Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution

It’s now more than 50 years since the revolution began. Sexual “liberation” has been endlessly ballyhooed by the national media, promoted in the movies, embraced by Playboy guys and Cosmo girls as a freedom more delicious than Eden’s apple. No American under 40 can honestly remember a time when sex on TV was taboo, when “living together” meant married, when “gay” meant happy, and when almost every child lived with both parents.

If truth be told, the revolution has been a disaster. Before the push to loosen America’s sexual mores really got under way in the 1950s, the only widely reported sexually transmitted diseases in the United States were gonorrhea and syphilis. Today we have more than two dozen varieties, from pelvic inflammatory disease (which renders more than 100,000 American women infertile each year) to AIDS (which presently infects 42 million people worldwide and has already killed another 23 million). According to a report by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, a woman who has three or more sex partners in her lifetime increases her risk of cervical cancer by as much as 1,500 percent. In another finding that runs contrary to all that the sex researchers preached, a survey at the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center showed that married men and women, on average, are sexually happier than unwed couples merely living together. And even if live-in couples do marry, they’re 40 to 85 percent more likely to divorce than those who go straight to the altar.

So what happened? Was science simply wrong? Well, not exactly — the truth is more complicated than that.

Con Man

Alfred C. Kinsey had a secret. The Indiana University zoologist and “father of the sexual revolution” almost single-handedly redefined the sexual mores of everyday Americans. The problem was, he had to lie to do it. The weight of this point must not be underestimated. The science that launched the sexual revolution has been used for the past 50 years to sway court decisions, pass legislation, introduce sex education into our schools, and even push for a redefinition of marriage. Kinseyism was the very foundation of this effort. If his science was flawed — or worse yet, an outright deception — then our culture’s attitudes about sex are not just wrong morally but scientifically as well.

Let’s consider the facts. When Kinsey and his coworkers published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953, they turned middle-class values upside down. Many traditionally forbidden sexual practices, Kinsey and his colleagues proclaimed, were surprisingly commonplace; 85 percent of men and 48 percent of women said they’d had premarital sex, and 50 percent of men and 40 percent of women had been unfaithful after marriage. Incredibly, 71 percent of women claimed their affair hadn’t hurt their marriage, and a few even said it had helped. What’s more, 69 percent of men had been with prostitutes, 10 percent had been homosexual for at least three years, and 17 percent of farm boys had experienced sex with animals. Implicit in Kinsey’s report was the notion that these behaviors were biologically “normal” and hurt no one. Therefore, people should act on their impulses with no inhibition or guilt.

The 1948 report on men came out to rave reviews and sold an astonishing 200,000 copies in two months. Kinsey’s name was everywhere from the titles of pop songs (“Ooh, Dr. Kinsey”) to the pages of Life, Time, Newsweek, and the New Yorker. Kinsey was “presenting facts,” Look magazine proclaimed. He was “revealing not what should be but what is.” Dubbed “Dr. Sex” and applauded for his personal courage, the researcher was compared to Darwin, Galileo, and Freud.

But beneath the popular approbation, many astute scientists were warning that Kinsey’s research was gravely flawed. The list of critics, Kinsey biographer James H. Jones observes, “read like a Who’s Who of American Intellectual Life.” They included anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict; Stanford University psychologist Lewis M. Terman; Karl Menninger, M.D. (founder of the famed Menninger Institute); psychiatrists Eric Fromm and Lawrence Kubie; cultural critic Lionel Trilling of Columbia University, and countless others.

By the time Kinsey’s volume about women was published, many journalists had abandoned the admiring throngs and joined the critics. Magazine articles appeared with titles like “Is the Kinsey Report a Hoax?” and “Love Is Not a Statistic.” Time magazine ran a series of stories exposing Kinsey’s dubious science (one was titled “Sex or Snake Oil?”).

That’s not, of course, to say that the Kinsey reports contain no truth at all. Sexuality is certainly a subject worthy of scientific study. And many people do pay lip service to sexual purity while secretly behaving altogether differently in their private lives.

Nevertheless, Kinsey’s version of the truth was so grossly oversimplified, exaggerated, and mixed with falsehoods, it’s difficult to sort fact from fiction. Distinguished British anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer put it well when he called the reports propaganda masquerading as science. Indeed, the flaws in Kinsey’s work stirred up such controversy that the Rockefeller Foundation, which had backed the original research, withdrew its funding of $100,000 a year. A year after the book on female sexuality came out, Kinsey himself complained that almost no scientist outside of a few of his best friends continued to defend him.

