

Kinsey’s fellow researchers shared his promotion of sexual relationships between adults and children. One researcher, John Gagnon, “We may have to change the ways in which [children] learn about sex. We may have to become more directive…we may have to promote sexual activity”.[43] Clarence Tripp, once of Kinsey’s close associates defended pedophile data-provider “Green” (a psudonym for Rex King) in an interview with the BBC documentary “Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles, saying, “He [King] was never arrested for anything. All the children thought he was wonderful. All the mothers thought he was wonderful. There are… two incidences in which a young boy or girl…didn’t complain, they agreed to the sexual contact, but then they found it very painful and yelled out when it actually took place. This was because they were very young and had small genitalia, and Green was a grown man with enormous genitalia. And there was a fit problem.”[44]

No Such Thing as Child Abuse

The subject of rape in Kinsey’s work is treated as if it ceases to exist. In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey explains, “Many small girls reflect the public hysteria over the prospect of ‘being touched’ by a strange person; and many a child, who has no idea at all of the mechanics of intercourse, interprets affection and simple caressing, from any one except her own parents, as attempts at rape….”[45]. Tripp also expressed, “Pedophilia is an almost non-existent kind of crime. For instance they use words like child molestation. What is that? Nobody knows. Abuse of children? Are they talking about boxing them against the ear or hitting them with a stove pipe? Are they talking about tickling them a little? Are you talking about fondling? I hesitate to even call [Rex King] a paedophile.”[46]

Kinsey’s team had a similar positive view of incest; they believed that incest, or sex across generations, was beneficial for complete sexual development.[47] In an interview with Penthouse, Gebhard explained Kinsey was the first researcher to uncover evidence that violation of the [incest] taboo does not necessarily shake heaven and earth…lying with a near relative rarely ends in tragedy. In fact…I’m having a hard time recalling any traumatic effects at all.”[48] Kinsey colleague Wardell Pomeroy claimed the beneficial nature of incest, in a publication called Variations: “Incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience…”[49]

Childhood Sexuality Gaining Ground

This radical view of childhood sexuality has permeated our culture, in many profound ways. Some of these include the proliferation of child pornography, the relaxing of child sex abuse penalties and reduction in “age of consent”, mandated sex education for primary school age children, the increase of organizations and entities in support of pedophilia (such as NAMBLA) and the assertion (by Planned Parenthood and virtually all secular sexual health organizations) that children are sexual from birth and should experiment in order to achieve full sexual development.

Although multigenerational sex has not gained the cultural popularity that homosexuality has, the notion has steadily gained ground. Similar to the way homosexuality was eliminated from the manual of mental disorders in 1972, the APA has readjusted the criteria for pedophilia over the years. According to diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV, pedophilia only qualified as a disorder if the individual’s behavior or desire caused “clinically significant distress or impairment”.[50] In other words, according to the official diagnostic criteria, an individual who had sexual desire for children and acted on that desire would be diagnosed with pedophilia only if he felt distressed by his actions. Although, in response to tremendous criticism, the newest edition of the manual, (DSM-V), includes acting out one’s urges, rather than merely feeling distressed about them, as part of the diagnostic criteria,[51] this equivocation in the clinical world demonstrates the changes that have occurred in attitudes toward adult-child sex.

Just as Kinsey’s view of homosexuality began with normalizing homosexual sexual behaviors, the acceptance of adult-child sex has begun through normalizing childhood sex. As Part 1 and Part 2 demonstrated, comprehensive sexual education programs and materials now expose children as young as 5 to graphic photos and details about sexuality, and encourage them to experiment sexually, especially through masturbation. And, just like homosexuality, the next step for multigenerational sex to become an accepted part of society is for pedophilia to be considered an “orientation” rather than a “disorder”.

