Kinsey

The Glorification of a Child Sex Abuser,

His Perverted Sexuality & Bad Science

Dr Kerrie Allen

How many of you have seen or considered seeing Hollywood’s latest blockbuster ‘Kinsey: Lets Talk About Sex’ starring Liam Neeson and others? SBS describes the film as “the story of a scientist who made it his life work to drag sex out of the closet…”.
The film itself portrays Kinsey as a “gentle, distracted academic”, and other commentaries have described his scientific work as altruistic, or else have concurred with the majority of the uninformed that Kinsey “paved the way to sexual sanity” – “liberating” and “curing” people from sexual fears and dysfunction guilt.

Altruistic? A reputable scientist? I think not, and I am qualified to make these comments being a PhD researcher myself. There are two main problems with Alfred Kinsey’s work – one is ethical and pertains to the sexual abuse of children as young as two months of age, and the other is methodological – his population of participants used to make conclusions for his adult studies were drawn mostly from incarcerated criminals and sex offenders – hardly people from which to draw data about healthy sexuality, and to make generalisations to the general public. Both of these problems lead to only one conclusion: Kinsey was what today’s current climate would call a paedophile, he had perverted ideas about sexuality, and he was a bad scientist.

Sex Crimes Perpetrated Against Children
Probably the most horrific part of Kinsey’s studies was his use of children in order to present that sexual arousal is possible in children as young as two months. Table 34 (Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male) gives examples of children under the age of 13 having multiple orgasms. How was this data collected? The children were sexually stimulated for 24 uninterrupted hours. Paul Gebhard, an assistant of Kinsey, reported that his team used “manual and oral techniques” to produce orgasms. A Baltimore paediatrician inquired as I do now and hopefully as many readers also will:
could children as young as two months voluntarily participate in this ‘research’? Further, how could any ethical board allow this ‘research’ to occur – research which is nothing more nor less than child sex abuse at its most horrifying.

Gebhard also confirmed that some of the men on the child sexuality team included child molesters who were obtained from prisons and paedophile organisations around the world. “Mr. X” – a man who conducted many of these ‘experiments’ on children was later discovered to be Mr. Rex King, a serial child rapist of more than 800 children!

Considering this shocking truth about Kinsey’s child research, can we Australians watch this film with a clear conscience? After all, these children could have been ourselves, our own children or grandchildren. The sexual abuse of children far from being altruistic is criminal activity that demands punishment.

Methodological Bias
The second issue that should concern Australian society is that the conclusions Kinsey drew for his adult studies were based on skewed data: 1,400 criminals and sex offenders (paedophiles, street walkers, prostitutes, people who had sex with animals and imprisoned homosexuals) were classified as representing “normal people”. From data collected from interviewing these people Kinsey concluded that 95% of the American male population regularly indulged in a deviant sexual activity such as extra-marital affairs, homosexuality or paedophilia. Had his research sample been representative of the population as a whole, very different findings would most likely have been found.
How many heterosexual Aussie men are happy with hearing that you’re not normal unless you have sex with a cow or a dog or a child? Or cheat on your wife?

With regard to the female sample, the same biased sampling is evident through use of a misrepresentative population. He classified a married woman as any woman who had lived with a man for at least a year, which could include prostitutes. He also excluded 934 Afro-American women from participating as they were “unrepresentative of the population”, but startlingly included 31 females who had copulated with animals!

How can Kinsey’s research be taken seriously when such bias has occurred in sampling? The Lancet asked the same question pointing out that Kinsey “questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behaviour”.

Conclusion
Rather than dragging “sex out of the closet”, thorough research has instead dragged depraved behaviour, child abuse and bad science out of Kinsey’s own closet.
Australia is ever increasingly being infiltrated with American culture and ideologies, Kinsey’s ideas are the last we should ever allow into our country - do not be fooled by Hollywood’s glamorising of him.

For more information about Kinsey two excellent references are: ‘Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences’ by Dr.
Judith Reisman, and 1998 British Documentary ‘Secret
History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles’ on BBC Radio.