[COMMENT: Back in 1988, when I was first getting introduced to this horrendous mess, I met Judith Reisman (see article below) and Edward Eichel who were then collaborating on their book, Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud. I was at the time writing Biblical Sexuality & the Battle for Science (see Shopping Mall) in preparation to respond to the bold advances of the pansexual agenda in the Episcopal Church via then Bishops John Spong in Newark, NJ, and Arthur Walmsley in my own diocese of Connecticut. Reisman and Eichel very graciously shared with me much of their material on Kinsey before they themselves had published it, hoping (vainly, as it turned out) to help make a difference on the Episcopal situation. I incorporated a summary of their material into the third chapter of Biblical Sexuality.
Biblical Sexuality was mailed to every bishop, priest, and lay person who was a delegate to the 1988 Episcopal General Convention in Detroit.
I took my material off to the Detroit convention, and put on a workshop documenting the difference between honest Biblical sexuality and the neo-paganism which was emerging, with graphic demonstration of the kinds of materials being used in Episcopal sex-ed courses.
I posed the question to the assembled bishops, priests, and lay delegates: "Do you want to be Christians or pagans? Choose this day whom you will serve...." The information never made it to the floor of debate. For the next three conventions (1991 in Phoenix, 1994 in Indianapolis, 1997 in Philadelphia), I continued to supply information to the Episcopal delegates, including the summary of the evidence on homosexuality, which I wrote at the Indianapolis convention (and which formed the first nucleus of Homosexuality: Good & Right in the Eyes of God?).
If they had read and digested the material supplied to them, if they had had the courage needed to press the issues to the floor of debate, the course of sexuality in the Episcopal Church would have taken a far different turn. The Episcopal delegates, specifically the conservative leadership, had no reason not to know the nature and devastating consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. They were being told. That evidence, never, or only rarely, and never with graceful persistence, made it to the floor of the debate.
The Episcopal Church "conservative" (in skeptical quotes) leadership essentially gave the fight away to the homosexualists. The homosexual agenda could never survive an honest airing of their behavior. The Episcopal Church is today reaping the consequences of that cowardly failure in the face of conflict. The Episcopal conservative leadership has only itself to blame.
Be that as it may, the battle is not lost, because truth is the only winnable cause. When truth wins, everybody wins. And in the end, God will have it no other way. God is raising up a Gideon Army which will one day take back America and Western Civ for Himself. And then Western Civ will be again a force to be reckoned with in the evangelization of the world.
If, after reading the Riesman/Brinkmann article below, you are still squeamish about playing hardball with Kinseyites, read the piece from Canada at the end. The cesspool has no bottom -- until it ends, finally, in total self-destruction at Gehenna.
[This series is
based on the book by Dr. Judith Reisman,
"Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences,"
available at www.drjudithreisman.org]
those too young to remember, there's not a soul in America who hasn't
wondered about the rapid decline of morality in this country. In just
forty years, we went from a country of traditional family values to a
nation of widespread promiscuity, cohabitation and soaring divorce rates.
At the same time, crime rates have exploded, particularly sex crimes
against women and children. How could things go so wrong so fast?
Many experts answer this question with two words: sex research.
It all began in 1948 with the publication of a book entitled, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," written by a man named Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana University. This book contained what was purported to be startling new revelations about human sexuality, most of which shattered all previous traditional notions about mankind's most intimate behavior. Some of these conclusions were: children are sexual from birth; sexual promiscuity is normal; rape is one of the most "forgettable" crimes against women; the only difference between the average man and the sex offender is that one got caught and the other didn't.
In spite of its controversial content, the book was an enormous success mostly because of it's timing and the well-funded media blitz that surrounded it. Launched during the early days of America's infatuation with science, the author, Alfred C. Kinsey, was presented to the public as an upstanding mid-western family man who was employed by the prestigious Indiana University.
Not until after his death in1956 did biographers begin to uncover a few cracks in the carefully constructed veneer of respectability that surrounded Alfred C. Kinsey and his work. According to his own personal correspondence, Kinsey was a homosexual with a marked preference for young boys. He was also an atheist and a confirmed bigot who refused to hire Jews, blacks, Christians and anyone who embraced traditional moral values.
He oversaw the filming of live sex-acts at Indiana University and in his home, which were performed by members of his own staff and their families, all of whom were expected to participate whether they wanted to or not.
Even more damaging were new revelations about how Kinsey conducted his "research" regarding child sexuality. The determination that "children are sexual from birth" was deducted from "data" he collected from pedophiles who regularly sent him the details of their sordid crimes. A 1998 British documentary entitled, "Secret History: Kinsey's Pedophiles," documents the case of a notorious German pedophile who was on trial for the rape and murder of a ten year old girl when his personal correspondence with Kinsey was uncovered. The film was never shown in the United States.
And for good reason. The American public would never accept this behavior from anyone claiming to be a legitimate scientist.
But that's exactly what Alfred C. Kinsey purported to be, even though the real scientific community raised serious questions about his research at the time of his first publication. Some of the worlds most prestigious scientists complained about his unscientific methodology.
For instance, the questionnaire Kinsey used to collect his data asked questions of such an intimate and private nature the only people who would answer it were deviants and incarcerated sex offenders. Even the distinguished British medical journal, the Lancet, warned the public that Kinsey had "questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior."
And why was there never a professional statistician on Kinsey's staff even though his deductions were entirely based upon the statistical analysis of data?
But Kinsey's work was being funded by money from the Rockefeller Foundation, which was more than enough to eclipse these complaints and launch a second book. "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female," was published in 1952 and again relied upon a data-base full of prostitutes and other female sexual non-conformists.
