Bill, thank you for this perspective on the film, and Kinsey himself. Kinsey's child sex experimentation is nothing more than documented child sexual abuse. It is important that these shocking aspects of his research are made known. It reminds me of Mendele and his cohorts in Nazi camps.

Child abuse, pornography and sexually oppressive relationships precede the 1960s. Reading Muehlenberg's article could almost make you think otherwise. For example, the Victorian era (1837-1901) saw a flourishing of pornography, prostitution including child prostitution alongside what we call traditional marriage. Kinsey may have a lot to answer for but he is not responsible for the start of sexually unequal relationships.

Muehlenberg skates over the question of homosexuality. Well, I'll fill you in here. As a gay man I feel a lot freer and happier than I ever could in the oppressive 1950s in Australia with its disgusting attitudes to homosexuality and its anti-gay legislation. If Kinsey and his followers were responsible for freeing gays from that oppressive period then good on them. And the Australian Family Association (AFA) and its clones can shove their abusive anti-gay "reparative" therapy (aimed at making gay people straight). Not only is it sexual abuse, it is an unethical use of psychology and social work. Members of those professions are not surprisingly angry about that. Funny how Muehlenberg omitted that little detail in his article.

Well said DavidJS
Either Deakin Uni gives PHDs away these days or Bill going to be trying for his a bit longer. In Bills world Christians are all happily married to their soul mates, have four or five perfect children who get full marks in every subject including creation science. No one coverts his next neighbors wife (husband) and nobody is guy. It’s been a recent trend for Christian groups to try and rewrite history. The two favorites at the moment is the sexual revolution and the enlightenment has caused our once perfect Christian society to fall

DavidJS. I don't think that Kinsey had much to do with the broader acceptance of homosexuals over the years. I would be pretty uncomfortable using this pervert as a pin-up boy.

It's also pretty disappointing that normally compassionate people like yourself are prepared to defend this criminal and ignore the monumental damage he did to children because you percieve some advantage to your cause in a small area of his research.

DavidJS and Kenny, I guarantee that both of you would be the first to scream the place down if anyone dared suggest using data the Nazis collected by the murder and torture of Gypsies and Jews. Not much difference here. You shouldn't automatically embrace everything you perceive as "progressive" just for that reason. Both of you should read Reismans' book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, as I have. Maybe you'll change your minds.

What ever this Kinsey guy did or didn't do is pretty much irrelevent now, so Cranky - they might as well use the results of this disturbing study on kids to the advantage of future generations....much like they DO use the discoveries from the Nazi consentration camps in medical science today.

I find it FAR more disturbing that the author is blaming everything from divorce to the hole in the ozone layer on unoppressed sexuality - like the alternative of abstinence only (makes more teen pg than sex education... not to mention the increase we are going to see in sexually transmitted diseases) and up-tight, sex-in-the-dark-with-one-person-for-your-whole-life sex (psychological damage, paedophillia - just look at catholic priests!!!!!)

Abstinence is not natural...

Difference is Newsroo some of the results of the Nazi tests have been valuable to science. Kinsey was a perverted predator and his results are crap.

There are multiple levels of comment.

Firstly: A scientific description of human behavior should be both objective and non- judgmental. It is quite appropriate to comment on matters of methodology; such as the criteria used to obtain samples, selection of controls, sample size and a myriad of other technical matters. Rates of abortion, incest, homosexuality etc. can be determined. Further each of these terms requires precise and exact definition. If it is shown that children as young as 5 months could be sexually active then it is of biological interest. How is it possible determine what is in the mind of a five months baby? We know that at age 14 years sexual activity is possible, especially in the form of masturbation.

Human societies do practice bestiality, sadism and so on. A role for the social scientist is to determine the extent of these practices in a stated society.

The Second level is having measured the extent of a practice is there a case for the state to intervene. “Public Health” can base choices on operational criteria. Subjectivity is unavoidable. A judgment that HBV, or HIV/AIDS is bad, is the consensus view. Therefore it is reasonable to attempt a reduction in incidence by promoting condom use and other harm minimization procedures.

A third level is the subjective reaction of society members such as Bill Muehlenberg:

As for Hollywood, I have no information as the motives of producers, except to believe it is to make money by entertainment. After all is that not what Hollywood does best?

It is the prerogative of the Australian Family Association to hold strong ethically opinions on matters of human sexuality. Yet, others are under no obligation to agree with them. My personal philosophy is, if a public health problem is identified and an intervention required, then harm minimization is the way to go.

Bill Muehlenberg's disgraceful essay is sourced from material published by the American Family Association (a fundamentalist Catholic organisation clearly linked to the Australian group).

Muehlenberg's sickening obsession with sexual perversity, as he sees it, is disturbing enough, but to be permitted by this website to publish this farrago of vicious lies and complete nonsense, and then see honest readers trying to deal with it, is enough to make me weep.

For a complete debunking of this dreadful crap, readers should google "Judith Reisman's Dirty Little Mind", or go straight to www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=kinsey for the full disgusting story on Reisman and her followers in the AFA, including Table 34. Just for openers, neither Kinsey, nor his institute, experimented on anyone, let alone children. All the research was done by interview.

What's with all the ad hominem attacks on Bill Muehlenberg,like this last post from grace pettigrew (who seems to have had a lapse(?) as to the meaning of her name) or the earlier ones from David JS and Kenny. Is it because Muehlenberg is a Christian or because you actually approve the kind of sexual lifestyle advanced by Kinsey or is it you simply hate Muehlenberg and what he has to say, that you become irrational? Be upfront and be honest with us.

And while you are at it, why don't you actually read what Bill has written and if you are against him mount logical, honest, factual responses without attributing things to him that he does not say as some of you have done.

For what its worth, I reckon Kinsey and all those who both espouse his kind of philosophy and put it into practice have a lot to answer for, not least for their contribution for the precipitous decline in the birthrate in recent decades. As they say, demographics is destiny. Still the Christians and Muslims are doing their bit in this regard to reverse the trend.....

Aussie2 has a bad case of envey.Hollywood is fantacyland.What else would you expect?The rub bites when you start believing the fantacy.

Life is a relative experience.I was awe struck by the way Indian women on Bombay [1979] demonstrated dignity,self respect and purpose in life with almost no material possessions.

I did say that Kinsey may have a lot to answer for. And I'll give others the benefit of the doubt regarding the actual details of Kinsey's work. But Muehlenberg refers to "radical and deviant agendas" and throws homosexuality into that mix. Of course he is wise enough not to explicitly equate homosexuality with child abuse. But he obviously wants to connect being gay with a whole host of sexually unequal and abusive forms of relationships. And he blames 1960s radicals for the ills of the world.

I am fed up with homosexuality being listed as part of a host of perversions. I doubt if Muehlenberg would like prostitution or child abuse being equated with heterosexuality. Well then, perhaps he could return the favour for gay people.

While I can understand DavidJS being fed up with homosexuality being listed as part of a host of perversions, the reason why Christians, at least the orthodox ones, reject the homosexual lifestyle (and I believe Muslims do as well) is that the Bible does so with its outright rejection of homosexuality in favour of the Biblical mandate that "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh", a statement later endorsed by Jesus Christ. As long as the Bible is (permitted to be) read and believed, at least some proportion of the population will hold to this opinion for religious reasons, though others may hold it for other reasons. One blindingly obvious reason is that life only continues through children - a homosexual union, no matter how beautiful it may be to those so engaged, remains a sterile union in so far as the continuance of life is concerned.

Regarding the comment, "I doubt if Muehlenberg would like prostitution or child abuse being equated with heterosexuality" I wouln't be so sure about that. With 98% or thereabouts of the population heterosexual, heterosexual prostitution and child abuse is bound to far exceed that perpetrated by homosexuals. And because of the relative lack of children in homosexual relationships, probably out of all proportion in relation to child abuse, although it does appear most sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests seems to have involved boys and not girls.