This has already begun. At the SSSS 31st Annual Conference, sex-offender expert Dr. Sharon Satterfield introduced this concept to the world, stating that pedophilia “may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation”.[52] Since that time, the idea has gained tremendous foothold. There is a push from a variety of sources including individuals in academia, to accept pedophilia as an orientation similar to homosexuality, especially when it is supposedly “consensual” between adult and child.[53]  In 1998, for example, in spite of significant flaws to a research study that rendered it unscientifically valid, the APA published a meta-analysis by Rind et al. which concluded that much of what is considered child abuse is actually simply a violation of societal norms  – and that children who “consent” to sex with adults often have positive reactions to the experience. [54] The Rind study has been used in court cases to defend convicted sex offenders[55]. Also, in 2011, psychology experts argued before Canadian parliament that pedophilia is a sexual orientation similar to homosexuality.[56]

The Shift in Sexual Model

Homosexuality and adult-child sex are the two major arms of the Kinseyan goal to change sexuality from a traditional, heterosexual norm to a homosexually-based approach in which any type of sex, with any subject (human or not), at any frequency is natural. The efforts toward inculcating this revolutionary view of sex have involved:

  • Redefining, by way of “scientific” proof, what “normal” sexual behaviors are considered to be
  • Introducing the concept that sexual satisfaction should be found outside of marriage
  • Changing the understanding of sexual orientation from gender-based to stimulus-based, with an emphasis on homosexuality
  • Normalizing variant and aberrant sexual behavior, as well as the idea of childhood sexuality, through education

All of these efforts have served the purpose of moving the culture away from the Judeo-Christian framework for sexuality, which connects sex to marriage and family. And they have effectively infiltrated the way our culture views, responds to and experiences sexuality.

Affect on Policy

Kinsey’s aim was to revolutionize the way the world understood sexuality by eliminating what he saw as the repressive effects of Judeo-Christian sexual norms. In order to do so, he saw public policy as the first major avenue by which to effect widespread cultural change, and he worked conscientiously to impact both public perception and law with his new model of sexuality.

Changes in American Law

When America was founded, American law was based on objective reality, rooted in truths or absolutes established by God.  As John Adams stated, “T]he highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”[57]Sir William Blackstone, whose book, Commentaries on the Law of England, and legal philosophy became the basis for American law, espoused a principle of fixed common law, the law of nature, which was revealed by God, and over all people. Blackstone’s natural law understood that law was defined by absolutes of good and evil established by the Creator; “right” and “wrong” were objective moral concepts rooted in biblical truths which contributed to the order of society.[58] This legal philosophy formed the basis for American law until the introduction of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species in 1859 brought about a major shift in the philosophy and practice of law, which subsequently began to shift to a subjective legal positivism, now known as case law. Based on evolutionary philosophy, case law understood that law, like all of life (according to Darwin’s evolutionary theory), evolved. Rather than studying the Constitution, law students began studying precedent, history, and previous court decisions. Evolving case law began at Harvard Law School in the 1870s, and therefore was firmly entrenched by the time Kinsey attended Harvard in 1916.[59]

Influencing Policy

Armed with the belief that law needed to change in order to accommodate his radical view of sexuality, Kinsey collaborated with legal and scientific scholars in the effort of providing them “evidence” from his research. As a result, four books published right around the same time as Kinsey’s Male volume praised Kinsey’s work and called for legal reforms based on his sex research, particularly related to the moral code as prescribed by law. These books, 1) Sex Habits of American Men: A symposium on the Kinsey Report, 2) The Ethics of Sexual Acts, 3) About the Kinsey Report, and 4) American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report, helped to launch a legal revolution based on Kinsey’s model of sexuality.[60] The introduction to one of those four books, The Ethics of Sexual Acts, summed up this new perspective: “Many…sex activities, illegal and “immoral,” but widely practiced, are recorded by both investigators…. Unless we want to close our eyes to the truth or imprison ninety-five percent of our male population, we must completely revise our legal and moral codes…. It comes probably as a jolt to many, even open-minded people, when they realize that chastity cannot be a virtue because it is not a natural state.”[61]