So, what were the issues the world’s best scientists had with Kinsey’s work? The criticism can be condensed into three troublesome points.

Problem #1: Humans as Animals

Before he began studying human sexuality, Kinsey was the world’s leading expert on the gall wasp. Trained as a zoologist, he saw sex purely as a physiological “animal” response. Throughout his books, he continually refers to the “human animal.” In fact, in Kinsey’s opinion, there was no moral difference between one sexual outlet and any other. In our secular world of moral relativism, Kinsey was a radical sexual relativist. As even the libertarian anthropologist Margaret Mead accurately observed, in Kinsey’s view there was no moral difference between a man having sex with a woman or a sheep.

In his volume about women, Kinsey likened the human orgasm to sneezing. Noting that this ludicrous description left out the obvious psychological aspects of human sexuality, Brooklyn College anthropologist George Simpson observed, “This is truly a monkey-theory of orgasm.” Human beings, of course, differ from animals in two very important ways: We can think rationally, and we have free will. But in Kinsey’s worldview, humans differed from animals only when it came to procreation. Animals have sex only to procreate. On the other hand, human procreation got little notice from Kinsey. In his 842-page volume on female sexuality, motherhood wasn’t mentioned once.

Problem #2: Skewed Samples

Kinsey often presented his statistics as if they applied to average moms, dads, sisters, and brothers. In doing so, he claimed 95 percent of American men had violated sex-crime laws that could land them in jail. Thus Americans were told they had to change their sex-offender laws to “fit the facts.” But, in reality, Kinsey’s reports never applied to average people in the general population. In fact, many of the men Kinsey surveyed were actually prison inmates. Wardell B. Pomeroy, Kinsey co-author and an eyewitness to the research, wrote that by 1946 the team had taken sexual histories from about 1,400 imprisoned sex offenders. Kinsey never revealed how many of these criminals were included in his total sample of “about 5,300” white males. But he did admit including “several hundred” male prostitutes. Additionally, at least 317 of Kinsey’s male subjects were not even adults, but sexually abused children.

Piling error on top of error, about 75 percent of Kinsey’s adult male subjects volunteered to give their sexual histories. As Stanford University psychologist Lewis M. Terman observed, volunteers for sex studies are two to four times more sexually active than non-volunteers.

Kinsey’s work didn’t improve in his volume on women. In fact, he interviewed so few average women that he actually had to redefine “married” to include any woman who had lived with a man for more than a year. This change added prostitutes to his sample of “married” women.

In the December 11, 1949, New York Times, W. Allen Wallis, then chairman of the University of Chicago’s committee on statistics, dismissed “the entire method of collecting and presenting the statistics which underlie Dr. Kinsey’s conclusions:’ Wallis noted, “There are six major aspects of any statistical research, and Kinsey fails on four.”

In short, Kinsey’s team researched the most exotic sexual behavior in America — taking hundreds if not thousands of case histories from sexual deviants — and then passed off the behavior as sexually “normal,” “natural;” and “average” (and hence socially and morally acceptable).

Problem #3: Faulty Statistics

Given all this, it’s hardly surprising that Kinsey’s statistics were so deeply flawed that no reputable scientific survey has ever been able to duplicate them.

Kinsey claimed, for instance, that 10 percent of men between the ages of 16 and 55 were homosexual. Yet in one of the most thorough nationwide surveys on male sexual behavior ever conducted, scientists at Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle found that men who considered themselves exclusively homosexual accounted for only 1 percent of the population. In 1993, Time magazine reported, “Recent surveys from France, Britain, Canada, Norway and Denmark all point to numbers lower than 10 percent and tend to come out in the 1 to 4 percent range.” The incidence of homosexuality among adults is actually “between 1 and 3 percent;” says University of Delaware sociology and criminal justice professor Joel Best, author of Damned Lies and Statistics. Best observes, however, that gay and lesbian activists prefer to use Kinsey’s long-discredited one-in-ten figure “because it suggests that homosexuals are a substantial minority group, roughly equal in number to African Americans — too large to be ignored.”