While the scientific community continued to clamor for clarity, Indiana University established the powerful Kinsey Institute and began to proliferate Kinsey's bogus data into what would become a new field of science - sex research. Aligned with Playboy and Planned Parenthood, it would eventually become the number one provider of America's sex-education programs, which is known today as the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS).
In the half century since Kinsey's death, this bogus behavioral information wove its way into the moral fabric of our nation, from the individual to the family, from the classroom to the courtroom. Meanwhile, a whole new cottage industry grew up around the nation's increasing immorality - the sex industry. Anxious to serve our new needs, pornography, sex education and what is politely called "womens reproductive health" - aka, abortion, sterilization and birth control - now rake in billions of dollars a year.
And let's not forget Hollywood, who has pocketed the most from our moral decline and has done more than its share to maintain the momentum in our nation's downward spiral. But the movie they began filming in the spring of 2003 goes beyond the pale. Starring Liam Neeson and scheduled for release in early 2004, it will present the life and work of Alfred C. Kinsey in the most glowing terms. Instead of presenting the facts, it will glorify him as a persecuted hero who found himself trapped in a world of sexual repression.
Thankfully, many of the experts are sounding the alarm. One of them is Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally renowned authority on Alfred C. Kinsey's false sex data, who addressed the Catholic Leadership Institute at the Wyndham Hotel in Philadelphia in October, 2002. Her audience listened in stunned disbelief as she presented some of the most pristine scholarship available on the subject of bogus sex research and how it has contributed to many of today's social ills.
Sporting credentials as sound as her methodology, Reisman earned a doctorate in mass media affects from Case Western Reserve University and went on to study at Haifa University in Jerusalem until the U.S. Department Justice awarded her a Full Research Professorship at American University. Her work has been used by the F.B.I., the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Justice, and in a number of international government hearings on science fraud, child sexual abuse, juvenile delinquency, rape and sex crime, and pornography.
But it should be pointed out that Dr. Reisman's interest in the subject is not confined to mere scholarship.
Her daughter, Jennie, was raped at the age of ten by a 13 year old boy who later admitted that he drew his inspiration from his father's "girlie magazines." When Reisman broke the news to her family and friends, too many of them tried to comfort her with the notion that "children are sexual from birth." Where were they getting these ideas?
Her search for an answer lead her into a world she never knew existed - the world according to Alfred C. Kinsey. What she found there is meticulously documented in her book, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences."
Dr. Reisman has authorized the publication of a multi-part series based on the research contained in her book, and written exclusively for the Catholic Standard and Times, which will begin next week.
Kinsey was born in Hoboken, New Jersey on June 23, 1894. Raised in a strict
Methodist home where dancing, tobacco, alcohol and dating were forbidden, he
would eventually sever all ties with his parents - and their religion - and
live the rest of his life as an avid atheist.
He attended Bowdoin College as a zoology major with a primary interest in insects, graduating in 1916 and electing to continue these studies at Harvard's Bussy Institution. His atheistic beliefs found ample nourishment at Harvard where Darwinism and the "New Biology," which denied the existence of God, was enjoying immense popularity on campus.
Although early Kinsey biographers, such as Cornelia Christenson, portray Kinsey as being shy and disinterested in sex, later biographers discovered a much different picture from Kinsey's personal correspondence.
As Dr. Reisman documents in her book, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," the reason he spent so little time around women was because he preferred his own sex, especially young boys. He joined the Boy Scouts as a Scout Leader at the late age of 17 and in a letter he wrote to a fellow Newark YMCA counselor in 1921, Kinsey brags about the "nature library" he kept in his tent that was used as a rendezvous for boys. This "nature library" consisted of nudist magazines that contained drawings and photographs of nude boys as well as adult men.
Kinsey's interest in young boys continued after college and into his professorship at Indiana University. By then, he had married Clara Bracken McMillen with whom he had four children, one of whom died in childhood. Clara was not only supportive of Kinsey's sexual deviance, she sometimes participated in it, such as in the wife-swapping and the making sex films with Kinsey staff members in the attic of their home.
She was also quite tolerant of his long camping trips away from home with young male students. During one of these excursions, Kinsey was actually photographed in the nude in the middle of camp. James H. Jones, the author of the biography, "Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public and Private Life," quotes a student who described Kinsey's habit of bathing with his students and ". . . striding about camp naked. You'd see him going to the bathroom . . . he'd just take a leak right in front of us."
The wife of one of these students was not at all pleased with this behavior and claimed that Kinsey took advantage of the young men during group masturbation sessions.
Commenting about this outrageous conduct in his biography, Jones, who was pro-Kinsey, remarked that "Professors did not engage in that sort of behavior with their graduate students, yet Kinsey seemed totally oblivious to sexual taboos . . . as though he was determined to flaunt them . . . Kinsey had become a sexual rebel . . . manipulative and aggressive, a man who abused his professional authority and betrayed his trust as a teacher. Only a compulsive man would have taken such risks."
This is especially true since the American public of the 1940's and 50's would never have sanctioned the work of a scientist who conducted himself in this manner. Jones writes: "Any disclosure of any feature of this private life . . . would have been catastrophic for his career. For Kinsey, life in the closet came complete with a wife and children . . . a public image that he preserved at all costs."
Even in these early days, Kinsey was aware of the necessity of presenting a clean image to the American public. After the death of one of his closest friends, Ralph Voris, he and Clara drove all the way from Indiana to Ohio to secretly remove correspondence from Voris' office that revealed incriminating details about Kinsey's homosexuality, such as his collection of "gorgeous" male homosexual photographs that he frequently bragged about to Voris.
In 1938, his career as a sex researcher officially began when the Association of Women Students at Indiana University asked him to create a "marriage course" on human sexuality for students who were either engaged or married. Indiana University still insists that Kinsey was chosen for the course because he was a well-respected professor of zoology who was a "disinterested scientist, a person with no ax to grind . . ." in spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary.