Right Wing Organizations
American Family Association
P.O. Box 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803
www.afa.net

Chairman/Founder: the Rev. Donald Wildmon
Vice President: Tim Wildmon (son of Donald Wildmon)
Date of founding: 1977
Membership: AFA claims over 500,000 members.
Finances: $11.4 million (2000)
Staff: About 100 employees and five full-time lawyers.
State chapters: State Directors in 21 states. Also has smaller chapters, number unknown.
Publications: “AFA Journal,” published monthly, with a circulation of 180,000.
Radio: AFA has its own 200-station network of radio stations across the United States.
Videos: AFA has produced “Excess Access,” “It’s Not Gay,” and “Suffer the Children” Television: AFA has appeared on the following shows: “Good Morning America,” “The Today Show,” “MacNeill Lehrer Report,” “Nightline,” “The 700 Club,” “Meet the Press,” “Crossfire,” and “Focus on the Family.”
Formerly known as: National Federation for Decency
Affiliate groups: AFA Foundation, Center for Law & Policy, American Family Radio, and Agape Press

AFA’s principal issues:
American Family Association targets the media and entertainment industry’s “attack” on “traditional family values.”

Two of the main duties that AFA assigns to itself are “promoting the centrality of God in American life” and “promoting the Christian ethic of decency.”

“Indecent” influences in American culture include: television, the separation of church and state, pornography, “the homosexual agenda,” premarital sex, legal abortion, the National Endowment for the Arts, gambling, unfiltered internet access in libraries, and the removal of school-sponsored religious worship from public schools.

AFA Activities:
AFA produces the radio show, "AFA Report," a 30-minute feature available on about 1,200 local radio stations nationwide. AFA launched their broadcast ministry American Family Radio (AFR) in 1987. AFR has approximately 200 radio stations in 27 states across the country. According to American Family Radio, “AFR has built more stations in a shorter time than any other broadcaster in the history of broadcasting.” The AFA built their small radio empire by applying for “noncommercial educational licenses.” When the FCC refused to grant some the licenses the AFA sued the FCC in federal court arguing that to deny religious groups noncommercial broadcasting licenses violates their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.

For over twenty years AFA’s primary activities have been organizing boycotts against sponsors of TV shows with “anti-Christian” messages and ideas.

AFA has created two websites,www.onemillionmoms.com and www.onemilliondads.com, to “help parents do something about the trash on TV” by organizing weekly on-line boycotts of offensive advertising or television shows.

Among its hundreds of boycott targets over the years are "Cheers," "The Johnny Carson Show," "Saturday Night Live," "Roseanne," "Nightline," "NYPD Blue," and “Ellen.” AFA has called for widespread boycotts of all businesses that “promote” pornography, homosexuality, or other forms of “indecency.”

A major target has been Disney and its subsidiaries. According to the group “Disney’s attack on America’s families has become so blatent, [sic] so intentional, so obvious, that American Family Association has called for a boycott of all Disney products until such time as this activity ceases.”

Other boycott targets include American Airlines for their policy of providing domestic partner benefits and K-mart for selling music that has a “parental advisory warning” sticker, even to adults.

Donald Wildmon has called for the shutdown of PBS and as a result of the AFA's campaign, many state legislatures reduced funding for public broadcasting. The AFA spearheaded the attack on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the 1980’s, using direct mail and extensive print advertising to distort the NEA's record of sponsorship of the arts.

Profiles on AFA Affiliates:
AFA Center for Law and Policy activities (CLP):

In 1990, the AFA established the AFA Center for Law & Policy as a litigation and public policy arm of the organization.

The Center for Law & Policy (CLP) is staffed by six full-time attorneys with a network of more than 400 affiliate lawyers. The CLP states that they provide representation to Christians in courts throughout the country, and advise state and federal legislators on constitutional, political and legal issues.

The CLP has been involved in several cases where they push for religious worship and symbols in public schools as well as the removal of curriculum that doesn’t reflect “traditional family values.”

Recently AFA has spearheaded a campaign to have their “In God We Trust” posters posted in every classroom, in every school in the United States. In 2001, the Mississippi state legislature passed a law requiring that each public school classroom, auditorium and cafeteria display a “In God We Trust” poster. However, when the Mississippi state legislature did not provide any funding for the bill, AFA/CLP volunteered to be the coordinator for the project. AFA/CLP is responsible for organizing and distributing 32,000 “In God We Trust” free posters in public schools in the state of Mississippi.

AFA/CLP has encouraged other states to follow Mississippi’s example, promising that anyone who may be afraid of a lawsuit would be defended by the AFA Center for Law & Policy for free. In 2001, AFA distributed 250,000 “In God We Trust” posters nationwide.

Other Legal Activities by AFA/CLP include:
CLP represented the anti-gay group “Take Back Maryland” when they were accused of falsifying signatures for a petition to reverse an anti-discrimination bill that protected gays and lesbians from bias discrimination in employment and housing.

AFA filed lawsuits attempting to ban the curriculum, "Impressions," from public school classrooms on the grounds that it "promotes the religion of witchcraft."

AFA sponsored a rally in support of Judge Roy Moore of Alabama who refused to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom.

AFA Center for Law & Policy (CLP) won a lawsuit on behalf of pro-life protesters in Elkhorn, Wisconsin, over protest signs confiscated and held by city officials.

AFA State Affiliates:
Many of AFA’s state chapters are very active on a state and local level. Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan has become a lightening rod in the state for controversy over civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. Glenn has opposed anti-discrimination policies of several Michigan cities by asserting that if passed, public bathrooms and showers would become co-ed. After the legislation passed in several towns, Glenn organized petitions to overturn the legislation, asserting that gays and lesbians pose a “public health hazard.” Glenn also has targeted a 4th grade environmental education course, alleging that the program is “anti-human” and promotes paganism.

AFA’s California director Scott Lively, of Abiding Truth Ministries and the Pro-Family Law Center, is an anti-gay activist who has written such books as “The Pink Swastika,” which claims that “homosexuals [are] the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities.” [From the “The Pink Swastika” preface.] Lively has also written “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child, “ and “The Poisoned Stream: “Gay” Influence in Human History.” AFA California has launched the “California Campaign to Take Back the Schools” to stop the “homosexualization of American public schools.”

AFA Quotes:
Quotes from the Reverend Don Wildmon on behalf of AFA:

"Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” (4-16-01, AFA Press Release)

“We believe the national motto incorporates the foundational belief of our culture, and its words ‘In God we trust’ are a message our children need to see in school.” (July 2001, cover story of AFA Journal)

“But the National PTA continued right along, increasingly becoming a tool to promote a left-wing philosophy instead of helping the children with their educational needs. The latest project for the National PTA is the promotion of the homosexual agenda…Stop the PTA from using your children to promote their left-wing political agenda. “AFA Journal, February 2001 Edition

From AFA staffers:

“Over the years, AFA has consistently addressed the homosexual movement's obsession with infiltrating the public school system. Its eye-opening video “It's Not Gay”, which presents a heartbreaking look at the physical and emotional consequences of the homosexual lifestyle, has been the most popular video ever produced by AFA. “ (May 2001, “Homosexuals push for control of schools”)

“Nothing disappointed the [American Family Association] more than Disney's enthusiastic embrace of [the homosexual] movement that rejects everything that is sacred to Christians about human sexuality, marriage and family.” (April 2001, “Why the Disney Boycott Shouldn't Go Away”)

From AFA state affiliates:

“The church and this nation cry out for a revival of masculine Christianity, which is to say that we church leaders need to stop being such, for lack of a better word, sissies when it comes to social and political issues. We need to spend as much time confronting perpetrators as we do comforting victims. We need to do less fretting, and more fighting for righteousness. For every motherly, feminine ministry of the church such as a Crisis Pregnancy Center or ex-gay support group, we need a battle-hardened, take-it-to-the-enemy masculine ministry like Operation Rescue (questions of civil disobedience aside). For every God-hating radical in government, academia and media we need a bold, no-nonsense, truth-telling Christian counterpart: trained, equipped and endorsed by the local church.” –Scott Lively, Director of AFA California and Abiding Truth Ministries, author of “The Pink Swastika.” (quote source: http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/archives/editorials/masculinechristianity.html)

"Under homosexual activists' political agenda, our children would face a future in which traditional marriage and families have been legally devalued, while state government -- despite the severe threat it poses to personal and public health -- not only legally endorses but uses our tax dollars to subsidize deadly homosexual behavior." –Gary Glenn, Director of AFA Michigan (2-17-01 Press Release)

courtesy of People For the American Way • 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400 • Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-467-4999 or 800-326-7329 • pfaw@pfaw.or

Alfred Kinsey, and Judith Reisman's Dirty Little Mind
Adult Christianity, November 2004
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=kinsey

By Miss Poppy Dixon

The movie "Kinsey, Let's Talk About Sex," with Liam Neeson and Laura Linney, opened in selected theaters on November 12. This article is an updated version of a piece on one of Kinsey's contemporary detractors, Judith Reisman, which I originally had written and posted in 1996.