Not surprisingly, Kinsey’s numbers showing marital infidelity to be harmless also never held up. In one Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy study of infidelity, 85 percent of marriages were damaged as a result, and 34 percent ended in divorce. Even spouses who stayed together usually described their marriages afterwards as unhappy. Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman, M.D., estimates that among couples who have been married for a long time and then divorce, “over 90 percent of the divorces involve infidelities.”

Speaking at a 1955 conference sponsored by Planned Parenthood, Kinsey pulled another statistical bombshell out of his hat. He claimed that of all pregnant women, roughly 95 percent of singles and 25 percent of those who were married secretly aborted their babies. A whopping 87 percent of these abortions, he claimed, were performed by bona fide doctors. Thus he gave scientific authority to the notion that abortion was already a common medical procedure — and should thus be legal.

Living With the Wreckage

When Reader’s Digest asked popular sex therapist Ruth Westheimer what she thought of Kinsey’s misinformation, she reportedly replied, “I don’t care much about what is correct and is not correct. Without him, I wouldn’t be Dr. Ruth.”

But Kinsey’s deceptions do matter today, because we’re still living with the Kinsey model of sexuality. It permeates our entire culture. As Best observes, bad statistics are significant for many reasons: “They can be used to stir up public outrage or fear, they can distort our understanding of our world, and they can lead us to make poor policy choices.”

In a 1951 Journal of Social Psychology study, psychology students at the University of California, Los Angeles, were divided into three groups: Some students took an intensive nine-week course on Kinsey’s findings, while the other two groups received no formal Kinsey instruction. Afterward, the students took a quiz testing their attitudes about sex. Compared with those who received no Kinsey training, those steeped in Kinseyism were seven times as likely to view premarital sex more favorably than they did before and twice as likely to look more favorably on adultery. After Kinsey, the percentage of students open to a homosexual experience soared from 0 to 15 percent. Students taught Kinseyism were also less likely to let religion influence their sexual behavior and less apt to follow sexual rules taught by their parents.

Influencing Court Decisions

Kinsey’s pseudoscience arguably did the most damage through our court systems. That’s where attorneys used the researcher’s “facts” to repeal or weaken laws against abortion, pornography, obscenity, divorce, adultery, and sodomy. In the May 1950 issue of Scientific Monthly, New York City attorney Morris Ernst (who represented Kinsey, Margaret Sanger, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood) outlined his ambitious legal plan for Kinsey’s findings. “We must remember that there are two parts to law,” Ernst said. One was “the finding of the facts” (Kinsey’s job); the other was applying those findings in court (Ernst’s job). Noting that the law needed more tools “to aid in its search for the truth,” the attorney argued for “new rules,” under which “facts” like Kinsey’s would be introduced into court cases in the same way judges allowed other scientific tools, such as fingerprints, lie-detector results, and blood tests. The inexhaustible Ernst also urged the courts to revise laws concerning the institution of marriage.

The legal fallout from Kinsey’s work continues. The U.S. Supreme Court’s historic 2003 decision striking down sodomy laws was the offshoot of a long string of court cases won largely on the basis of Kinsey’s research. And 50 years of precedents set by Kinsey’s “false 10 percent” are now being used in states like Massachusetts to redefine marriage.

A Sorry Legacy

Inspired by the first Kinsey report, Hugh Hefner founded Playboy in 1953. A decade later, Helen Gurley Brown turned Cosmopolitan into a sex magazine for women. Even today magazines like Self and Glamour continue to quote Kinsey with respect, never acknowledging the grave errors riddling his research. An estimated 30,000 Web sites offer pornography, and U.S. producers churn out 600 hard-core adult videos each month. Although reliable figures are difficult to come by, the U.S. sex industry pulls in an estimated $2.5 billion to $10 billion a year. Clearly, we’re living Kinsey’s legacy.

In his book The End of Sex, an obituary of the sexual revolution, Esquire contributor George Leonard accurately observed that “wherever we have split ‘sex’ from love, creation, and the rest of life . . . we have trivialized and depersonalized the act of love itself.” Treasuring others solely for their sexuality strips them of their humanity. When Kinsey tore the mystery of love from human sexuality, he abandoned us all to a sexually broken world.

This article originally appeared in the May 2004 issue of Crisis Magazine.



Sue Ellin Browder is an award-winning investigative journalist and co-author, with her husband, Walter, of 101 Secrets a Good Dad Knows.