As Dr. Reisman points out, by the time Kinsey arrived in Indiana, he was an avowed atheist who embraced the science of eugenics, which called for the elimination of "lower level" Americans. That he had an "ax to grind" was evident in his life-long refusal to permit Blacks, Jews, and committed Christians on his staff.
Beneath his carefully crafted veneer of respectability, Kinsey's Marriage Course grew in popularity, especially the graphic "biology"sex segments, which caused so many complaints among the faculty. Nevertheless, the Board of Trustee's approved the course for a second year, along with a list of 350 intimate sexual questions that Kinsey intended to ask students in order to begin compiling data.
These 350 questions would become the basis for his infamous "interviews" or "sex histories" and the data acquired would be used in his two major publications, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female."
The questions asked in this questionnaire were so intimate they would be considered an invasion of privacy by today's standards. For instance, interviewees were asked when - not if - they had participated in any violent sadistic sex acts, experimented with members of the same sex, children, and animals.
The collection of these histories was of critical importance to Kinsey's "research" and he went to great lengths to obtain them, which wasn't easy during the 1940's. He was increasingly prone to badgering and even bullying people to get them. This did not exclude many university professors and administrators, whose histories contained details about adulterous and homosexual activity unknown to anyone but Kinsey.
"Kinsey's possession of such sex secrets amounted to a subtle form of coercion bordering on blackmail," Dr. Reisman writes, and the clever use of this control device explains how Kinsey managed to maintain such complete support from the University. His close friendship with Herman Wells, the President of the University and a bachelor who lived alone with his mother, also insured the continuation of his work.
The giving of sex histories was not the only lurid requirement of anyone hired by Kinsey. The assistants who would later become his co-authors, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard, were also required to be filmed in intimate sexual situations. The filming took place on the Indiana campus or in the attic of the Kinsey home by professional cinematographers, Bill Dahlenback and Clarence Tripp.
This requirement was also imposed upon family members of the staff, whether they wanted to participate or not. The wife of one staff member describes the "sickening pressure" put on her to agree to have sex on film. Dr. Reisman cites a film in the Kinsey library that shows "a woman who, despite her visible distress, was bullied into a sexual performance by her husband."
In spite of the obvious risks involved, the practice continued because, as Jones wrote in his biography: "Kinsey wanted his staff to understand that as scientists, they are not bound by bourgeois morality."
Alfred Kinsey would exhibit this elitist's attitude throughout his career, demanding uncontrolled access to the most intimate aspects of people's lives while claiming it was in the interest of science.
For this reason, renowned scholar, Ashley Montagu, believed Kinsey suffered from "scientomania," a condition where the scientist loses control of his desire to know and produces a scientific character that is out of balance. The results of such characters in the field of science are, in Montagu's opinion, "too frightening to contemplate."
by Susan Brinkmann
In Part One of this series, we read about the high degree of sexual nonconformity that was required of Kinsey staff members. In her book, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," Dr. Judith Reisman raises the question of whether or not this requirement contributed to the lack of professional expertise among those chosen to work on Kinsey's team.
For instance, Clyde Martin, a key Kinsey aid and co-author, had no background or training in statistics and yet he was charged with all of the statistical analysis of data for what would become an internationally known project. Even complaints from Kinsey's main financier, the Rockefeller Foundation, about the absence of a professional statistician on the staff, could not persuade Kinsey to fix this critical problem. Reisman suspects that he was unable to find a credible statistician who possessed the degree of sexual deviancy and anti-religious bias he required.
These troubles only added to Kinsey's larger problem - a sexually explicit and highly offensive questionnaire that few "typical" American men were willing to answer. This paucity of respondents was made worse by World War II, which had called many men into service, leaving the only other available source of men to be those attending colleges and universities. But few of these men would give the kind of intimate sex histories Kinsey wanted.
Therefore, Kinsey was compelled to rely upon "volunteers," mostly deviants and a variety of sexual rebels, including incarcerated criminals, streetwalkers, prostitutes and other miscellaneous riff-raff. In order to make the data appear representative of the "normal" American population, Kinsey was forced to engage in what is known as "category manipulation."
In example, a category labeled "college-level" was substituted for "college" in order to include men who might conceivably go to college. Such a broad category included just about anyone, from juvenile delinquents and to the feeble-minded, anyone who might, by some gigantic stretch of the imagination, end up in a college classroom one day.
In a more outrageous example, Kinsey classified 1400 criminals and sex offenders as "normal" on the grounds that such miscreants were essentially the same as other men - except that these had gotten caught. The "human males" category could then include incarcerated pedophiles, pederasts, homosexual males, boy prostitutes and miscellaneous sexual predators.
Clyde Martin, the "statistician," admitted that criminal and abnormal men permeated the sample to such a degree that the only way to clean it up would amount to rewriting the entire book.
Abraham Maslow, a psychologist of global acclaim in the 1940's, and a friend of Kinsey, had already proven that volunteers in a sex study were usually "unconventional" men and women with high rates of unhealthy and disapproved sexual activity. Relying upon these volunteers - even those not counted among prison populations - would produce results that showed a "falsely high percentage of non-virginity, masturbation, promiscuity and homosexuality in the population."
Which is precisely what happened. According to Kinsey's skewed data, 95 percent of the American male population regularly indulged in deviant sexual activity such as extra-marital affairs, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.
Maslow offered to help Kinsey clean up the "volunteer error" in his work, but once Kinsey realized how this would compromise the outcome of the data, and steer it away from the results he wanted, he abruptly terminated his friendship with Maslow.