Judith Reisman

Judith Reisman was recently quoted in the Sunday Los Angeles Times as one of Alfred Kinsey's chief detractors. Indeed, she has made a career out of trying to discredit Kinsey, a career which we will review here. Reisman's work would be of little consequence were she not referenced by so many conservative Christian organizations, from the Family Research Council, to James Dobson's Focus on the Family, to Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women of America. [1]

In the 1970s Judith Reisman was a singer on the Captain Kangaroo show. The chanteuse's career ended badly when the free-agent singer-songwriter ran headlong into modern market research and the crushing competition of what she later referred to as "the fast-action and increasing violence of cartoons on other stations." Retreating under the cover of artistic integrity she turned to academia, and a career in communications and media analysis. The fact that children's minds wandered during her music videos had to be about something other than the quality of her performance, and she was going to find out what it was.

Enter Alfred Kinsey: Reisman's personal scapegoat.

The move from kid's show celebrity to academia was not an easy one for Reisman. Intimidated by her husband, a university professor, and his colleagues, she reinvented herself as a doctor of communications, expert on pornography, and token Jewish friend of the American conservative religious right. In her Personal Odyssey she writes that the academicians she met were "...out of touch with the reality of the majority."[2]

Dr. Reisman began writing extensively on Dr. Alfred Kinsey. Her first book was self-published, by her occasionally defunct Institute for Media Education, of which whe is President. Her second Kinsey book, and another on pornography were published by Huntington House Books. Huntington House, along with its subsidiary Vital Issues Press, will publish almost any book on "conservative issues, politically incorrect exposés, christian apologetics, cults/occult, evangelism, family issues, anti-globalist issues" and "patriotism/survivalism" as it says in its appeal to prospective authors.

The sad thing is that Kinsey's books are highly accessible, written in straightforward prose interspersed with dry and witty commentary. But like that other unfortunate and unread tome, the Bible, it's become the handmaid of bloodless and shriveled interpreters.

Type Judith Reisman into the Amazon search engine and you'll see a display of out-of-print and yet-to-be-printed (World Net Daily Publishing) mentions. You can still dig up some of her books used. The obscurity of her work has not prevented her from becoming a regular writer for the right wing rag World Net Daily.

QUESTIONING REALITY

The online-only Journal of Human Sexuality, sponsored by http://www.leaderu.com/Leadership U (a spinoff of Campus Crusade for Christ), has published Reisman's essay, Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution. The essay is comprised of 31 complex and leading questions, questions designed to prejudice the reader, questions like "...what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse?", and "...could not some American scientists teach pederasts and pedophiles techniques for sexually abusing children for 'science'?", and "Was Kinsey himself a closet homosexual, pedophile or pederast?"

The answer to these questions is "no," which is why they're posed as questions and not as statements. Though Dr. Reisman includes tables and footnotes, she offers no proof or support for the innuendo she directs at Kinsey. In fact, her "research methods" could call her own background into question.

In her Personal Odyssey Reisman claims that rather than accommodate the criticism of her work for the good of the Captain Kangaroo show and her child fans, she decided quit the show. But, was this the real reason? Or is this just the way Reisman chooses to cover her real crime, and deny her guilt? She IS an expert witness on child pornography and pedophilia. Could the reason Reisman was asked to leave the Captain Kangaroo show be that she molested several of her young charges? No. But this is how complex questions work. In fact, after reading this article you may have difficulty remembering what was true, and what was only asked about, and forever wonder if Reisman is, or was, herself a child molester, even though I specifically stated that she is not.

Not exactly scientific, is it?

Please read Debunking Kinsey's Table 34, wherein Miss Poppy Dixon takes apart Judith Reisman's claims against Kinsey one by one.

THE PORN STUDY

In the early 1980s "the US Justice Department had given Reisman a grant for $734,371 to study pictures in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler." [3] Reisman used the grant to confirm her conclusion of "Kinsey's role in child sexual abuse and the link to children appearing in mainstream pornography..." [4] Dr. Reisman poured over thousands of pages of pornographic literature. She felt herself persecuted at every turn and complained of a conspiracy to derail her efforts, going so far as to blame the Kinsey Institute for her inability to get published by a legitimate publishing house. [5]

And to an extent, she was persecuted, though not for the reasons she assumed. The Reagan-appointee who had commissioned the study, Alfred Regnery (the head of the conservative publishing house, Regnery Press), admitted he had been wrong to do so. Avedon Carol writes:

It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, 'The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.' Figlio told the press, 'I wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn'. (Carol, 1994, p.116) [6]

Dr Loretta Haroian, the cochair of the plenary session of Child and Adolescent Sexuality at the 1984 World Congress of Sexology, an expert on childhood sexuality, commented on Reisman's work,

This is not science, it's vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing doesn't help children at all. ... [Reisman's] study demonstrates gross negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time collecting her data, her conclusions, based on the data, are completely unwarranted. The experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not experts at all but simply people who have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and children." (Carol, 1994, p.116). [7]

There were difficulties in publishing the study, though Reisman tends to gloss over this fact as illustrated in the case of The State of Ohio vs. the Contemporary Art Center and Dennis Barrie (Mapplethorpe and Cincinnati). Dr. Reisman was called to testify as an expert witness.

Mezibov, the defense attorney "asks if [Reisman's] study has been published by the Justice Department. 'It is on the shelf. It was published. You can buy copies.' A series of truths, not adding up to the truth.

"Mezibov pulls out the pretrial testimony. 'You said before that there was a six-year delay, that the study was published not by the Justice Department but by Huntington Press. Would you like to change your answer?'" [8]

The Executive Summmary of Reisman's study was eventually published by Donald Wildmon's American Family Association.

KINSEY - 1, REISMAN - 0
In 1990 Reisman wrote Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, with Edward Eichel, published by Vital Issues Press (Huntington House). Reisman describes the book on her web site claiming that "Kinsey's research involved illegal experimentation on several hundred children."

The Kinsey Institute refuted Reisman's allegations prompting a lawsuit filed in 1991 by Reisman against the Institute's then director June Reinisch and Indiana University. Reisman alleged defamation of character and slander. Reisman's attorney "withdrew from the case" in 1993, and "in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice [which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit]." [9]

Read the Kinsey Institute's response to Reisman's claims: Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

SHOWTIME
After almost thirty years Dr. Reisman has made it back to television..., in a way. She was recently portrayed by actress Nancy Beatty in Showtime's movie Dirty Pictures, starring James Woods. Woods plays Dennis Barrie, of the Cincinnati Arts Center. Both Barrie, and the CAC, were charged with obscenity for hosting Robert Mapplethorpe's controversial show The Perfect Moment

Nancy Beatty delivers a perfectly brittle performance, gesticulating elaborately as her character attempts to describe the way the light emphasizes a penis in one of Mapplethorpe's photographs. Woods quips to his attorney "What is this, porno for the deaf?"

Later in deliberation the jury amuses itself mimicking Beatty's performance as Reisman. Though lampooned by the left-wing, liberal media elite, in real life, despite her expert testimony, the jury consisting of midwest Ohio citizens delivered a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 2749
In December of 1995 House Resolution 2749 was introduced to the House by Representative by Steve Stockman, [10] and 40 cohorts. The bill's short title is "Child Protection and Ethics I Education Act of 1995," while the official title offers an idea of what the bill is really about - "A bill to determine if Alfred Kinsey's 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male' and/or 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Female' are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing." Reisman makes much of the bill in her curriculum vitae, "This Bill is the culmination of Dr. Reisman's 20-years of research and advocacy for children. A Senate hearing waits in the wings." It's been nine years.