  • Austin

    As someone who has had a few statistics courses [as both an undergrad and grad student],I know that a sample should reflect the population that the sample should be drawn as accurately as possible. If your population is the American people, then your sample should go too heavyin reflecting any extremes, which skew the data. It looks like Kinsey loaded his sample with sex offenders and people who would be considered deviant. Thus the rather high levels of homosexuality and behavior considered “extreme.” Given his sampling errors, his conclusions do not hold water.

    What if he had gone to the other extreme and chosen lots of nuns and people who were in lifelong happy marriages? Then his conclusions would have gone the other way.

    Also, when you do a study, you need to avoid trying to predetermine the outcomes by cherry picking samples, which appears to be what Kinsey did. It appears that Kinsey wanted a certain outcome, so he sampled to get that outcome.

    This is a problem. Often Researchers want a certain outcome so they ensure that the sample reflects that outcome and/or they manipulate the data.

    Taking samples from a convent or a prison are going to yield very different results.

  • DK

    As a gen-x woman, I am deeply saddened and outraged by the deleterious effect of bad science upon the relationship between men and women. How many of my friends have been led astray by the lie that sex is a plaything, that love is dispensable? How many young women have felt pressured by the media messages to submit themselves over and over again in search of love, how many young men have developed an entitled many sexually confused teenagers have been led into deviant lifestyles thinking this is “totally natural”? I now see lonely, childless, confused friends entering their forties wondering what went wrong.

  • R. Brown

    The two primary reasons Kinsey sold and sells so much to media and government institutions is that, “sex sells” and it helps population control. The statistic that you cited show that sexually transmitted disease leads to sterilization. Broken families and relationships lead to less children, as does the promotion of homosexuality. Not to mention abortion.

    Thomas Malthus and other population controls people have been well severed by Kinsey’s propagation of sexual perversion. The major point is that it has been primarily voluntary on the part of the American population, as you pointed out in the college education study. The government, unlike China, has allowed a population control by making the unethical and immoral legal and not mandating how many children people can have.

    Next stop, government controlled health care! That should further trim the population, but at the top end, the elderly!

  • Mary Dubberly

    Wow! Thank you for this information. It has been very informative and I’m happy to be able to use this as a resource when teaching on purity.

  • FAC

    As a gen-x woman, I am deeply saddened and outraged by the deleterious effect of bad science upon the relationship between men and women. How many of my friends have been led astray by the lie that sex is a plaything, that love is dispensable? How many young women have felt pressured by the media messages to submit themselves over and over again in search of love, how many young men have developed an entitled many sexually confused teenagers have been led into deviant lifestyles thinking this is “totally natural”? I now see lonely, childless, confused friends entering their forties wondering what went wrong.

    Amen! I am a baby boomer, and was off to college in 1973. I fell into this “revolution” with the predictable results DK notes. I had the advantage of learning the right way as a kid (dating without sex until after marriage), so I was able to backtrack and reverse course. The problem then becomes to find someone who has made the same decision. That’s almost impossible. After a couple of dates you get dropped like a hot potato. The price for purity is very high.
    I have always thought in all the glorification of easy sexual relationships no one ever acknowledges, let alone talks about, what I knew from personal experience; every woman I knew, and many of the men, were in extreme emotional pain from living a sexually “free” lifestyle. I have never seen an article or T.V. show that really shows how permanently scarred most of us are when these sexual liaisons fail. We put on happy faces, but inside we are shattered and find trusting and being vulnerable again almost impossible. Easy sex really is, like DK says, a big lie. There really is no such thing.

  • John D

    An excellent article. I have read other studies that strongly suggest that Kinsey was a pedophile. He abused babies (by masturbation) in an attempt to claim that sexual arousal/desires are present as early as infancy! Thus, he tried to pave the way for the eventual “legalization” of sex between adults and children! Sound familiar in our pagan times? Kinsey should have been locked up no later than 1950. He was an agent of pure evil! No wonder Planned Parenthood loved him…

  • Anthea

    ….that I grew up in a normal, mom-at-home-happy-with-it, dad-at-work, family-oriented home in the 60s. I, too, was deceived by the “sexual revolution”, but held my parents’ values deeply enough that I knew having children was not an option, but a fulfilling, deeply-held necessity. Thank God that I am a mother; I cherish my two girls and pray that they won’t believe the lies that I believed.