In spite of these serious problems, Kinsey's first book, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," was published in 1948 amidst an enormously successful media blitz. Kinsey and his team always appeared as typical middle-class Americans in publicity photographs, wearing suits and ties and posing with their wives and children whenever possible. Parading the book under the respectable cover of science, coupled with Rockefeller-connected mass media affiliations, the unconventional research of the so-called "All American" Kinsey team seemed acceptable, even state-of-the-art.
But not everyone was fooled. The authentic scientific community proved themselves to be particularly adroit in discovering the methodological nonsense contained in Kinsey's data.
W. Allen Wallis, the University of Chicago statistician and past President of the American Statistical Association, one of the nation's most distinguished statisticians, found serious flaws in Kinsey's work, not least of which was the fact that one-third of the men interviewed were sex offenders.
Even the esteemed British medical journal, the Lancet, concluded that Kinsey "questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior."
Dr. Albert Hobbs, a sociologist and author at the University of Pennsylvania accused Kinsey of
violating all three precepts necessary for sound scientific method and procedure.
First, the scientist should not have any preconceived hypothesis in order to present only the facts.
"Kinsey actually had a two-pronged hypothesis," Hobbs said. "He vigorously promoted, juggling his figures to do so, a hedonistic, animalistic conception of sexual behavior, while at the same time he consistently denounced all biblical and conventional conceptions of sexual behavior."
Second, Kinsey refused to publish the basic data upon which his conclusions rested. Third, he refused to reveal the questionnaire upon which he based all of his facts.
The rash of scientific criticism caused Kinsey's financier, the Rockefeller Foundation, to again complain about the absence of a professional statistician on Kinsey's staff. Reisman's book cites a letter from the Foundation to Kinsey on May 7, 1951, which said, in part: "Past and present needs remain unsatisfied in the point of statistics. This fault - this admittedly absolutely basic fault - existed in the project in 1942, it has existed ever since, there is no promise whatsoever that it will cease to exist and we do nothing about it."
Clyde Martin continued on as Kinsey's "statistician," even after the Kinsey Institute released a second book containing more of the same sampling errors, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female," in 1952.
So few "normal" women would talk to Kinsey and his interviewers that the team depicted untold numbers of sexually unconventional women as normal. Kinsey went so far as to classify as "married" any woman who had lived with a man for at least a year, which could conceivably include working prostitutes.
Reisman writes, "By mixing in prostitutes, Kinsey was able to present sexual promiscuity as normal, including perversions such as sex with animals. Although he excluded 934 black women as unrepresentative of the population, he included 31 females who copulated with animals."
Reisman cites Harriet R. Mowrer, a marital-adjustment consultant who warned of the danger of accepting Kinsey's findings at face value: "To accept the Kinsey findings without exacting scrutiny . . . would be to perpetuate the error . . . with harmful results to society . . . . There is no assurance that Kinsey's findings are representative and can be extended to the general population."
Her warnings, and many others like hers, went unheeded. Kinsey's methodological nonsense was applied wholesale to the general population at a cost to society that is almost too staggering to consider.
by Susan P.
Some of the most vile sets of statistics came from the infamous Table 34, "Examples of Multiple Orgasm in Pre-Adolescent Males," that appeared in Alfred C. Kinsey's first book. This was the research conducted on children under the age of 13 and presented to the world as proof that erotic arousal was possible in children as young as two months.
"Table 34 was truly grotesque," writes Dr. Judith Reisman in her book, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences." "It reported around-the-clock experimental data on infants and young boys. The Kinsey team seemed perfectly at ease when describing the extraordinary data: ‘Even the youngest males, as young as two months of age, are capable of such repeated reactions. Typical cases are shown in Table 34. The maximum observed was 26 climaxes in 24 hours (in a 4 year old and a 13 year old) . . .'"
How was this data collected?
When Dr. Judith Reisman asked this question, she received an answer directly from Kinsey team member, Paul Gebhard, who told her that Kinsey's men used "manual and oral techniques" to produce the orgasms.
Prominent pediatricians who reviewed this data confirm that "children, especially the very young, would not willing submit to such abuse." Dr. Lester Caplan, a Baltimore physician and member of the American Board of Pediatrics, confirmed in a letter to this author that children could not have voluntary participated . . ."
Kinsey himself admits that there was no physical evidence of these so-called orgasms, and based his conclusions on the children's reactions. Reisman writes: "Kinsey's books were meant to convince the public that we are all sexual - from womb to tomb - so he had to prove infants were lustful, even if that meant tying them down and labeling their hysterical weeping as orgasm."
But not all of this horrendous testing was done at Indiana University. The larger portion was actually conducted "in the field." Reisman cites Kinsey's first book, which claims that additional "sources of data on pre-adolescent boys came from ‘the histories of adult males who had sexual contacts with younger boys, and who, with their adult backgrounds were able to recognize and interpret the boys' experiences. Some of these adults were technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records . . .'"
Who were these "technically trained persons"?
In an audio-taped interview, Paul Gebhard responded: "Most of it was done by one individual, a man with scientific training, and not a known scientist. The other cases were done by parents at our suggestion and, let's see, then there were some that were done by nursery school personnel."
Probing deeper, Reisman discovered that the "man with scientific training," who conducted the experiments on children that were recorded in Table 34, was known as "Mr. X." For many years, the identity of this man was kept secret, but was later discovered to be Rex King, the serial child rapist responsible for the rape of more than 800 children. Some of these rapes were rendered to Kinsey in graphic detail, which he considered to be "scientific research."
Reisman writes: "Indiana University records confirm that Kinsey did not report Mr. X to authorities. Indeed, for over 50 years the entire Indiana University Kinsey Institute team collaborated in covering up sex crimes perpetrated against children involved in its research."