The American Law Institute (ALI) was given a grant in 1948 by the Carnegie Foundation, and then funding by Rockefeller Foundation, to revise the law, which was, according to ALI’s chief author Herbert Wechsler, steeped in common law, and in need of update.[62] Wechsler’s arguments for the reasons the common law code failed (and should be changed) included that it was: not based on science, focused on past behavior rather than controlling future conduct, retributive, and inadequately focused on the causes and dynamics of criminal behavior.[63] As a result, the ALI produced the Model Penal Code (MPC) and it was adopted by the American Bar Association in 1955.[64] Kinsey’s works comprised approximately one-third of the MPC’s citations, and 100% of the MPC’s empirical data on sex offenses referenced Kinsey.[65]

The MPC brought a tremendous shift to criminal law, using Kinsey’s research to bring penal codes into compliance with Kinsey’s new scientific evidence of what constituted “normal” human behavior. [66] After the revision of the Moral Penal Code, criminal laws were changed across the nation, to eliminate penal prohibitions “unless conduct unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests”.[67] The results were the redefinition and reclassification of sexual crimes and criminals so that standards and penalties for crimes such as rape, statutory rape, and child molestation were relaxed.[68] For example, the idea that children are sexual from birth led to a reduction in the “age of consent” for sex in many states, which put the burden of proof for sexual abuse on the child to demonstrate that the offender used force beyond his/her control to be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor.[69]

Laws banning public nudity, sodomy, sadism, were relaxed or eliminated. [70] Standards for obscenity were loosened and, in some cases, repealed all together, as the Kinsey team effectively fought for the right to use sexually explicit materials, even with children, in the name of science and education.[71] Dr. Judith Reisman explains, in Crimes and Consequences, that Kinsey wrote to one court official, “Almost without exception the several examples of behavior, which are known as perversions, are basic mammalian patterns…In non-inhibited societies and in non-inhibited portions of our own society, the so-called sex perversions are a regular part of the behavior pattern, and they probably would be so throughout the population if there were no traditions to the contrary. This statement applies to such things as mouth-genital contacts, anal coital acts, homosexuality, group activities, relations between individuals of diverse age, and animal intercourse.”[72]Kinsey’s “science” and his new model of sexuality, began the revolution of law that has continued to today.

Public policy, the first major obstacle toward Kinsey’s goal of changing the sexual norms of society, had been hurdled.

From Policy to Education

The next major area that would require change, in order for Kinsey’s variant sexual values to become mainstream, was that of education.

The reform of laws surrounding normative sexual behavior opened the door for sexual education to children. In Missouri, for example, prior to 1979 (when criminal law reform became effective there), state laws prohibited talking about sexual intercourse with anyone under the age of 21[73]. Once these modesty laws were eliminated, education became the next frontier for the advancement of Kinseyan values. However the process of infiltration of Kinseyan sexuality into education happened gradually, beginning at the top with graduate education and eventually trickling down into the primary grades in the 1990s.[74]

The indoctrination of Kinseyan sexuality started with the academic elite.

Kinseyan Accrediting Bodies

The Society for the Scientific Study of Sex (SSSS), a professional membership organization, was founded in 1957 for the purpose of advancing sexual knowledge. In 1983, the SSSS created a Committee on Accreditation, which created the guidelines and standards for the academic field of human sexuality. Kinsey team members Wardell Pomeroy and Paul Gebhard were key leaders on this committee, as well as editor of Journal of Pedophilia Vern Bullough, and homosexual Kinsey disciple Deryck Calderwood[75].