    Freud was debunked a long time ago; when will our generation wake up and see that most psychology is a soft science? Pray, pray, pray, as Mother Mary asks us. The devil has wreaked havoc on our generation.

  • Robert Busso

    With the pro homosexual stance within our government, it makes me think that a significant proportion of politicians are homosexual with an agenda to help others like themselves to get on board the political band wagon. Perhaps, Kinsey was a planned catalyst. This country is becoming minority ruled.

  • Robert Colquhoun

    An excellent article. Kinsey was a fraud and his work had deeply damaging implications for society.
    He did however say this,

  • Jake

    Hmmm…. a Catholic website denouncing the teaching of Kinsey. In the real world, we recognize the sexuality that exists between humans. We are not brainwashed into thinking a God wishes to regulate our sexual desires. It is amazing (and somewhat amusing) to read the typical responses to this entry.

  • Lee

    I think you are deluding yourself if you think Church doesn’t recognize “the sexuality that exists between humans”. In fact, the Church recognizes sexuality as a gift from God. The Church differs from the real world in that it teaches that there are spiritual implications intrinsic to human sexuality that makes it more than just another bodily function like brushing your teeth or enjoying a good meal.

  • Lee

    Hmmm… Typical that someone in your particular version of the “real world” would characterize as being brainwashed anyone who doesn’t believe that every sexual impulse needs to be gratified.

    Also typical that you would focus on Catholic attitudes toward sex (which you don’t seem to truly understand) instead of addressing the material actually in the article. Would you argue that Kinsey’s research was scientifically and statistically rigorous? Aren’t you even slightly concerned that the so called research on which contemporary society has based much of its behavior is being called into question?

  • Tom

    Sir (or madam), your comment is what is known as a logical fallacy, namely attacking the person. You did claim anything in the article was inaccurate or fallacious. Your argument instead consisted of nothing more than, “Hey, this article can’t be true because this is a Catholic website!” Hardly an argument, is it?

  • Pingback: Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution | Catholic Canada()

  • Jpct50

    Every time I see a picture of Kinsey (the zoologist), it appears to be the face of the devil.

  • Kinsey, Sanger, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU, in one sentence.  Kinsey was a liar and a pervert, who allowed for the molestation of infants on a large scale.  Sanger was a liar and a racist demon.  Planned Parenthood never planned a parenthood in all its days.  And the ACLU is an enemy of true human and political liberty.

    • The Lawyer who founded ACLU was Sanger Kinseys and FDR’s Lawyer

    • Kamilla


      I’ll be visiting Bloomington, IN this summer where a friend pastors a church. Every time I see mention of Kinsey, I think, “Of course that’s why they spend so much time working with people suffering from perverse sexual impulses in that church.” Kinsey’s legacy seems to live in the air there.

      • Tanya Wersinger

        you need to sprinkle the whole area with blessed salt, or better yet have the place

        exorcized .

  • awesome article thanks KINSEY was Rejected in His survey by American Statistical association his science like most LIBERALS is based on weakness and a Lie. He was a certified Paedophile he also happened to be the 13th Eagle scout in USA Historu what a shame

  • Pingback: Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution | Foundation Life()

  • Kinsey and His Cohorts documented in their report Orgasms for all ages if a Child cried while Molesting it.. it was counted as achieving Orgasm sick very sick

  • Although Kinsey made some good observations, I think his past let him down and leaves a lot to be desired…take from it what you will but leave out the sordid past.
    posted by

  • Kinsey employed pedophiles who molested infants.  Yet the media don’t demand that the Kinsey Institute be shut down, no, never, gosh, you had to be there, things were different, he had his faults, sure, la de da … I’m told it’s the same thing with the newest darling in California, Harvey Milk.  He too had a fondness for teenage boys.  But hey, it wasn’t as if he was Jerry Sandusky.  The difference is, well, there’s a difference somewhere, there has to be … and Milk was killed for being homosexual, right, well, no, he wasn’t, he was a grafting politician on the take, and he was murdered by a lunatic, but hey, you had to be there …

  • Surely the most egregious example of an agenda masquerading as science to be perpetrated in the modern era. The damage that has resulted is truly profound.

  • poetcomic1

    I grew up in the ‘Eisenhower Fifties’.  The Kinsey Effect was worming into our psyches like a stuxnet computer virus.   We, the ‘Kinsey Children’ ‘exploded’ in the sixties and seventies and I am still recovering, age 60, from the inhuman and bestial degradation of body and spirit of those nightmare years. 