In an unusually candid telephone interview on November 2, 1992, with Reisman's editor, J. Gordon Muir, M.D., Paul Gebhard confirmed that some of the men on Kinsey's child sexuality team included child molesters who were easily obtained from prisons and pedophile organizations around the world. He explained that the Kinsey Institute would ask the pedophile how many children they had "done it with," what were the ages of the children, and if the pedophile thought the child had come to climax. He also admitted to having personally collaborated in the child abuse inherent in Kinsey's research.
Jonathon Gathorne-Hardy, a Kinsey biographer, received permission from current Kinsey Institute Director, John Bancroft, to read and copy Kinsey's pedophile team reports. These and other findings were recorded in a 1998 British documentary entitled, "Secret History: Kinsey's Pedophiles." England's BBC Radio Times called the film "a deeply unsettling documentary . . . making a strong case that Kinsey cultivated [pedophiles whose crimes] he presented as scientific data."
The Yorkshire documentary uncovered even more shocking revelations about the so-called "trained persons" who participated in Kinsey's experiments. Reisman writes that the film makers located another Kinsey accomplice in Berlin, Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, the notorious Nazi pedophile who contributed his child abuse data during the twenty year period of 1936 to1956 to Kinsey's research data base.
The Von Balluseck case, which involved the murder of ten year old Loiselotte Has, was tried in Berlin in 1957 and was widely covered by the German press. Von Balluseck was described as "the most important pedophile in the criminal history of Berlin," who had sexually violated hundreds of children over the course of 30 years.
Apparently, Von Balluseck was sending details of his experiences to Kinsey on a regular basis. Letters from Kinsey to Von Ballusek encouraging the Nazi to continue his "research" were found and reviewed by the presiding judge, Dr. Henrich Berger. Berger repeatedly expressed his outrage at Kinsey for not turning Von Ballusek in to the authorities. Not only did Von Balluseck sexually assault his own daughter, the German press reported that he also raped the 11 year old son of a vicar and forced the boy to write down the acts for Kinsey.
The German newspaper, the National Zeitung wrote on May 15, 1957: "Today the court has got four diaries and in these diaries with cynicism and passion, he (Von Balluseck) recorded his crimes against 100 children in the smallest detail. He sent the detail of his experiences regularly to the U.S. sex researcher, Kinsey. The latter was very interested and kept up a regular and lively correspondence with Von Ballusek."
Reisman writes: "Despite Alfred Kinsey's shocking role in this explosive case, the U.S. press was uniformly silent about it." Why?
Yale Zoologist, George A. Baitsell, writing in Yale News, voiced his opinion about how this could have happened: "The abuse inherent in the Kinsey team's methodology has gone largely unheeded by the academic elite, and thousands of world famous doctors, sociologists, sex educators and even ministers . . . anyone whose careers have largely been built around Kinsey."
years of 1948 and 1952, two critical events were taking place in the United
States - the introduction of Alfred C. Kinsey's erroneous research into
American society, and the development of the Model Penal Code (MPC).
How uncanny that the document containing the nation's sex crime statutes should be in the process of development at the same time that a sex researcher from Indiana is declaring that 95 percent of the American male population participates in deviant sexual activity on a regular basis.
What affect did Kinsey's data actually have on the new Model Penal Code? "The Model Penal Code of 1955 is virtually a Kinsey document," said Kinsey biographer, Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy. "At one point, Kinsey is cited six times in twelve pages."
The story goes downhill from here.
In "A History of American Law," Lawrence Friedman writes that the MPC was originally intended "for the persuasion of judges rather than enactment into law," but eventually, the United States Supreme Court justices and every law school accepted the new Code as authoritative.
In her book, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," Dr. Judith Reisman writes: "At the very time the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code was being developed, there was a growing public outcry for tightening, not loosening, what we called ‘sexual psychopath' laws. But respected magistrate Morris Ploscowe, one of the MPC's principal authors argued, based on Kinsey's findings, that ‘when a total clean-up of sex offenders is demanded, it is in effect a proposal to put 95 percent of the male population in jail . . .'"
Reisman lists some of Kinsey's misleading data that appeared in Ploscowe's work calling for a change in U.S. law regarding sex: "‘These pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual and animal contacts, we are told, are eventually indulged in by 95 percent of the population in violation of statutory prohibitions. If these conclusions are correct, then it is obvious that our sex crime legislation is completely out of touch with the realities of individual living. . . .'"
In "Sexual Patterns and the Law," Ploscowe writes: "One of the conclusions of the Kinsey report is that the sex-offender is not a monster . . . but an individual who is not very different from others in his social group, and that his behavior is similar to theirs. The only difference is that others in the offender's social group have not been apprehended. This recognition that there is nothing very shocking or abnormal in the sex offender's behavior should lead to other changes in sex legislation . . . . In the first place, it should lead to a downward revision of the penalties presently imposed on sex offenders."
Ploscowe published his own tome in 1951, based on Kinsey's statistics, which has been used for decades in criminal and civil cases relating to human sexual behavior. His publication was one of four major works published by the academic and legal community supporting Kinsey and calling for a change in the law based on his studies.
In "About the Kinsey Report," published in May 1948, eleven renowned intellectuals representing major Ivy League universities supported Kinsey's science as a collection of factual, objective data. These academics were completely sold on the Kinsey myth and considered him to be "a conservative and impartial American academic whose only interest was to set the record straight."
Probably the most influential supporter of changing the sex laws according to Kinsey's statistics, was attorney Morris L. Ernst, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He served as a personal representative for President Roosevelt during WWII, was the attorney for Alfred Kinsey, Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), the Kinsey Institute, the Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SEICUS) and Planned Parenthood of America. Ernst had close ties to influential and progressive Supreme Court Justices Brandeis, Brennan, Frankfurther and Judge Learned Hand, among others.
