Sordid Science:
The Sex Research of Alfred C. Kinsey

Part 1 of 7

by Susan Brinkmann
CS&T Correspondent

Alfred Charles 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." 

Part 2

by Susan Brinkmann
CS&T Correspondent

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. 

Part 3

by Susan P. Brinkmann
CS&T Correspondent

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."

Part 4

by Susan Brinkmann
CS&T Correspondent

Between the 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.'"

Part 6

by Susan Brinkmann
CS&T Correspondent

The repudiation 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.
 

Part 7

[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]