  • Tcjy8

    The discalimer says the views expressed are not necessarily those of Thomas More colleege, etc.  Well, they damn sure ought to be.  Very informative!  Not to take anything away from Kinsey’s evil impact,  but remember that the 1950’s also saw the glorification of hedonism disguised as spiritualism in the Beat movemnt. ( Interesting that in Kerouac’s 1957 On the road, the characters based on Allen Ginzberg and William Burroughs are NOT depicted as homosexuals.)  Being child at the time I could not understand what upset the grwonups about Elvis and his pelvis, but now I know that they were right to be concerend about the needless sexualization of entertainment.  The seeds of this were planted before Kinsey’s books were published; protest as she did, Dr. Mead’s own phony research was misleading people brom back in the 1920’s.  And let us never forget the insidious influence that Marxists and all atheists have had on our culture since they landed on our shores.  I hope none of you is still so emotionally attacked to what should be called the Abortion and Sodomy Party that he or she is offended  by being reminded that the Secretary of State proudly boasts that Margaret Sanger is her heroine.

  • Pingback: Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution |()

  • Guest II

    I am reasonably sure that most of our nation’s middle and high schools repeat the 10 percent lie.  I know mine did.  

    • D

      I remember freshman year at Yale in 1987 when the rallying cry of the gay activists was “one in four, maybe more.”

  • D

    I am sure glad I chose to take my instruction in the Catholic faith to heart.  It saved me from a lot of this craziness. 

  • RosaMaria

    The expression in his eyes and his whole aspect looks demented.  A sick, demented and perverted monster who sexually abused children and even infants and called it “science”  He must be in the deepest parts of Hell, if he didn’t repent.

    • ArchangelGabriel

      LMAO so the catholic priests, with such repressed sexualities, are not the ones molesting children? Think about the children before you think about yourself and your (joke) of a religion, as Jesus would do. No, the expression on his face is him being serious, you’re projecting your own twisted feelings unto him. Remember: Jesus wasn’t a fan of hypocrites. 😉 And I live in a catholic society, in Monterrey Mexico, so please spare the “BS” card, I know all about you people and how you behave. I pray for your poor souls.

      • martin

        You call yourself Archangel Gabriel. You read (or troll) a Catholic website. Only to degrade others and your own spiritual ancestry. Woe to you, amigo. 

        The sins of members of Christ’s Church does not debunk the Gospel,friend. Christ is the Way, Truth, and the Life, and at every Mass his Passion on Calvary happens again out of Love for all mankind. 

        And the Mother of God appeared in your country centuries ago to testify to this Truth.

        Christ and His Blessed Mother is the Hope for Mexico and the entire world, even as the idolatry of Santa Muerte ravages your land. 

        May You Someday be Converted

      • John

        >> I know all about you people and how you behave.

        I doubt it. You know what’s worse than being a liberal Catholic (you) … being a an ex-liberal who turned conservative. So it’s more I know YOU than you know us. Petrifying.

  • HurtHurtHurtstopExplainASAP

    Hurt beyond belief……..

    An article such as this is hardly a comfort right now.

  • Mama14075

    The damage this man has done with PP, Sanger and the ACLU is incomprehensible…leading such perversion that we witness on the airwaves is nothing less than demonic…”get behind me satan”

  • Ann Bond

    Actually, according to Dr Judith Reisman, Kinsey studied gall wasps, so he was really a bug doctor.  Would you trust an exterminator to advise you on romance and marriage? I agree with all the comments. The problem is we have to get the word out in spite of ridicule, disbelief, legal harrassment and outright lying. These people have a varied repertoire in order to quell dissent. Would love to discuss strategies with any one of you!

    • ArchangelleGabriel

      Sex and sexual desire is not romance or marriage, it is a human need. The need to be touched and caressed on the most basic level. Learning to trust someone so strongly that you can allow that with them, that they allow it with you, the vulnerability, thus two people becoming one (the basis for marriage). True love and marriage grow from the resonance between two souls (notice how I said souls, not genders ;)). Sex (what he studied) being marriage and true love? Big difference dear. And you distrust him based on his job? On something so superficial? I guess you would distrust Jesus because he was a petty carpenter would you not? Ohh you people, you think you follow him so strongly, yet you have strayed so far it seems you walk in the opposite direction.. God is in your heart, let go of your anger and you will see.