Reisman writes that Ernst "advocated the legalization of adultery, obscenity and abortion throughout his career, as well as Kinsey's full panoply of sex law changes." According to Ernst, Kinsey's false data first entered into the stream of law through the MPC tentative draft number four, dealing with sex offenses, on April 25, 1955.
Reisman writes: "Standing on the notion of the alleged right of privacy, the Kinsey legal cadre judged the 52 protective sex crime laws as largely illegitimate. By accepting Kinsey's data, almost all sex acts would be restated as private and not subject to social control."
This resulted in radical changes in American sex law. Reisman writes. "Kinsey would indeed impact the American justice system at large by being cited as the ‘scientific expert' . . . who supposedly proved that sex offenders were 95 percent of America's fathers and beloved male family members. The MPC authors demanded and facilitated a downward revision of sex offender penalties because Kinsey said reality was out of step with the law. This was all based on Kinsey's aberrant groups of criminals, homosexuals, pedophiles, and the like . . . . The revision lead to the weakening and destruction of 52 sex offender laws targeted for change, and would undermine marriage as the single legitimate source of all coitus.
"These distinguished authors hailed from august institutions and were leaders in their professions. They are culpable. They knew, or should have known, that Kinsey was a fraud. (The Rockefeller Foundation knew that his data was totally unreliable.)
"After Kinsey's bogus data entered the stream of law through the MPC draft on sex offenses in 1955, the Kinsey sexuality model became codified as normal in mainstream America. It was taught by many unsuspecting law professors in America's most prestigious law schools."
Reisman evidences this statement by showing over 650 citations to Kinsey in Law Review articles published between 1982-2000.
But how could Kinsey get away with all this? There are several reasons, one of which was Kinsey's obsession with concealing his own sexual activities, particularly those concerning sex with children.
Reisman writes: "How sympathetic would legislators have been to Kinsey's pleas (for reduced sex crime penalties) had they known that he concealed the fact that roughly one year earlier his team denied assistance to police regarding a Kinsey aide who was a child sex-murder suspect?"
The public's exaggerated regard for science at the time was another facilitating factor. Reisman writes: "Ironically, after 50 years of saturating America with Kinsey's science and the sexual revolution it incited, the 1999 "Intercollegiate Review" ranked Kinsey's book as the ‘third worst book of the century.' It stated: "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.'" Added the review, this was "a pervert's attempt to demonstrate that perversion is statistically ‘normal.'"
by Susan Brinkmann
When the fraudulent research of the acknowledged pederast, Alfred C. Kinsey, was allowed to influence American law, the fallout was devastating, and not only as far as soaring crime rates. It also caused a deep rending in the moral fiber of this nation.
Soaring Crime Rates
In her book, “Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences,” Dr. Judith Reisman contains actual transcripts of testimony by Alfred Kinsey to the California Legislature where he uses his false data to argue for paroling rapists and even child sex offenders. Unfortunately, he was convincing enough to bring about devastating changes in the law.
For instance, Kinsey considered rape to be an “easily forgotten” crime by its victims. He is quoted in a book by Susan Brownmiller, “Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape,” as saying “the only difference between rape and a good time depends on whether the girls parents were awake when she finally came home.”
Assuming Kinsey to be a real scientist, this kind of “data” about women and rape convinced the authors of the Model Penal Code that the justification for tough rape laws was largely moot. Therefore, the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute established new regulations for deciding if a girl was raped.
Reisman writes: “Where the victim is shown to have had a ‘racy’ past (not exactly defined by the Model Penal Code) for purposes of adjudication she might be labeled a ‘prostitute.’ Therefore, even when she was the victim of a ‘gang’ or fraternity ‘group’ rape, the guilty predator might be cleared of any crime.”
The consequences of this loosening of the law against rape are not surprising. The nation is suffering from an epidemic of sexually violent crime, which Reisman lists as: “rape, gang-rape, date-rape, rape-mutilation, serial rape-murder, kidnaping-rape, rough sex rape-murder - victimizing the elderly as well as younger boys and girls.”
Of the 324 homicides in New York in 1930, 1935 and 1940 (108 per year), only 17, or six per year, involved the rape of women or children. “FBI data for 1995 showing that New York experienced 4,654 murders in 1995, 3,333 were rape-murders,” Reisman writes.
Another area particularly hard-hit by Kinsey’s influence on American law is in the enormous increase in sex crimes committed against children. Spawned by his criminally obtained “data,” Kinsey’s so-called proof that children are sexual from birth produced the horrifying results listed in Reisman’s book: “Current estimates of one in four females (and one in seven boys) have been molested by age 18 suggests that American children today are experiencing unprecedented rates of sexual abuse.”
Kinsey believed his research supported the fact that children are harmed more by their hysterical parents than by whatever sexual contact they might have had. This lead to the loosening of laws regarding pedophilia as well as incest.
In a book authored by the Kinsey team entitled, “Sex Offenders,” they write: “The horror with which our society views the adult who has sexual contact with young children is lessened when one examines the behavior of other mammals. Sexual activity between adults and immature animals is common and appears to be biologically normal.” In other words, human behavior is supposed to be similar to that of animals.
It should come as no surprise then that by 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had removed pedophilia, as well as sadism and homosexuality, from its list of “disorders.” They stated that the desires to do violence or to have sex with children becomes a disorder only if the pedophile feels guilty or has anxiety about his sexual desires or actions toward the children.
Reisman writes of the APA position on pedophilia and sadism: “The APA published ‘study,’ in line with the Kinseyan model, has reportedly already been used in the courtroom to erode legal protections that currently penalize child sex offenses - or, as some sexologists euphemistically term it, ‘age-discrepant sexual intimacy.’”