Who is Representative Steve Stockman, the man who introduced HR 2749? He is a Texan swept from oblivion to the US Congress on the 1994 conservative wave. Dubbed "Congressman Clueless" by Mimi Swartz of The Texas Monthly, he described himself in an interview with the American Enterprise Organization [11],

I didn't even have a car at one point. In the summer of '80 I was living in the Ft. Worth Water Gardens. I didn't go to the government for help when I was homeless. I collected cans to earn money to eat. Hunger was a tremendous incentive to get up and work. And in the long run, it taught me the work ethic. I ended up going from a person who didn't like to work to now being called a workaholic, because I have that fear or understanding of what it's like to go hungry. I was 110 pounds and now I'm up to 208. So I caught up a lot.

Stockman later became born-again and joined socially-conservative Christians to reclaim America. In Congress he signed Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, and was known for mandatory prayer meetings for his office staff.

The religious right had high hopes for Stockman as he tried to make a name for himself by signing his first pieces of legislation - "bills designed, variously, to 'provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception'; to 'repeal prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity, ammunition-feeding devices'; and to determine if Alfred Kinsey's well-known books on sexual behavior are 'the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing.'" [12]

How much influence did Reisman's work have on this legislation? As well as being long-time Reisman supporters, Donald Wildmon of American Family Association (her ostensible employer), Gary Bauer of Family Research Council and Beverly La Haye of Concerned Women for America are also members of the ultra right-wing organization Council on National Policy founded by Tim La Haye. Who else is a member? Representative Steve Stockman. Members of the CNP donated over $35,000 to Stockman's 96 campaign via Phyllis Shlafley's Eagle Forum, the Gun Owners of America, and the Majority Leader's Fund (Dick Armey) - all members of the CNP. [13]

House Resolution 2749 died in committee. It was not debated on the floor.

Stockman was defeated in 1996, after one term, by Nick Lampson. Democrats were successful in charging that Stockman was a "right-wing extremist with ties to militia groups." [14] Perhaps now Huntington House will publish his memoirs.

SUMMARY
Let's review. First Reisman 'leaves' the Captain Kangaroo show. Then she accepts over $700K for a report that both her university and the Justice Department refuse to publish. She sues the Kinsey Institute for defamation, loses, and is forbidden to try again. She appears as an expert witness at The State of Ohio vs. the Contemporary Art Center and Dennis Barrie (Mapplethorpe and Cincinnati) and the defense has her for lunch. And finally, she supports a bill introduced by a wet-behind-the-ears, born-again freshman Congressman from Texas, which never even makes it to the floor. It's unlikely Reisman could get arrested at this point. Yet what makes her dangerous is the rarely questioned nature of her writings, and her association with ultra-conservative religious policy makers.

In Kinsey's highly readable 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male' he writes,

It is, precisely, the function of a population analysis to help in the understanding of particular individuals by showing their relation to the remainder of the group. [Kinsey's emphasis] ...Without such a background, each individual becomes unique and unexplainable except through an elaborate investigation of him as an isolated entity. [15]

By attempting to prevent access to information about sex, social conservatives attempt to separate the individual from his social context and exploit his insecurities. By convincing an individual that his sexual interests are aberrations that grieve an ever voyeuristic God, social conservatives can control that person through both fear and guilt. Factual information about sexuality, and an individual's relation to the group, serve as a pure light - banishing ignorance and healing fear and guilt, bringing the individual back into the social milieu to which he belongs.

Kinsey has admitted that his sample was not adequate to draw firm conclusions, and longed for a more comprehensive study to be conducted in the future. But the research Kinsey provided has given people a context for their own sexuality, protecting them from the priests and witch doctors who are ever ready to pry and condemn.

Reisman's claims about the inadequacy of Kinsey's work would bear more weight if they called for new, and more comprehensive studies of sexuality. But this is not the case. Reisman and her cronies labor to outlaw any kind of informational sex education not based on conservatively interpreted biblical principles. Free of factual data on sex Dr. Reisman and her followers are at liberty to publish any kind of unsupported nonsense they choose about sex, homosexuality, and pornography.

NOTES

1) Organizational links to Reisman's works:
Family Research Council Links (The FRC site search yields only 1 link, though a Google search yields 5)
Concerned Women for America Links
Focus on the Family Links

Dr. Reisman was on the payroll of The American Family Association. This was revealed when she was called to testify in the case of The State of Ohio vs. the Contemporary Art Center and Dennis Barrie (Mapplethorpe and Cincinnati).

"Joseph hands him a copy of the A.F.A. [Donald Wildmon's American Family Association] tax return. Mezibov shows it to Reisman, uses it to establish that she has received thousands of dollars from the Reverend Wildmon's anti-porn group. Showing her a copy of an article that appeared in the Washington Times, a review in which she labeled Mapplethorpe a fascist artist, he points out that it is signed "Judith Reisman, associate research director of the American Family Association. She is an apologist for the pressure groups that provoked this trial..."
SHOWDOWN IN CINCINNATI, by James R. Peterson, March 1991

2) "Having spent the last fifteen years at a university as a professor's wife, I was both keenly aware of the regard the world had for those with advanced degrees and often disappointed in what I privately considered a lack of intellectual curiosity and vigor within the educated community. I found faculty parties and conversations somehow lacking in a basic sort of common sense, and for all their degrees, most academicians seemed to welcome being out of touch with the reality of the majority."
A Personal Odyssey to the Truth, By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., undated.

3) "United States Department of Justice, The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Project No. 84-JN-AX-K007. Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler Magazines. According to Reisman's site, an Executive Summary was first published by The American Family Association.

"...in 1984, the US Justice Department had given Reisman a grant for $734,371 to study pictures in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. She claims that these magazines published 6,000 cartoons, photos and other illustrations of children between 1954 and 1984."
The X-Rated Hoax: A tale of harridans, charlatans & poppycock | Evangelical Psychologistsby Irene Graham, of Burning Issues August 18, 1999

4) A Personal Odyssey

5) "The commercial sex industry now joined forces with the Kinsey Institute and academic sexology to prevent any light from being shed on their world. In time I would obtain copies of secret letters and packages, clandestinely sent worldwide by the Kinsey Institute and pornographers, to discredit my investigation into Kinsey and that of children appearing in their magazines....All along, the Kinsey Institute maintained a constant, stealth effort, largely censoring me and my findings from the print and broadcast media, all relevant professional conferences and journals, book publishers and such." A Personal Odyssey to the Truth, By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. Date last modified, Jan 3, 2000.

6) Carol, Avedon 1994, NUDES, PRUDES and ATTITUDES: PORNOGRAPHY and CENSORSHIP, New Clarion Press, Gloucester, p. 156-158.

7) Ibid., p. 156-158.

8) SHOWDOWN IN CINCINNATI, by James R. Peterson, PLAYBOY March 1991.

"Kinsey, Sex & Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People," by Dr. Judith A Reisman, Edward W. Eichel. Publisher: Huntington House, P.O. Box 53788, Lafayette, LA 70505, 800-749-4009.

9) Kinsey Institute News Release: Bancroft Responds to Allegations from Family Research Council John Bancroft, director of Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, September 6, 1995.

10) Bill Summary and Status for the 104th Congress, H.R.2749, Child Protection and Ethics I Education Act of 1995. The Kinsey Institute Response to HR 2749 to which Stockman refused to respond.

11) Firebreathers: Interviews with Six House Freshmen, American Enterprise Organization

12) Wacko, Texas: A legislative loose cannon takes aim on government, by Larry Bensky, Mother Jones.

13) Federal Election Commission records on contributions to Steve Stockman's 1994, and 1996 campaigns.

14) 29 House Incumbents Bolt Out Of The Starting Gate, by Marc Birtel, CQ Staff Writer

15) Alfed C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE, (W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia and London, 1948), p. 26.

Yeah Grace, but he still procured pedophiles to take notes as they abused their victims - all in the name of "science".

Thank you Grace for posting the information on the American Family Association - good to know there are people out there caring about the fate of families as traditionally understood - Mums, Dads and kids. Great to read they are also “promoting the centrality of God in American life” and “promoting the Christian ethic of decency.” - we could do with a bit more of that in Australia life. So I guess Bill Muehlenberg would be happy to be associated with this crew.