      • John

        >>True love and marriage grow from the resonance between two souls (notice how I said souls, not genders ;))

        So with that reasoning I guess homosexual marriage and homosexuals raising children is perfectly fine with you.

  • ArchangelleGabriel

    I feel so sorry for all the people commenting here, you have such anger and wrath within yourselves, seeking any way to let it out. It is the catholic priests who molest children. It is the repression of sexuality which brings perversions such as this. Do not blind yourselves with hatred. And remember it is a cardinal sin. God created man in his image, as both male and female (meaning each sex has female and male within themselves). And humans are innately bisexual, that is not something difficult to understand. That you let fear govern your lives and harden your hearts is another story… I pray for your poor souls. Do you really, deep within your heart, think Jesus would shun those with a different sexuality than yours (gays? bi?). Think about it, I beg you. The truth will set you free. Also, the arguments for his studies being false in this article have no base, you use words like “many” and “often”. There is no validity to your accusations,no true logic. Why do I expect any better? You behave like bitter children, and so, I pray.

    • John Key

      You have to be joking, right?  Your comment is so full of half-baked pseudo-science rainbow and unicorn nonsense it hardly deserves comment. Nothing you’ve said here is correct and is easily proven to be bunk through secular sources. Do us a favor, explain your position on human sexuality and its purpose…we’d love to see it laid bare. And for the record, the Church doesn’t shun gays, it calls them to the same chastity that single people are expected to practice.

      • Brian Harvill

        And for the record John, the church doesn’t simply “call them to chastity”, it tells them that they are worthless, that they are monsters, that they are broken, that they are deviant, that they are better off being dead, that they are not worth human contact, that they are to be shunned, that they are to look forward to loneliness and misery for their lives and all for the soothing of OTHER people’s sensibilities. How selfish can you possibly get?
        Other people have to fashion their lives to your satisfaction and have to go through life alone and unloved for your satisfaction. How shallow and hateful that entire position truly is. Try a little humanity once in a while and realize that these are people that you are discussing that have the same needs and requirements that you do, that being the love and caring of a special person that they can formulate a life with. In case you haven’t noticed, it is not good for man to be alone. Those are the words of God so I think that HE would know better than you what is right for the homosexual as well as the heterosexual.

  • Pingback: Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution | Knowledge Wealth Centre()

  • How do you theologise and theodicise an empirical issue? How do you manicheanise a scientific question? Read above.

    1. Hmm, “Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict; Stanford University psychologist Lewis
    M. Terman; Karl Menninger, M.D. (founder of the famed Menninger
    Institute); psychiatrists Eric Fromm and Lawrence Kubie; cultural critic
    Lionel Trilling of Columbia University, and countless others” condemn Kinsey. Hmm, why do I suspect our defender of dogma author would dogmatically condemn many of those condemned Kinsey.

    2. Context, context, my eyebrow for context. Doing research on these issues in Victorian America (or an America perceived by prigs as Victorian sans the Victorian porn (see American domestic sitcoms) was, though one wouldn’t understand this from this vacuum packed essay, hardly easy.

    3. Oh my god, please help our author bring back death by stoning for adultery (for women that is) and death by any means for “sodomy”. And while we are at it hows about making women go out on the edge of town (Springsteen song coming) during their periods.

    4. Gee I never realised Kinsey singlehandedly destroyed Catholic civilisation. Twas he who paved the way for the current crisis of Catholicism. Cool. God save the K man. Guess that leaves the Beatles free to do the marxist minstrel rag. Or have they already done it?

    • RufusChoate

      You know you did nothing to strengthened your argument. A collection of fatuous asides and idiotic inferences isn’t as interesting as you suppose.

  • Pingback: Church Militant.TV…Homosexuality Links « Help Restore Common Sense()

  • Pingback: Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality - Page 54 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • fredx2

    This was the origin of the fake scientific studies/media complex.

  • bonaventure

    “17 percent of farm boys had experienced sex with animals”
    Kinsey must have known Senator Thad Cochran.

  • Blood__Raven

    Did Alfred Kinsey actually endorse abortion? Supposedly said at ‘1955 conference sponsored by Planned Parenthood’ but PP was pro-life then. This fact is embarrassing to both pro-lifers & pro-choicers to Americans today, but its true.