The intentions of the SSSS accreditation body were to reform the public’s understanding of what constituted “normal” sexuality. Pomeroy, for example, in a 1978 presentation to the Third International Congress of Medical Sexology in Rome, spoke of the need to “broaden our concept of what is sexuality”. He explained, “There is not only one way to be in sex but many, and that how we are is not so much a product of how we were born but rather how we were raised and oriented socially and taught to perceive psychologically and experientially”.[76] In addition to this idea that experience of sexuality is dependent upon what one is taught, the new standards for education would include the idea that homosexuality was simply a variation of sexuality, not an abnormality or illness, and would promote the idea that children were sexual from birth.[77]

This accreditation committee of the SSSS – essentially the Royalty of sexuality – formed a monopoly on the academics of sexology.  This monopoly has controlled who is recognized as a professional in the world of sexology academia, by influencing virtually all areas of professional activities, including hiring, firing, promotions, and publishing.[78] All sexology professionals had to adhere to a Kinseyan view of sexuality (in truth it would have been impossible for them to complete the required activities, many of which required seeing and participating in variant sexual activities, without doing so), and the accreditation committee ensures that they do so in order to advance in the field. As a result, graduate-level academic educators in the realm of human sexuality who adhere to a traditional Judeo-Christian view of morality have been effectively eliminated.[79]

The 3 Pioneer Sex Programs

The primary way this was accomplished is through control, by the Kinsey Elite, of the only three graduate sex programs in the United States. These 3 pioneering programs were:

  1. The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) – Directed by Kinsey researcher Wardell Pomeroy and Hustler magazine contributors Drs. Ted McIlvena and Erwin Haberlae
  2. The School of Education at New York University – Directed by Kinsey-disciple Deryck Calderwood
  3. The University of Pennsylvania – Directed by homosexual advocate Kenneth George[80].

Sexual Attitude Restructuring

Coursework for these graduate programs involved methods to desensitize students and break down any sexual inhibitions. One of the major ways this was accomplished was through a technique called SAR – Sexual Attitude Restructuring – which is still the standard training method for professionals in human sexuality today.[81] For example, the American Society of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT), the preeminent professional accrediting organization for professionals in sexuality counseling, requires training in the SAR desensitization technique as part of its certification of all sex professionals.[82]

SAR involves showing “an orgy of public sexual couplings and variant activities recorded on film and video”. Images of humans of every age and orientation, and animals, engaging in every conceivable sex act, are simultaneously shown on multiple screens, sometimes for hours, in an effort to change the brain’s response, and students’ attitudes, to acceptance of Kinseyan variant sexuality.[83] Because the brain processes strong emotional stimuli, such as sexual violence, excitement, fear, and pain, faster than non-emotional stimuli, SAR has the effect of shifting the brain’s chemistry and pathways to break down inhibitions so that the brain begins establishing sexual fantasy as reality.[84] The result is hypersexualized persons who become desensitized to strong, variant negative emotional and sexual experiences.

Breaking Down Inhibitions

In addition to SAR, academic programs for sexuality professionals utilize a variety of experiences to break down normative sexual frameworks and open students up to variant sexual experiences. For example, coursework for IASHS includes courses on how to use sex surrogates (prostitutes) in sex therapy, watching and making erotic sexual films, classes on child sexuality, “erotic sensate and massage therapy”, and courses on how to testify on the behalf of sex offenders and porn businesses.[85] NYU’s sex ed program, headed by Deryck Calderwood, included a workshop in which same-sex students were required to physically explore one another’s genitals while blindfolded. [86] Students, with a partner, also had to trade prostate exams.[87] Some of the child porn photos used in IASHS SAR films were later sold to Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt, who printed them.[88] From the beginning, academic sex education programs have successfully produced SAR-conditioned experts who lead the field in a Kinseyan “everything is natural” approach to sexuality.

Essentially, SSSS’s Committee on Accreditation  – The “Royalty” of academic sexuality – ensured that academic human sexuality training programs would follow a Kinseyan sexual philosophy, and that SAR-trained experts would dominate sexuality education across the board. The next step to cultural change was to ensure that all children, not just university students, would also receive this updated sexual education.