Regarding Kinsey and Judith Reisman, I know as you also know that there is always more that one opinion to be found on the internet and I had no trouble turning up the following one which certainly supports Cranky's assertion about Kinsey's proclivities as well as providing a rather different portrait of Reisman. Personally, I don't know of Reisman but rather suspect the account I have turned up might be a good deal closer to the mark than yours.

People in favour of traditional religion based moral values are not going to fade away In fact they are going to gain in strength as our society continues to haemorrhage from the outworkings of the 1960's sexual revolution. Just consider all the growth of private including religion based schools at the expense of stte schools and ask yourself why when the overwhelming majority of those parents are making monetry sacrifices to send their children to such - I was one of them and I know, and I remember the sacrifices my own parents made.

Touchstone Magazine Weblog: Wednesday, December 11 (Reprinted here by permission)

MORE GOOD NEWS FROM HOLLYWOOD:

According to a story in WorldNet Daily, Film star to portray
'sex reformer' Kinsey, Francis Ford Coppola is making a movie about Alfred Kinsey, to be released by MGM's United Artists division. The movie's director, Bill Condon, says that

"It does feel like it's time to remind people of Kinsey's ideas, which I think are liberating. I hope there's an exhilarating feeling you get when you come out of the theater."

He also says that there would be

"no Playboy or Dr. Ruth without [Kinsey's] liberating effects"

I think this wrong, and that these things would have arisen without him, because the sexual disintegration of modern western society grew from other causes. The most obvious is the simple fact that sex sells things, not just dirty magazines and books by silly old women, but even things with no sexual aspect whatsoever. A less obvious reason is that sex provides a fake transcendence, which a secularizing society with strong religious instincts would require. As Malcolm Muggeridge said somewhere, "sex is the mysticism of materialism."

What Kinsey provided was an intellectual justification for hitherto forbidden activities, and people always like to have a reason for doing what they were going to do anyway. He gave the impression that acting as you wanted to was proven all right by "science," which to secularized middle Americans was the equivalent of "And God said." (I suspect the book was only rarely actually read, and almost never read closely and critically.)

His statistics, which we now know to have been to a great extent made up - Kinsey found what he wanted to find - seemed to prove that adultery and homosexuality were really "normal," because so many morally unmoored people think that one measures morality by numbers. I have heard "born again" Christians say "but everyone does it" as if this were a final, clinching argument. A secularized society with no interest in what God wants will still try to find a secure basis for its morality, and statistics is at least certain. (Unless they're provided by men like Alfred Kinsey.)

His idea that sexuality was a "continuum" seemed to prove that it did not matter what one did with whom. I am not sure why people thought this, except that morality depends upon distinctions and a continuum does not allow them because one thing blends into another. People all have these sexual energies and needs but vary in the ways in which they express them, but one man's desire for women was not really any different from another man's desire for other men or for children. They are just different points on the continuum.

I think Kinsey simply provided intellectual justification for what people were going to do anyway in part because his books received such a welcome, suggesting that he simply said something people were eagerly waiting to hear. I remember reading in an interesting article on Kinsey some years ago - it may have been the excerpt in The New Yorker from James Jones' biography - that when his studies appeared the intellectual magazines attacked them, while the popular magazines like Life praised them to the skies. "Middle America," even in the 40s and 50s a rapidly secularizing group, seems to have loved Kinsey.

The New Yorker article, by the way, revealed that Kinsey himself was a sadomasochistic pervert, who took pleasure from . . . sorry, I almost forgot this was a PG-13 blog. Let me just say that he seems to have enjoyed doing something that no male I know would think pleasurable, not in a million years. Let me just say: OUCH!

Anyway, he was a truly wicked man, who not only lied in his books to prove that actions of which he approved, and in which he secretly indulged, were just fine, but victimized many others, including his wife, to feed his lusts. Jones' biography revealed, to give just one example, that

Kinsey produced pornography in his attic - filming his wife, male staff and their wives as performers ¿ and sexually harassed his male students.

And then there is the evidence that he used the work of child molesters in his studies and thought sex with children just fine. (It's a continuum, after all.) He did not report them to the police, but the major media do not object to this, though they howl with rage when the archbishop of Boston does not report child molesters to the police. (As they should. I would just like to see a little more even-handed rage.)

The researcher Judith Reisman - who, by the way, was for years often abused by academics for saying about Kinsey what Jones later revealed in his biography -

points to pages 160-161 of Kinsey's 1948 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," in which the children's "screams," their "convulsions," their "hysterical weeping," "fighting" and "striking the partner (adult)" are judged by Kinsey as reflecting "definite pleasure from the situation."

Oh. What about this man is "exhilarating"? There is a great deal of evidence against Kinsey in this matter, besides that one damning quote. In a documentary titled "Kinsey's Paedophiles" produced by Yorkshire Television (but never shown here), for example, another biographer of Kinsey, Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, had seen Kinsey's files from 1956 and noted that

[Kinsey] was deeply influenced by five pedophile headmasters who were quite clear they had very warm relationships, loving relationships with young adolescent boys of 12 or 13.

My first reaction is astonishment that such a wicked man could have had such an effect on an entire society. But my second reaction, which I think is closer to the truth, is sadness that this society could have made of such a wicked man an intellectual hero.

* * * * * * * * * * *
For those interested in finding out more, LifeSiteNews offers two links for further information on Dr. Kinsey:

Kinsey: Crime of the Century

More Alfred Kinsey Horrors Exposed

And thank you David, for making my point better than I could. You clearly don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion, or fact and fiction. The scientific method and legal logic are just gobbledegook to religious fundamentalists, I know. I will sign off with the following exemplary passage, and leave you to it.

[The text that was contained in the rest of this post has been deleted for breaching copyright. Whole, or substantially whole, texts cannot be quoted without the permission of the author. Small extracts to illustrate a point are not a breach of copyright. If you want an idea of what this post was about it was extracted from "Religion and Democracy", by Denis Kenny, published in full in "Dissent", Dec 2004, and on Margo Kingston's Webdiary. - Graham Young, Chief Editor On Line Opinion]

Grace, every word in your last post is someone's opinion. Not necessarily fact and definately not science.

Goood boy, Cranky. Now I really must go....

Well done Bill Muehlenberg. Your article correctly exposes not just the falacy or great lie of Kinseys report, but aspects of it that should fill us with revulsion.

If DavidJS and Kenny are prepared to accept Kinsey's means as justifying the ends of the sexual revolution, they are reflecting a very dangerous philiosphy that has continually failed humanity.

It is certainly about time that we set the record straight in our treatment of this research, particualrly to our young. Enough lives have already been ruined by this and other false research of that period, aimed at nothing less than misinforming public debate.

Two Bob

Dear Grace,
Mr Kenny is simply having a rant and wouldn’t have a clue as to what ordinary orthodox evangelical Christians who sit in the pews from one Sunday to the next think and do, be they Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians or Pentecostals. I belong to such a Church – we have taken Sudanese refugees into our membership, we are involved in all kinds of ministries of help to the disadvantaged and yes we seek to win fellow Australians to faith in Jesus Christ. And without apology we do oppose all those life destroying life denying activities such as abortion, homosexual activity and euthanasia that you apparently approve of. Why, because we love life.

As for the Anglican church tearing itself apart over the ordination of women and the role of homosexuals, what nonsense. Those parts of the Anglican Church that have accepted these propositions are in slow genteel decline whereas Sydney and other likeminded Dioceses go from strength to strength, planting and growing new churches.

AS for evangelical and catholic complicity in colonialism, please explain why the Christian Church is growing so rapidly in China (80 million, 100 million, 200 million) and why the strongest and most numerous Anglican Churches are found in Nigeria, Uganda and other former British colonies.

Get real, wake up, take the blinkers off, forget the bile, life’s too short, love life.

I would like to first of all congratulate Bill, not for anything he specifically wrote, but for being brave enough to stick his head above the parapet and actually express his opinion and view, knowing full well the hateful and appalling slander he would receive in return.

My concern is not so much as to whether or not Kinsey carried out the experiments himself, or whether he asked others to or whether he simply got some very precise information from some very disgusting people, the point is that no matter how you attempt to justify his reasoning or how great you may think he was, it is still wrong.

