Kinsey Consequences: It’s Rotten Research-ers. Part 2.

Rotten Research Yields Rotten Results

Kinsey’s research was based on fraud. Yet, this “Patron Saint of Sex,” (Esquire) who launched “the first wave of the sexual revolution” is, said sexologist Morton Hunt (and more recently, Dr. Ruth), the giant on whose shoulders all sex researchers since his time have stood. WebMD reports that “Ruth Westheimer, PhD” regularly pays “some type of homage to famed 1950s sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, PhD.” saying “we are taught that if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you can see farther.”[1]

Homosexual researchers John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, in their book Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, also give proper credit to Kinseyan research for changing society. “[T]he strongest assault on sexual reticence in the public realm emerged not from the pornographic fringe, nor from the popular culture, but from the respectable domain of science,” with the publication of Kinsey’s Male and Female reports. By allegedly proving that Americans were sexual buccaneers pretending to be sexually chaste, meant “cultural values surrounding sex needed revision.”[2]

D’Emilio and Freedman said that Kinsey’s “scientific credentials … gave legitimacy” to the media publicity and the public had to believe his claims were somewhat true. The authors also credited “The Kinsey studies, as much as pornography, [for shaping] the context in which the Supreme Court responded to the obscenity issue.”[3]

And, in 2003 D’Emilio and Freedman’s rotten research in Intimate Matters—as it relied largely on Kinsey and other rotten research relying on Kinsey—became a key authority cited by US Supreme Court Justice, Anthony M. Kennedy for the Court’s majority decision to legalize sodomy. Yes, Yes, rotten research yields rotten results.

Kinseyfying Medical/Academia For Now and Tomorrow

Rotten Research tentacles reach out to infect us all. Kinsey lectured to medical groups nationwide, and by the hundreds of thousands to overwhelming crowds, like that at left, university youth who came to worship at the feet of the new sexuality guru. These were our future leaders, writers, entertainers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, prosecutors, and the like. Christie Hefner reported that in the 1960s the Playboy Foundation became the major research sponsor of the Masters and Johnson Institute and made the initial grant to establish an Office of Research Services of the Sex Information and Education. Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) [4]. The latter organization is heavily involved in the incorporation of Kinsey’s basic sexual philosophy into school sex education programs, explained elsewhere in this book.

In 1971, Playboy, according to Hefner junior, “awarded a grant to establish a pilot program at the University of Minnesota” with the aim of “changing the attitudes of men and women medical students.”[5] Why bring rotten research into the medical community? Because, said Hefner, “today’s medical students and practicing physicians perpetuate arbitrary judgments about normal and abnormal sexuality… [and] are ignorant of the variety of possible human sexual expression.” This was corrected by the infusion of pornography money into the medical community.

Following in Kinsey’s footsteps, “sexologists” invaded the medical schools with Kinsey’s infamous scale (left) claiming to “prove” that 10% to 37% of men are sometime homosexual and that all humans are naturally bisexual. This opened the door to Playboy in the wings, laying down track for its future medical consumers.

In the early 1970s young, naïve medical residents in most of the major medical schools were doused with Kinsey’s “science” followed up by Hefner’s “pamphleteering” via allegedly scientific pornographic shows. The Sexual Attitude Restructuring was allegedly to “desensitize” students so they could more easily accept and treat their patient’s sexual problems. No, these were not slides of venereal disease, such unpleasant images were carefully avoided. The medical SAR included “obscene” or “erotic” or “pornographic” films and slides of sex between women and men, same sex, animals and sometimes children, as were all of the SAR presentations.

 

---

 

Notes:

[1] Denise Mann WebMD Feature http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/103990.htm (undated, Nov. 2004).

[2] John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, Harper & Row, 1988.

[3] D’Emilio and Freedman, Ibid.

[4]Christie Hefner, in the Foreword to Sexuality and Medicine, Volume 11, Earl E. Shelp (ed.), Reidel Publishing Co., 1987.

[5]Hefner, Ibid.

[1] Karlan, Arno, interview in Sexuality and Homosexuality (1971). NYC: W.W. Norton & CO., Inc., p. 612