These softening attitudes eventually lead to lighter sentencing and to the early release of convicted rapists and pedophiles back into society. Reisman writes: “ . . . Only half of the convicted criminals receive prison sentences. Those who do receive time, serve about half of their sentence prior to parole. And of those paroled, half are recorded as recidivists (breaking parole, or committing new crimes when free).”
Perhaps the most dramatic example of the impact on our society of early parole for sex offenders is seen in a 1990 Tacoma, Washington case of a paroled child sex offender who raped and sexually mutilated a 7 year old boy. Prior to this atrocity, the offender had murdered a 15 year old girl and savagely molested seven other children. He was freed despite these crimes and the authorities knowledge of his plans to build a “death van” equipped with cages and shackles to be used in the capture and torture of young children. In spite of all this, the man lived next door to an elementary school.
Erosion of Marriage and Family
Another major area where Kinsey data negatively influenced the law and society was in the decriminalization of adultery, cohabitation and fornication, which lead to an overall weakening in the institution of marriage.
One page 208 of the Model Penal Code, Kisney’s data on adultery is cited as having found that “in an appreciable number of cases, an experiment in adultery tends to confirm rather than disrupt the marriage.”
Reisman writes: “The argument was that legalizing fornication and adultery would have little negative affect on society since, according to Kinsey, fornication and adultery were already common among all socioeconomic groups. . . . Once believed, Kinsey’s fornication and adultery data . . . contributed to the erosion of marriage . . .”
It was an erosion that would eventually bring about no-fault divorce. Originally intended to make it easier for women to escape bad marriages, casual divorce has resulted in making couples less willing to fully commit to their union which, in turn, reduces the likelihood of marital success.
Reisman cites the work of Bryce Christensen, who addressed some of the “appalling societal consequences from no-fault divorce” in “The Family in America” in January 2000: “The US Census Bureau reported that in 1950, 43 percent of children were at home with Mom while Dad worked full-time. By 1990, only 18 percent of American children had such a stable home . . . . Thomas B. Marvell calculated in 1989 that the adoption of no-fault statutes had driven up state divorce rates by some 20 to 25 percent. And in a 1999 analysis, a team of statisticians determined that in the 32 states which had enacted no-fault laws by 1974, these laws resulted in substantial number of divorces that would not have occurred otherwise . . . .”
Crime rates and the erosion of the family are only the tip of the iceburg when considering the havoc wreaked upon society by the sex research of a sado-masochistic pedophile. Teen pregnancies, soaring STD and HIV/AIDS rates, rampant cohabitation and single-parent homes are other areas that have been just as dramatically influenced by the widespread acceptance of Alfred Kinsey’s research.
But no member of society has suffered more than our innocent children. Not only for the reasons stated above, but because Alfred Kinsey’s distorted studies about women lead to one of the most disastrous Supreme Court decisions ever made - Roe v. Wade.
“The Model Penal Code was cited as a national authority on abortion three times in Justice Blackmun’s written opinion in Roe v. Wade,” Reisman writes. Blackmun cites page 147 of Draft 9 of the Model Penal Code where Dr. Mary Calderone of Planned Parenthood states that Kinsey’s “scientific” data proved that “90 to 95 percent of pre-marital pregnancies are aborted.”
Of course, we now know that Kinsey’s data was collected mostly from among prostitutes and sexually unconventional women and then passed off as indicative of the general population.
This kind of sordid science doesn’t come without a price - and more than 44 million Americans have already paid for it with their lives.
of obscenity has long been the hallmark of every civil society. In her book,
"Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," Dr. Judith Reisman points out the
centuries-old conclusion that sexually explicit material leads to "copy cat"
conduct, which is particularly harmful for children. It results in public
disorder and the coarsening of men's attitudes toward women, leading to
prostitution and violent sex crimes which, in turn, produce sexual diseases
and other factors contributing to early death rates.
In the early days of her research into the harmful affects of pornography on children, Dr. Reisman
admits, "I had no notion of the role of Alfred C. Kinsey in pornography or exactly how ‘hard' and ‘soft' core pornography related to child sex abuse. I had no idea how bad the problem was or how deeply I would become involved in the attempt to solve it."
What she would discover is still relatively unknown to the American public. Not only was Kinsey linked with the world of pornography, the Kinsey Institute was actually funded by Playboy in the 1960's.
This happened after the 1954 Congressional investigation opened by Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennesee. The Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey's main financier, and other tax-exempt organizations who were funding research considered dangerous to society, came under intense scrutiny. Kinsey's worthless research was exposed by credible critics which caused the Foundation's president and future Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, to terminate its financial support of the Kinsey Institute.
Playboy stepped in to provide the funds that launched Kinsey's false sex data into mainstream America, which, in turn, dramatically lowered the standard of acceptable pornography. Playboy, the Kinsey Institute, Penthouse and Hustler went on to form an unholy alliance with prominent sex institutions in the United States, the same institutions that provide the nation's sex education.
With such close links to the pornography industry, parents need no longer wonder why America's sex education classes and materials are so explicit. In fact, a 1996 report issued by the Kinsey-spawned Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) actually urged school teachers to provide "sexually explicit visual, printed or on-line materials for schoolchildren in order to ‘reduce ignorance and confusion' and to help children develop a ‘wholesome concept of sexuality.'"
Very few parents in mainstream America would define "wholesome" the same way as Alfred Kinsey and Playboy Magazine.
The negative influence of these materials is beyond question. Reisman writes, "That Playboy and other producers of ‘sexually explicit materials' encourage illegal juvenile sexual activity and copy cat crimes, including incest and child sex abuse, is documented in my peer-approved U.S. Department of Juvenile Justice report, obtainable via the U.S. Department of Justice web site."
Also available on the web site is Dr. Reisman's study linking erotica/pornography to the legitimization of child pornography. She writes, "Even now, child pornography can be ordered from Playboy's earlier editions and from other mainstream pornographic magazines as well as via the Playboy Press productions."