To accomplish this end, in 1964, the Kinsey Institute founded the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) in order to disseminate Kinseyan sexuality to children through public education.[89] Founders and members of SIECUS’ Board included Kinsey researchers Wardell Pomeroy and John Gagnon, Kinsey disciple Deryck Calderwood, and sex researchers Masters and Johnson.[90] The first director of SIECUS was Dr. Mary Calderone, former Medical Director of Planned Parenthood. Calderone brought together the pieces for the formation of a formidable sexual education weapon: SIECUS, the research from Kinsey, and the grassroots outreach of Planned Parenthood.[91] Since that time, SIECUS has collaborated with the United Nations and entities such as Planned Parenthood to develop comprehensive sex ed curricula, train teachers to teach sex ed, and influence policy around the promotion of comprehensive sexual education.[92] To put it succinctly, SIECUS is ground zero for sexuality education in the United States. More information about SIECUS, its goals, and its policies, can be found in Part 2.

SIECUS demonstrated Kinseyan values from the very beginning. For example, SIECUS’ February/March 1996 “Position Statement” on sexually explicit materials is as follows: “When sensitively used in a manner appropriate to the viewer’s age and developmental level, sexually explicit visual, printed, or on-line materials can be valuable educational or personal aids in helping to reduce ignorance and contributing to a wholesome concept of sexuality”.[93] A SIECUS paper on incest entitled “Attacking the Last Taboo” was quoted in the 1980 issue of Time Magazine: “We are roughly in the same position today regarding incest as we were a hundred years ago with respect to our fears of masturbation.”[94]

True to its roots, SIECUS has diligently and effectively ensured that Kinseyan sexuality is the basis for its training, policy advocacy, and sex ed materials. In 1991, SIECUS released its Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kingergarten-12th Grade, which constitute the standards for sex education in the United States. Part 2 gives examples of the learning objectives in these guidelines, which adhere to Kinseyan sexual values in such ways as:

  • Promoting the idea that sexual pleasure is a right
  • Sharing explicit sexual information with children as young as 5
  • Advocating for the normalcy of homosexual and bisexual interactions as well as transgender identity
  • Encouraging diverse sexual expression and experimentation (including masturbation for primary-grade children)

SIECUS’ guidelines have directly shaped comprehensive sexual education that is taught in the public schools at all levels.


In addition to the SSSS, the academic sex training programs, and SIECUS, the Kinsey agenda was disseminated to the masses through another political/medical/education giant: Planned Parenthood (PP). Its founder, Margaret Sanger, was also a Rockefeller grantee, and advocated a policy of eugenics through her “Birth Control League”, as it was originally called. Sanger’s organization advocated helping youth avoid pregnancy while being sexually active – a notion that was resisted by popular culture during the organization’s early years. Planned Parenthood started gaining significant cultural support in the 1940s and 50s, after Kinsey’s “findings” about childhood and female sexuality.[95]

Particularly helpful to PP’s cause was Kinsey’s data on women’s promiscuity.[96]  Interestingly, Kinsey’s Male and Female volumes did not directly address abortion.[97] Kinsey first presented his data on abortion at a 1955 abortion conference by Planned Parenthood, headed by PP Medical Director, Dr. Mary Calderone, with the plan of publishing another volume of research at a later time that would include more comprehensive research on the subject. That book was later published by Kinsey’s colleagues, entitled, Pregnancy, Birth, and Abortion, which was based on Kinsey’s data samples from the same time period at his Male and Female volumes.[98] At this PP conference, Kinsey reported that that between “88 to 95 percent” of premarital conceptions ended in induced abortion”[99] in his research, and that “among all single white females who have had coitus, 20 percent have had abortions”.[100] Kinsey also related that “about 87%” of all induced abortions… were performed by physicians.[101] The conference proceedings were published in 1958[102] in a book entitled Abortion in the United States.

