The Truth Behind Alfred Kinsey

Susan Brinkmann on the “Scientist” and His Research

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share this Entry

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, MAY 15, 2005 ( Hollywood glorified sexologist Alfred Kinsey on the silver screen recently, but one critic warns that the film will continue the 50-year-old deception of the American public by portraying Kinsey as a trustworthy scientist.

Susan Brinkmann, correspondent for the Catholic Standard & Times, the newspaper of the Philadelphia Archdiocese, is co-author of “The Kinsey Corruption: An Exposé on the Most Influential ‘Scientist’ of Our Time” (Catholic Outreach) with Judith Reisman.

Brinkmann shared with ZENIT evidence of Kinsey’s sexual deviance and hidden life — and how his deceptive research and destructive ideas are still being perpetuated today.

Q: Why is Kinsey a controversial character for some and a heroic figure for others?

Brinkmann: The only difference between those who consider Kinsey controversial and those who consider him heroic is nothing more than a matter of education.

Anyone who reads the work of Dr. Judith Reisman, whose research is the basis for my book, “The Kinsey Corruption,” will see not only factual, written evidence of Kinsey’s questionable background, they’ll see photographs and letters he wrote to friends about his collection of homosexual pornography. None of the information about Kinsey’s sordid background is “alleged”; it’s out there in black and white. If you’re not reading it, you don’t want to.

There are films depicting Kinsey and his staff engaging in all kinds of sex acts in the attic of the Kinsey home that still exist — films that were made by professional cinematographers who have never denied their existence.

There is also a documentary called “Kinsey’s Pedophiles” that details Kinsey’s involvement with pedophiles and other sexual miscreants from whom he gathered the data that supposedly supports his hypothesis that children are sexual from birth.

The film was shown in England and even the far-left BBC Radio Times called it “deeply unsettling.”

How can such a notorious man continue to command hero status? Because of the lucrative financial awards available to those who promote the sexual revolution he started.

Kinsey’s two books — “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” published in 1948, and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,” which followed in 1952 — started what we now call the sexual revolution. This revolution is a lot more than just a change in attitude. It’s a business — a multibillion-dollar business.

This contraceptive mentality was born in the kind of sexual license that Kinsey endorsed. He believed pornography was harmless, that adultery can enhance a marriage and that children are sexual from birth.

Keeping these and other Kinsey “myths” alive is why the porn industry is thriving and why abortion and contraception providers rake in millions of dollars every year.

And let’s not forget the nation’s sexual education industry, the spawn of Kinsey’s so-called New Biology. With the exception of programs that are strictly abstinence-only, all other sex-ed programs used in the United States are based on Kinsey’s flawed research.

Most people are completely unaware of this, or of the connection between American sex-ed and the porn, abortion and contraception industries.

For instance, Planned Parenthood’s former medical director, Dr. Mary Calderone, was also a director of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, the sex-ed provider launched by the Kinsey Institute in 1964 with seed money provided by Playboy. And we wonder why our sex-ed classes are so graphic.

Q: Why did Kinsey keep part of his life hidden from the public?

Brinkmann: Kinsey had sexual appetites that were completely unacceptable to Americans in the 1940s.

He was a pederast who enjoyed public nudity, made explicit sex films and eventually developed such an extreme sadomasochistic form of autoeroticism that some believe it caused his untimely death in 1956.

This is not the sort of thing he wanted the public to know about. He maintained a meticulously engineered facade of a typical Midwestern family man at all costs because it was so critical to his success — and to his financial backing from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Q: Did Kinsey’s religious background influence his research in any way?

Brinkmann: Absolutely. Kinsey was born into a strict Methodist home in Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1894. Dancing, tobacco, alcohol and dating were all forbidden. He eventually severed all ties with his parents — and their religion — and lived the rest of his life as an avid atheist.

After completing his undergraduate work in zoology at Bowdoin College in 1916, he went on to continue his studies at Harvard’s Bussy Institution. His atheistic beliefs flourished at Harvard where Darwinism and the New Biology, which denied the existence of God, were enjoying immense popularity on campus.