And even in a world that doesn’t like to hear the word ‘wrong’, these acts still are. What I want to know is what sort of damage these ‘studies’ did to their subjects. With all of these accusations of bigotry and hatred going around, the core of the data presented by Kinsey was still gained from the horrific child abuses that were inflicted. I can’t help but wonder what psychological, physical and emotional trauma must have been inflicted and still suffered by the subjects of this experiment. No matter what he may have learnt or not learnt from the studies, biological data is not worth the damage that I suspect, and common sense and modern psychology would infer, was suffered by these children. In an age where we won’t allow children to be physically punished because of the possible psychological damage that it supposedly causes, it’s amazing what people are willing to justify if they see that it supports their lifestyle.

I for one, now knowing what sort of research he did, will not be supporting this film with my money. Well done Bill, you deserve our gratitude.

If morality and ethics are individually and/or culturally determined then Kinsey may do whatever he likes, and so may you and I. So are there unchanging, universal behavioural imperatives? Just ask yourself, were the terrorists who slaughtered the school children of Beslan justified? Is rape ever OK? Should drink-driving be encouraged? So with just a moment's reflection we see that (at least) some things are right and some things are wrong. Moral absolutes do exist. There is an innate appreciation of justice that is built into our make-up as human beings which makes morality not simply a matter of personal choice. So the question now becomes, how did we get that natural sense of justice, and what evidence is there for and against the idea that everything we think and do (even sexual behaviour) is governed by moral absolutes?

Remarkably the response by the Kinsey Institute to the Reisman allegations has been overlooked. It is available at http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/about/cont-95frc.html and most relevantly:

"The Kinsey Institute has never carried out sexual experiments on children, either during Alfred Kinsey's time as director or since. As stated clearly in the first Kinsey volume...the information about children's sexuality responses was obtained from older subjects recalling their own childhoods, parents observing their children, and a small number of adult men who had engaged in sexual contacts with children and who were interviewed by Dr. Kinsey and his staff. The Kinsey Institute did not employ or train these men, or pay them for this information. The large majority of such information, including all that was reported in Table 34, was gathered by one individual, between 1917 and 1948, and documented by him. He died before Kinsey. No knowledge of the identities of the children involved or their parents has ever been available to The Kinsey Institute.

...

Allegations against Kinsey concerning this information about children's sexual responses were first made in 1981 by Judith A. Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 [Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud]. When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman's lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice [which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit].

...

Dr. Kinsey believed that the evaluation of human behavior could not be based on scientific inquiry alone, but that evidence of how people actually behaved should be taken into account. He strove for objectivity in his inquiries by insuring his informants of anonymity and by avoiding any value judgments of their behavior. Dr. Kinsey's pioneering work has contributed to more open discussion of sexual issues. In several respects his original conclusions have needed to be revised, but his commitment to a more honest appraisal of the sexual aspects of the human condition remains."

What a shame you had to go Grace. I have nowhere near the knowledge base or eloquence but agree with all your posts. What I find puzzling is assertions made in the original article and by some posters, once put in context or disproved, are still adhered to by subsequent posters.

Regards

Jo

Excrutiatingly long posts; narrow views and hysteria is all ensuring that the point here has been missed entirely...most widely by the original author...St Bill.

The fact remains, that science is dispassionate. It does not take morals into account, only outcomes. Scientific experiments are rarely conducted in the ruthless and barbaric way in which they once were many years ago . Regardless of the moral repugnancy of the collected data and where it was obtained - the outcomes of those experiments should not be ignored - because rather than encourage paedophilia, this data helps to prevent it. By acknowledging that Children can respond to sexual stimuli, we are forced to acknowledge that children can therefore become unwitting accomplices in their own abuse. In ignoring the sexuality of children we are helping to shroud paedophilia in a cloak of denial. By arming parents with the knowledge that they have to educate their children about their sexual boundaries EARLY in their lives (ignorance is not bliss in this day and age) they are equipping them with the tools to protect themselves from predators.

As for the other homophobic claptrap in Bill's article it doesn't deserve a lucid response.

Just wise-up people. Your irational fears based on moral grounds is not protecting the kids...it's allowing the secret society of paedophiles to proliferate unabated - because they know their guilty secret (that children are sexual - at least in the physical sense and therefore vulnerable) remains SAFE. The truth is out there, stop sweeping it under the carpet.

Kinsey lost his credibility in sexualising children, the recent arrests Australia wide in the Internet crackdown of child pornography and the severe jail sentences that followed are a testament to how society feels . The movie based on Kinsey's life is just another Hollywood creation that is beyond belief. Is it truth or lies? As educated adults we know better!

Hugh Hefner More then you will ever want to read!

I have read your article and want to share my book with you so you could see a much more deep insight as well about the inner world of Hugh Hefner. It tells what really goes on in current time in Hugh Hefners bedroom and how your article is so correct that it is like Hef has taken much of Kinseys advice. Not only with his own love of men but so much more. Here is the download of my book Bill.

http://jillannupstairs.com/book

Password IVY

Yours,

Jill Ann

Kinsey's own book "Sexual Behaviour In The Human Male" chapter 5 shows in Tables 30-34 that 131 young boys, some as young as 5 months were masturbated by another person [or persons] to observe their reactions.

Some of the children became very distressed, but the "trained observers" claimed they were enjoying it despite their distress.

Read Chapter 5 and then try to deny that Kinsey was a twisted child abuser who doesn't deserve to be whitewashed by this movie.

Bill Muhlenberg is to be congratulated for exposing this perverted behaviour.

The evidence is still that children were shamelessly abused in long sessions which clearly distressed them. That's wrong, is it not? End of story. Or do you say it's right?

There was some mind-blowing rewriting of history re all the improvements that alegedly happened despite christianity! You forgot to mention science! But you would get that wrong too. Science took off because of Christians believing in a logical consistent knowable God. But some of you will believe the myths re Gallileo being alegedly supressed by the church etc (but the Jesuits taught the same stuff) is was just that Gallileo was an arrogant so-and-so who had his friend, the Pope's, permission to publish but proceeded to belittle the his friend's favourite theory - the Pope was not amused!

Re Hollywood. Surveys repeatedly show that the general public has higher moral values than media people, who have higher values than movie producers.

Re sex: Christians like sex and have avery healthy attitude to it! God invented sex. The objective evidence is that health and satisfaction of individuals and the community is best when sex is kept where the designer intended it - in marriage.

Surveys regularly show that in the following areas married religious folk do better than married folk, who do better than defacto folk who do better than same-sex folk and divorcees: The areas are:-
sexual satisfaction; health; wealth; longevity.

That's better for the community too. Not only that but any kids involved fare better at school and in health etc reflecting how their parents are going.

And while I'm at it, statistics show that, on average, kids are abused the least to the most as they go from: married biological parents; to biological unmarried parents; to blended families; to same sex families etc. Further, stats show that same-sex couples are over-represented in violence and child abuse and in health problems. Since these trends are well established, it would seem that we have a social and health duty to make such objective evidence well known so that everyone gets a chance at the best.

We must face the real world. If we ignore the facts, we turn our backs on those who are doing it tough! Christians have something good going and need to tell others! And we should not apologise for recommending that others take a little more notice of the manufacturer's instruction book!

Follow the book - the sex gets better and other benefits - the down side may include religious villification and state sponsored persecution but that pales into insignificance if the Bible is right that after death comes the judgement?

The repeated use of the words 'survey' and 'statistics' used in Percy's reply do not add any weight to his argument unless he names his surveys. If you are selective in the choice of which surveys and statistics you use to reach your conclusions it renders those conclusions suspect or meaningless. The fact that some of the statements he makes are true has little relevance to his conclusions unless we know that the research was conducted in a scientific manner taking into account all the variables that could affect the research outcomes.

Regards

Jo

It is not only via the silver screen that Kinsey and his work is being examined. For more, read the novelist T. Coraghessan Boyle's "The Inner Circle" (pub. 2004) and, for an exploration of the 60's sexual revolution, read the same author's "Drop City" (2003).

As art (and T.C. Boyle is GOOD) tends to reflect/critique the times in which it is produced, I am wondering why 'Kinsey' as a 'topic' has emerged at this point in time.