Kinsey’s co-researchers’ follow-up book, “Pregnancy, Birth, and Abortion”, furthered the claim that Kinsey’s data showed that “between one quarter and one fifth [of married women sampled] had induced an abortion,”[103] and that “89 percent” of premarital pregnancies that ended before marriage were induced abortions.[104] The team also reported that Kinsey’s research demonstrated that those who had a pre-marital abortion became separated or divorced less often than those who had not had abortions, and that orgasm in those women’s first year of marriage was the same or a little higher than those who had not had an abortion.[105] Even further, the Kinsey team also reiterated Kinsey’s assertions about abortion overwhelmingly being performed by doctors: “’Physicians’ accounted for about 85% of the abortions…although in some of these cases the ‘physician’ did not have a medical license”.[106] In other words, abortion, the Kinsey elite asserted, was incredibly prevalent, safe, and beneficial for women and marriages.

In spite of the fact that Kinsey’s data were not representative of typical American women[107], these views of women’s sexuality and abortion were picked up by PP and SIECUS, who then widely disseminated the notion that abortions were common, and were performed by physicians (although even the Kinsey team acknowledged that those so-called physicians did not all have medical licenses) with favorable outcomes. The party line began to be that any “problems” from abortion were the result of illegal abortions not being performed by doctors.[108] This “data” were used to influence both the Model Penal Code, and the decision of the watershed abortion case, Roe v. Wade.[109]

Planned Parenthood has continued to be a phenomenally influential purveyor of Kinseyan sexuality. In addition to being the largest abortion provider in the United States, PP has significantly influenced public policy around issues of sexuality and abortion, and has helped to bring secular sexuality to the masses through education.

The Kinsey elite was successful at changing policy by controlling education. They accomplished this by first dominating all of the academic programs on human sexuality for professionals, creating accrediting bodies that required an adherence to Kinseyan sexual philosophy, developing SIECUS – the body for disseminating sexual education to children – and through forming alliances with such grassroots organizations as Planned Parenthood. As a result, the Kinseyan model of sexuality has been successfully established as the standard for our culture.


Alfred Kinsey helped to change the world – to reform the way the world viewed and understood sexuality. He successfully worked to supplant a Judeo-Christian, gender complementarity-based framework for sexuality with a new, secular understanding of sexual orientation and behavior based on a model of homosexuality, and included the belief that everyone, including children, should be able to express themselves sexually with no restrictions. Kinsey’s research and influence combined with social and political forces to impact policy and education throughout the United States with his new, “scientific” understanding of sexuality. The revision of the Moral Penal Code, subsequent relaxing of laws related to sexual offenses, establishment of Kinseyan-based graduate sex ed programs, control over accrediting bodies, creation of SIECUS, and partnership with Planned Parenthood were all steps along the path toward a world-wide shift to a secular view of sexuality, in which pleasure is seen as a “right” and “freedom” means unrestricted sex in any manner of one’s choosing. It is this sexual philosophy that undergirds virtually every part of popular culture, and is actively being disseminated to children.

But it is a lie – a lie to which Kinsey’s own life attests.

Unrestricted sex does not make one free, but a slave to the consequences that ensue. Sex is not first a freedom, but a responsibility. Pleasure and freedom are not ultimately found in sex however we want it but, as Part 5 will address next, in following the guidelines of the One who created it.

Kinsey was right about one thing – sex can bring about pleasure and freedom. But, like everything else in life, pleasure or freedom can only be found in the God who is pleasure and freedom. And sex can only be truly good – bringing freedom, pleasure, and joy without negative consequences – if it is enjoyed in the means for which God made it: a permanent, exclusive marital union between husband and wife.

Part 5 will explore the ways that God’s plan for sex does not, as Kinsey believed, keep people repressed or restricted, but instead provides the appropriate channel for the power that sex has – so that it can be beneficial rather than harmful.

Alfred Kinsey found that sex was power. Yet power unrestrained always leads to destruction.


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

[2] Jones, p. xii.

[3] Jones, p. xii.

[4] Jones, p. 130.

[5] Jones, p. 154.

[6] Jones, p. 154.

[7] 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. P. 33. Retrieved from

[8] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, Pp. 90-99, 107-108.

[9] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 112.

[10] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 93.

[11] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 107-108.