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. For the rest of his life, he would permit no blacks, Jews or committed Christians on his staff.

His books make no attempt to hide his “grand scheme,” which was to steer society away from its traditional moral standards and toward “free love.”

Q: Were there any aspects of Kinsey’s methods and research that were questionable?

Brinkmann: Almost all of his methods were questionable. However, the fundamental flaw in Kinsey’s research was that it was based on a sexually explicit and highly offensive questionnaire comprised of 350 questions that few “typical” Americans were willing to answer.

This meant he had to rely on “volunteers” to answer his questionnaire, which included a variety of deviants such as incarcerated criminals, prostitutes, streetwalkers and other riffraff.

Serious social scientists know that they can’t rely on volunteers for sexual studies because it attracts a disproportionate number of “unconventional” men and women. Relying on these volunteers would produce results that showed a falsely high percentage of non-virginity, masturbation, promiscuity and homosexuality in the population.

However, this is precisely what Kinsey did. Kinsey classified 1,400 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.

His studies concerning child sexuality are the most outrageous — and some say criminal — of all. Kinsey relied on pedophiles who sent him data from their crimes. He used this data to claim that children as young as 4 months are capable of sexual arousal.

Kinsey staff member and co-author Paul Gebhard admitted that they were relying on information being sent to them by a man named Rex King, a serial rapist who was guilty of raping more than 800 children.

Perhaps the most widely publicized connection between Kinsey and a known pedophile took place in Germany a year after Kinsey’s death. Notorious Nazi pedophile Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck was on trial for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl when correspondence from Kinsey was found in his possession.

Kinsey was encouraging the doctor to continue sending him “data” from his crimes and even urged him to “be careful” in one letter.

The details of this aspect of Kinsey’s work were made into a documentary film in 1998 and entitled “Secret History: Kinsey’s Pedophiles.” It aired in England but was never shown in the United States.

Q: Did credentialed experts criticize Kinsey’s works?

Brinkmann: Several experts criticized Kinsey’s work, such as W. Allen Wallis, the University of Chicago statistician and
past president of the American Statistical Association who was one of the nation’s most distinguished statisticians. Wallis found serious flaws in Kinsey’s work, not the 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. Hobbs noted that “Kinsey actually had a two-pronged hypothesis. 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.

Q: What effect did Kinsey’s works have on American law?

Brinkmann: This is particularly disturbing. Between the years of 1948 and 1952, two critical events were taking place in the United States — the introduction of Kinsey’s erroneous research into American society and the development of the Model Penal Code.

One of the principal authors of the new MPC was Morris Ploscowe, a staunch supporter of Kinsey’s research. Ploscowe argued that based on Kinsey’s findings, “when a total cleanup of sex offenders is demanded, it is in effect a proposal to put 95% of the male population in jail …”

Therefore, Ploscowe wrote, “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 ….”

Unfortunately, he never investigated the “if,” and instead plowed ahead with the MPC revision that resulted in the downward revision of penalties for 52 major sex crimes.

Another big Kinsey supporter who argued for softening the nation’s sex crime penalties was attorney Morris L. Ernst, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In addition to serving as Kinsey’s attorney, he also represented Margaret Sanger — the founder of Planned Parenthood — the Kinsey Institute, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States and Planned Parenthood of America.

According to Dr. Reisman’s research, 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 data first entered into the stream of law through the MPC tentative draft number four, dealing with sex offenses, on April 25, 1955.

The good news is that in April of 2004, after five years of study, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of 2,400 lawmakers from 50 states, concluded that the work of Kinsey was a fraud and contained “manufactured statistics.”

The report outlined the influence these bogus numbers had on the weakening of 52 sex laws that once protected women, children and marriage. Methods for undoing the damage to America’s social and legal systems are presently being studied.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share this Entry


Support ZENIT

If you liked this article, support ZENIT now with a donation