It is an established fact that child molesters regularly use pornography to seduce their prey, to lower the inhibitions of their young victims and to serve as a kind of "instruction manual."
In a study of 36 serial sex murderers interviewed by the FBI, 81 percent admitted using pornography. Of those studied, 87 percent of girl child molesters and 77 percent of boy child molesters admitted to regular use of pornography.
Decriminalizing pornography came about when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the revolutionary Model Penal Code with its recommendation of drastically reducing the penalties for
its 52 major sex crimes according to Kinsey's data.
Prior to that time, the definition of obscenity according to case law was "anything offensive to chastity or modesty, expressing or presenting to the mind or view something that . . . decency forbids to be exposed . . . tending to stir the sex impulses or to lead to sexually impure and lustful thoughts. . ."
The new Model Penal Code declared a thing obscene if "considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest . . . And if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description . . ." According to Kinsey, sexual activities such as sodomy incest, pedophilia, and bestiality are within customary limits, so one is left to wonder what exactly the Model Penal Code restricts.
This vague definition allows much in the way of loose interpretation, even in the sex industry itself, where a technique called Sexual Attitude Restructuring (SAR) is used to reform the attitudes of sex instructors.
Reisman describes how students are required to sit through "an orgy of pornographic couplings on film and video . . . utilized in academia to restructure students' modest sexual attitudes into the bizarre Kinsey alternative . . ."
George Leonard was one of 60,000 people to go through the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) by 1982. He described the typical SAR experience of having to endure hours of pornographic films in a kind of "sensory overload" meant to desensitize him to all forms of sex. He sat in the darkness on a Saturday night and watched "images of human beings - and sometimes even animals - engaging in every conceivable sexual act, accompanied by wails, moans, shouts and the first movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto . . . Over a period of several hours, there came a moment when the four images on the wall were of a gay male couple, a straight couple, a lesbian couple, and a bestial group. The subjects were nude . . . I felt myself becoming disoriented . . . was she kissing a man or a woman? I couldn't remember which was which. By the end . . . nothing was shocking . . . but nothing was sacred either."
Employing the usual Kinsey euphemisms, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy described this process as "designed to desensitize." In other words, brainwash.
"The SAR literally scars the viewers brain as it circumvents, short-circuits, his or her cognition and conscience," Reisman writes. She refers to the findings of Dr. Gary Lynch, a Neuroscientist, who compares the damage done by the SAR technique with other high-resonance stimuli, namely, that it produces "a structural change that is in some ways as profound as the structural change one sees in brain damage."
Reisman explains, "Functionally speaking, the SAR (and to a lesser degree, yet with more consistency, today's mass media) breaks down the inhibitions of the healthy brain . . ."
The SAR technique is now widely used to reprogram students in education, medicine, psychology, criminology, and even theology. By reconfiguring their neurochemistry, their human nature, the process has produced "a cadre of educated leaders who are part of the Kinseyan deviance," writes Dr. Reisman.
In the final part of this series, we will examine how Kinsey-educated sexologists formed themselves into the nation's sex education providers.
This series is based on
the book by Dr. Judith Reisman,
"Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences,"
available for a non-profit donation of $30 to her organization
The Institute for Media Education
by calling 1 800 476 0975, or through her web site
[COMMENT: The piece below from the internet is, like the above, not easy reading. The Kinsey legacy lives on. Will you play hardball? E. Fox]
If the following does not make you sick to the stomach and make you weep with frustration and make your blood boil at the "Justice" system in Canada, nothing will.
Cop rips ruling
Child-porn sentence riles officer
By TRACY MCLAUGHLIN, SPECIAL TO THE TORONTO SUN
Fri, September 19, 2003
A member of the OPP Child Pornography unit is outraged the Ontario Court of Appeal shot down a Crown's attempt to appeal a house arrest given to a Newmarket man convicted of possession and distribution of "vile and disgusting" child pornography.
CROWN IN TEARS
The porn was so repulsive it caused the Crown to weep and the sentencing judge to go home and take a shower after viewing it.
Randy Weber, 43, was convicted last February of possession and distribution of images of little children being bound, gagged, and forced to have sex with men.
He was given a conditional sentence of 14 months -- otherwise known as house arrest.
Among the images viewed in court by Justice Roy Bogusky, one revealed a four-year-old child weeping and struggling, with hands bound and her neck leashed with a dog collar, while an adult male sexually assaulted her. Another image revealed an eight-year-old girl, tied, gagged, blindfolded and hung upside down. A video clip with sound revealed a toddler who could be heard weeping and yelling "stop, stop, stop" while a man assaulted him.
Court heard Weber unknowingly sent undercover police in Ohio some of the photos in an Internet chat room where Weber sometimes masqueraded as a 13-year-old.
Crown attorney Michael Demczur and Gillian Roberts tried, but failed, to get a jail sentence, arguing "the trial judge fundamentally failed to grasp the vile nature of the offences ... and failed to give adequate consideration to the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation" to the general public. The judgment, delivered by appeal court judge Kathryn Feldman, noted the defence expert witness testified Weber is not a pedophile and the Crown did not produce evidence contrary to that evidence. She also noted Weber has suffered, is out of work, and is now estranged from his family and suicidal. But OPP Det.-Sgt. Frank Goldschmidt says a house arrest is nothing more than a "slap on the wrist" and he believes the case should be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.
"Conditional sentences are nothing but a joke," he said. "You can sit around your house and watch TV, you can go out and if you get caught, all you have to do is tell the officer you're job hunting."
The maximum sentence for possession of child porn is five years in prison; distribution can earn 10 years in prison.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Pansexuality Library; => ROAD MAP