[12] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 109-110.

[13] Kinsey, A. et al. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. W.B. Saunders Co.: Bloomington, IN. p. 172. As quoted in Reisman, pp. 123.

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

[15] Pomeroy, W. (1972). Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research. Harper and Row. In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 195.

[16] In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 202, 205.

[17] Presentation by Institute member William Simon at the 1981 Kinsey Institute symposium on “AIDS and Sex”. In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 200.

[18] Kinsey, A. et al. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. p. 450. In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 137.

[19]Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 45.

[20] Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., and Martin, C. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. p. 678.

[21]Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 138.

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

[23] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 137.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 254.

[24] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 254.

[25] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior In the Human Male, p. 650.

[26] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior In the Human Male, p. 656.

[27] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 49-50.

[28] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 59.

[29] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 94.

[30] Gathorne-Hardy, J. (2004). Kinsey: Sex the Measure of All Things. Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN. p. 137.

Jones, p. 384.

[31] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 24-25.

[32] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 198.

[33] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 199.

[34] Voeller, B. (1987, Nov. 6). In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 199.

[35] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 141.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 236.

[36] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 67-68.

[37] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 118.

[38] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 121.

BBC Documentary, Part 3 (1998). “Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles.” Tate, T., Director. Yorkshire Television Production. Retrieved from

[39] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. As quoted in Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 121.

[40] BBC Documentary, Part 6 (1998). “Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles.” Tate, T., Director. Yorkshire Television Production. Retrieved from

[41] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 170. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 131.

[42] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. As quoted in Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 75-76.

[43] Gagnon, J. (1977) Human Sexualities. p. 381. In Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 138.

[44] BBC Documentary, Part 2 (1998). “Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles.” Tate, T., Director. “Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles.”  Yorkshire Television Production. Retrieved from

[45] Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 238.

[46] Transcript of interview with Clarence Tripp in Yorkshire documentary. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 138.

[47] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 119.

[48] Dec. 1977 issue, p. 118. As quoted in Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 69.

[49] Variations (1997), pp. 86-88. As quoted in Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 70.

[50] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 236.

[51] American Psychiatric Association (2013). Paraphilic Disorders. DSM-V Implementation and Support. Retrieved from

American Psychiatric Association (2012). “Practice-Relevant Changes to the DSM-IV-TR. Retrieved from

[52] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 206.

[53] Henley, J. (2013, Jan. 2). “Paedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires to Light”. The Guardian. Retrieved from

The Provacateur (2008, Aug. 17). “The Rind Study: Justifying Pedophilia”. Retrieved from

[54] The Leadership Council (2005). “The Leadership Council’s Examination of the Rind Meta-Analysis”. Retrieved from

Dallam, S. et al. (2001). “The Effects of Child Abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman.” Psychological Bulletin. American Psychiatric Association. 127(6). Retrieved from

[55] The Leadership Council (2005). “Misuse of Rind Study: Legal Cases Where  Rind’s Work Has Been Cited in Defense of Alleged Child Molesters.” Retrieved from

[56] Millette, R. (2011, Feb. 28). “Pedophilia ‘A Sexual Orientation’ Experts Tell Parliament”. Life Site News. Retrieved from

Parliament of Canada. 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (2011, Feb. 14).

[57] Speech by John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821, found in William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, Fame Publishing, Coppell, TX. 1994, p. 18. In Reisman, J. (2003). 3rd Ed. Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences. p. 197.

[58] 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. 9-10. Presented by RSVP America Campaign. Retrieved from

[59] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 198-199.

As referenced in Jeffrey, pp. 9-10.

[60] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 189-193, 195-196.

[61] Benjamin, H. (1948). “Introduction” to Rene Guyon, The Ethics Of Sexual Acts, Alfred A. Knopf: New York. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 190-191.

[62] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 188, 200-201.

[63] As referenced in Jeffrey & Ray, “A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code”, p. 13.

[64] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 187.

[65] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 204.

[66] Jeffrey & Ray, “A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code”, p. 14.