Any comments, anyone?

Jo you're right. People need references so that they know where to check out what others claim. So here's a page and a bit of quotes with 2 and a bit pages of references. The evidence that traditional marriage is best, and that sex is best and safest in marriage is just so overwhelming that I wonder why people don't or won't know about it.

I suspect that it is 'vincible' (sic – invincible without the 'in' or vincible) ignorance (Aldous Huxley) – ignorance where the ignorant choose to be ignorant. Well we can all choose whether to ignore the evidence or not. Incidentally, Huxley's quote in context (from memory) also included something about wanting the church to stop interfering with their sexual freedom. Strangely appropriate here.

There's so much stuff out there I hardly know where to start. So I've taken the easy way out and cut down and plagiarized some electronic quotes I have – its only got 40 something references from just one article but I'm not going to type in 120+ references from another hard-copy article I have.

We need to overcome the gross willful ignorance/censorship of the media and let people make up their own minds. Our politically correct media pushes its own agenda so that it won't let people know the truth. I'll stick to little t truth here while I stick to the Truth. The small t truth is that traditional marriage is demonstrably significantly better (whether considering physical or mental health, suicide, murder, wealth, even car accidents, etc) compared with defacto or divorce-remarriage or same sex arrangements (in that order).

Oh dear I media bashed without a reference! Read Aussie journo Cameron Horn on Press v Pulpit or Science v Truth and educate yourself about: our "gay bay cay"; intimidation; censorship and abuse of public trust in media and academia. But back to marriage as the antidote to many ills and to Kinsey's poison.

The studies indicate that marriage has been clearly ahead of all other arrangements for CENTURIES - whenever records are available.

A genealogical study of ruling-class men and women married between 1500 and 1899 in Europe shows that single persons suffered higher death rates than ever-married. A 1912 study of France, Prussia and Sweden for the period 1886-1895 reveals that the death rates were highest for widowed and divorced persons, next highest for single persons, and lowest for married persons. A study of Italy from 1881-1961 shows that single Italian men and women have consistently experienced excess mortality over their married counterparts. ( all cited in Kisker and Goldman)

Just a few modern quotes before a slab of references that hopefully cover everything.

“no social variable is more consistently or powerfully related with the distribution of psychopathology than marital status”. (Horwitz, et. al.)

A health survey of 20,000+ white American women, 18 to 55: - marital status has more effect on women’s health than age, education or household income. Unmarried mothers fare worst of all: (Anson).

A survey of 47,240 American households (122,000+ people: “married persons had fewer health problems than unmarried persons.” (Schoenborn in Christenson, p 68)

Dr. Robert Coombs, Professor of Biobehavioral Sciences at UCLA, reviewed more than 130 STUDIES (not people but studies) about marital status and personal well-being and found that married people “live longer and generally are more emotionally and physically healthy than the unmarried”. “Among the chronic problem drinkers…the separated and divorced account for 70 percent, and the married for 15 percent”.

“one of the most consistent observations in health research is that married [people] enjoy better health than those of other marital statuses.” (Riessman and Gerstel)

A National Health Survey of 19,000 Australians found that separated, divorced and widowed people think they are in poorer health than their married and de facto contemporaries. (cited in Sutherland)

In Australia cancer, diabetes and heart disease are all about 40 per cent higher among previously married men and women. (Dow)

All causes of death are “consistently higher for divorced, single, and widowed individuals of both sexes and all races. Some of the increased death rates in unmarried individuals are astounding, rising as high as ten times the rates for married individuals.” (p.38) This includes such diverse causes of death as tuberculosis, stroke, motor vehicle accidents, pneumonia, suicide and cancer. (Lynch p. 41)

Hello! The trends are CONSISTENT - its staring us in the face so why are we shortchanging people by not telling them the good news (I'll stick to small g good and small n news) that marriage is way ahead capital B BEST.

I haven't got time (I enjoy the real world) to select quotes to cover everything. But the following reference will let you check all the quotes above and much much more.