[67] Jeffrey & Ray, “A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code”, p. 14.

[68] Jeffrey & Ray, “A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code”, p. 27.

[69] Jeffrey & Ray, “A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code”, p. 31.

[70] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 237.

[71] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 239.

[72] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 246.

[73] Richardson, O. Missouri Law Review. Vol. 38, 1973, p. 397. As referenced in Jeffrey, p. 14.

[74] Reisman, J. (1996). RSVP America. First Principles, Inc.: Crestwood, KY.  p. 6. Retrieved from

[75]Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 121.

Reisman, RSVP America. pp. 23.

Reisman, J. Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 172.

[76]Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 16-17.

[77]Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 121.

[78] Reisman, RSVP America. pp. 22-23.

[79] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 174-175.

[80]Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 170.

Reisman, RSVP America. p. 21.

[81] Reisman, RSVP America, pp. 22-23.

[82] AASECT (2011, Mar. 9). AASECT Requirements For Sex Therapist Certification”. Attitudes/Values Training Experience. Retrieved from

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 175.

Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 134.

[83] Reisman, RSVP America, p. 25.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 173.

[84] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 173-174.

[85] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 171.

[86] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 151, 155.

[87] Reisman, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 151.

[88] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 82.

[89] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 32.

[90] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 175.

[91] Family Watch International “Special Report, Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Sexual Rights vs. Sexual Health”. Pp. 5-7. Retrieved from

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p.. 176.

[92] Reisman, RSVP America. pp. 19-23.

Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 176-179.

[93] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 177.

[94] As quoted in Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 178.

[95] Reisman, RSVP America. pp. 15.

[96] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 249-250.

[97] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 107, 119, 247-250.

[98] Jeffrey & Ray, ”The Scientific Fraud at the Heart of Roe v. Wade: Kinsey’s Abortion Legacy.” RSVP America: Crestwood, KY. Pp. 1-2. Retrieved from

[99] Jeffrey & Ray, ”The Scientific Fraud at the Heart of Roe v. Wade: Kinsey’s Abortion Legacy”, p. 2.

[100] Jeffrey & Ray, ”The Scientific Fraud at the Heart of Roe v. Wade: Kinsey’s Abortion Legacy”, p. 3.

[101]Marshall, R. and Donovan, C. (1991). Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA. p. 261. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 251.

Human Life International. “Facts of Life. Chapter 7: Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion: The Prevalence of Illegal Abortions.” Retrieved from

[102]Jeffrey & Ray, ”The Scientific Fraud at the Heart of Roe v. Wade: Kinsey’s Abortion Legacy”, p. 2.

[103] Paul Gebhard, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Cornelia Christenson (1976). “Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion,” in Sex Research Studies from the Kinsey Institute, Martin S. Weinberg, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 100. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 249.

[104] Gebhard et al., p. 119. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 249.

[105] Gebhard et al., p. 213. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 249.

[106] Gebhard et al., p. 212. In Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 250.

[107] Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 247-249.

Jeffrey & Ray, ”The Scientific Fraud at the Heart of Roe v. Wade: Kinsey’s Abortion Legacy”, pp. 2-4.

[108]Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, pp. 250-251.

[109] The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision cites the Model Penal Code, which in turn credits its sources on the subject to Kinsey disciple Mary Calderone and Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard. – The American Law Institute Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft 9, May 9, 1959, § 207.11, n. 1 In Reisman, Crimes & Consequences, pp. 246-247.

[110] Testimony of Alfred C. Kinsey before the Assembly Interim Committee on Judicial System and Judicial Process of the California Legislature, 1949, Recorded in the Assembly Journal, March 8, 1950, p. 135-136. 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. Presented by RSVP America Campaign, p. 15.

[111] 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. Presented by RSVP America Campaign, p. 15.

[112] New York Times, May 8, 1949, page 59, column 3. As quoted 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. Presented by RSVP America Campaign. P. 12. Retrieved from

Leave a Reply

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