References

Adelaide Advertiser, “Divorced males top suicide list,” Adelaide Advertiser, 12 October 1994, p. 13.
Angus, Graham and Greg Hall, “Child abuse and neglect Australia 1994-95,” Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Anson, Ofra, “Living Arrangements and Women’s Health.” Social Science and Medicine vol. 26, no. 2, 1988.
Arndt, Bettina, “Silent witness to male suicide,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 December 1999.
The Australian, “Babies Born in Wedlock ‘Safer’.” 29 January, 1990.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Suicides, Australia, 1921-1998. March 2000.
Bachman, Ronet and Linda Saltzman, “Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey,” US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 1995.
Bernard, Jessie, The Future of Marriage. New York: World Publishing Company, 1972.
Bloom, B.L., Changing Patterns in Psychiatric Care. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1975.
Bracher, Michael et. al., “Marriage dissolution in Australia: Models and Explanations,” Population Studies, vol. 47, 1993, pp. 403-425.
Brindle, David, “Divorce More Likely if Couples Lived Together.” Guardian Weekly, 28 June 1992.
Burnley, I.H., “Socioeconomic and Spatial Differentials in Mortality and Means of Committing Suicide in New South Wales, Australia, 1985-91,” Social Science and Medicine 41, 1995, pp.687-698.
Dush, Claire M. Kamp, Catherine Cohan and Paul Amato, “The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change Across Cohorts?,” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 65, no. 3, August 2003, pp. 539-549, at p. 539.
Carter, H., and P. C. Glick, Marriage and Divorce: A Social and Economic Study. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Christensen, Bryce, “Family Dissolution and the Health Care Crisis” in Bryce Christensen, When Families Fail . . . The Social Costs. University Press of America, 1991.
Christensen, Bryce, “Out of Sync: Healthy Knowledge, Unhealthy Behavior.” The Family in America, vol. 7, no. 5, May 1993.
Coombs, Robert, “Marital Status and Personal Well-being: A Literature Review,” Family Relations, 1991, vol. 40, pp 97-102.
Critchley, Cheryl, “Poor hit by health gap,” The Herald Sun, 16 September 1994, p. 4.
Daly, Martin and Margo Wilson, “Child Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with Both Parents,” Ethnology and Sociobiology, vol. 6, no. 4, 1985, pp. 197-210.
Daly, Martin and Margo Wilson, “Discriminative Parental Solicitude: A Biological Perspective.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 46, no. 2, May 1980.
Deegan, Liz, “For Richer, For Poorer.” The Sunday Telegraph, cited in Reader’s Digest, May 1993.
de Krester, Leela, “Happily married,” The Herald Sun, 10 July 2002, p. 15.
DeMaris, Alfred and Vaninadha Rao, “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54, February 1992.
Doughty, Steve, “Married parents, a child’s best start in life,” UK Mail, 27 October 1997, p. 19.
Dow, Steve, “Couples live better, longer: study,” The Age, December 22, 1994.
Durkheim, Emile, Suicide. New York: The Free Press, 1966.
Eastman, Moira, “Myths of Marriage and Family,” in David Popenoe, et. al. eds., Promises To Keep. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1996.
Fisher, Sally, “Crime risk for single parents,” Herald Sun, April 30, 1994.
Gilder, George, Men and Marriage. Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing, 1986.
Gilder, George, Naked Nomads: Unmarried Men in America. New York: Quadrangle Books, 1974.
Gilder, George, “The Princess’s Problem.” National Review, Feb. 28, 1986.
Glenn, Norval, “The Contribution of Marriage to the Psychological Well-Being of Males and Females.” Journal of Marriage and the Family vol. 37, no. 3, August 1975.
Glenn, Norval, “Values, Attitudes, and the State of Marriage,” in David Popenoe, et. al. eds., Promises to Keep. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1996.
Gordon, Michael and Susan Creighton, “Natal and Non-natal Fathers as Sexual Abusers in the United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 50, no. 1, March 1988.
Gray, Darren, “Lone parent abuse trap,” The Age, 18 May 2000, p. 7.
Gray, Darren, “Divorced men head suicide list,” The Age, 19 April 2001, p. 6.
Hall, David and John Zhao, “Cohabitation and divorce in Canada: Testing the Selectivity Hypothesis,” Journal of Marriage and Family 57, 1995, pp. 421-427.
Heath, Sally, “Marital joy linked to good health,” The Age, 30 November 1996.
Heath, Sally, “Nuptial lure for children of de factos,” The Age, 30 November 1996.
Hemstrom, Orjan, “Is Marriage Dissolution Linked to Differences in Mortality Risks for Men and Women?,” Journal of Marriage and Family 58, (May 1996), pp. 366-378.
Horwitz, Allan, Helene Raskin White, and Sandra Howell-White, “Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 58 (1997), pp. 895-907.
Hu, Yuaurena and Noreen Goldman, “Mortality Differentials by Marital Status: An International Comparison,” Demography vol. 27, no. 2, May 1990.
Huffman, Terry, et. Al., “Gender Differences and Factors Related to the Disposition Toward Cohabitation,” Family Therapy 21, 1994, pp. 171-184.
Jackson, Martin, “Marriage makes you healthy,” Herald Sun, 8 June 1996, p. 16.
Kisker, Ellen E. and Noreen Goldman, “Perils of Single Life and Benefits of Marriage.” Social Biology vol. 34, no.3-4, Fall, Winter 1987.
Kobrin, Francis and Gerry Hendershot, “Do Family Ties Reduce Mortality? Evidence from the United States, 1966-1968.” Journal of Marriage and the Family vol. 39, no. 4, November 1977.
Lynch, J.J., The Broken Heart: The Medical Consequences of Loneliness. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
Manning, Wendy and Kathleen Lamb, “Adolescent Well-being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 65, no. 4, November 2003, pp. 876-893, at p. 890.
Margolin, Leslie, “Child Abuse by Mothers’ Boyfriends: Why the Overrepresentation?” Child Abuse and Neglect, vol. 16, no. 4, July/August 1992.
Mastekaasa, Arne, “Marital Status, Distress, and Well-Being: An International Comparison,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 1994, vol. 25, pp. 189-204.
McIlhaney, Joe, Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990.
McManus, Michael, “How to Avoid a Bad Marriage.” American Family Association Journal, July 1993.
Mitchell, Ben, “Marriage linked to longer life spans,” The Age, 1 November 1997.
Morgan, Patricia, Marriage-Lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and its Consequences. London: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 2000, p. 70.
Muehlenberg, Bill, “The Case for the Two-Parent Family,” Australian Family Association, 2004.
National Center for Health Statistics, “Homicide in the U.S., 1959-1961.” Bethesda, Maryland: Vital and Health Statistics, series 20, no. 5, 1967.
National Center for Health Statistics, “Suicide in the U.S., 1950-1964.” Bethesda, Maryland: Vital and Health Statistics, series 20, no. 5, 1967.
Newcomb, Michael and P.M. Bentler, “Assessment of Personality and Demographic Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 1980, vol. 44, pp11-24.
Popenoe, David, New York Times, 1992.
Popenoe, David, Life Without Father. New York: The Free Press, 1996, p. 41.
Pirrie, Michael, “Child Abuse Law Alert.” Herald-Sun, 28 August 1993.
Powell, Sian, “Cohabiting with the children’s enemy,” The Australian, 24 February 1999, p. 1.
Redick, R.W. and C. Johnson, “Marital Status, Living Arrangements and Family Characteristics of Admissions to State and County Mental Hospitals and Out-patient Psychiatric Clinics. U.S., 1970.” Rockville, Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health, Statistical Note 100, 1974.
Renshaw, Domeena, “The Ripple Effect of a Satisfying Marital Relationship.” Physician and Patient June 1984.
Riessman, Catherine and Naomi Gerstel, “Marital Dissolution and Health: Do Males or Females Have Greater Risk?” Social Science and Medicine vol. 20, No. 6, 1985.
Rodgers, Bryan “Social and Psychological Wellbeing of Children from Divorced Families: Australian Research Findings,” Australian Psychologist, vol. 31, no. 3, November 1995, pp. 174-182.
Sarantakos, Sotirios, Living Together in Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1984.
Sariola, Keikki and Antti Uetela, “The Prevalence and Context of Incest Abuse in Finland,” Child Abuse and Neglect, vol. 20, no. 9, 1996, pp. 843-850.
Saturday Evening Post, Jan./Feb. 1990
Schoenborn, Charlotte A. and Barbara F. Wilson, “Are Married People Healthier? Health Characteristics of Married and Unmarried U.S. Men and Women.” A paper presented at the American Public Health Association, Boston, 15 November 1988.
Sims, Andrew, “Marital Breakdown and Health,” British Medical Journal 304, 22 February 1992.
Sorlie, Paul, Eric Backlund and Jacob Keller, “US Mortality by Economic, Demographic, and Social Characteristics: The National Longitudinal Mortality Study,” American Journal of Public Health 85, 1995, pp. 949-956.
South, Scott and Kyle Crowder, “Escaping Distressed Neighborhoods: Individual, Community, and Metropolitan Influences,” American Journal of Sociology 102, 1997, pp. 1040-1084.
Stack, S., “The Effects of Marital Dissolution on Suicide.” Journal of Marriage and the Family vol. 42, no. 1, February 1980.
Stets, Jan, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1991, vol. 53, pp. 669-680.
Stuart, Richard B., Helping Couples Change: A Social Learning Approach to Marital Therapy. New York: The Guilford Press, 1981.
Sutherland, Tracy, “Don’t leave your better half, for good health’s sake,” The Australian, 31 October 1997.
Triffitt, Mark, “Warning: Bachelorhood May Be a Health Hazard.” Herald-Sun, 24 September 1993.
Umberson, Debra, “Family Status and Health Behaviors: Social Control as a Dimension of Social Integration,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 28, no. 3, September 1987, pp. 306-319..
Waite, Linda, “Does Marriage Matter?,” Demography, vol. 32, no. 4, November 1995.
Walker, Vanessa, “Single mothers’ children most at risk,” The Australi

VERY SPECIAL FOR GRACE PETTIGREW.....
Well Grace... having read some of my 'colorful' assaults on some of your postings here, did u ever expect to see me AGREEING with you about anything ? I have to support you on one matter, the accuracy of Bills statements about the Kinsey report and 'using' of children.

The way Bill wrote this is strongly suggestive of Kinsey and associates actually 'USING' children .. perhaps he is including some of the interviewed people in the category of 'associate' in the academic sense?? even so, the way he put it together is intended to suggest that Kinsey did 'perform experiments' and from what u supplied in terms of sources I can't see that such a statement is justified.

I feel sorry for you about all the TIME u must have spent putting all those replies together.. really, if u want to show a problem, no need to give us the oft quoted 'Theory of everything' approach... just one example is probably enough.

Anyway, I can see a lot of material in what u provided that I can agree with, and some I dont feel so zealous for. I shudder when the Christian camp ever arrives at the level of "Point weak, shout louder or sue harder". I feel we (Christians) have an abundance of resources which are all valid, that we dont have to resort to shabby politics to 'save the world'.

I've written/emailed to Bill on this matter, and informed him that I am a bit put off by that article in terms of his credibility. I'll update you when/if I receive a response.

Now.. there are other issues of great concern in all that which u provided. It seems, that you are supportive of sexual expression in all its social manifestations. Does the category 'valid sexual expression' include old men and young boys ?? (NAMBLA) If not, WHY not ? based on the findings of Kinsey and how those findings were used by the adult industry etc.... its a 'reasonable' outcome no ?

This is why I truly believe we need a source of revealed truth which limits our behavior and gives us certainty on all kinds of moral issues.

Would u mind addressing this specific question in your reply if u read it this far ?
Regards
BOAZ

ANTI GREEN......
I read with mild amusement your 'neo academic' posting :) I know u were not trying to be funny, but everytime I find this kind of thing dished up.. "harm minimization".. umm.. harm to who ? If we were socialized by the Sawi tribes people of Irian Jaya, it would be our belief that to lure an enemy into a false sense of security and then betray, behead him, slice, dice and eat him is the highest of virtues.
Why is that less applicable than your suggestion ? If you were a Kelabit tribes person of Borneo and you had twins, you would fill their mouths with salt, place the babes in large clay jars under the house, and allow them to die slowly to 'minimize' the harm to the community due to the 'twins' being a bad omen from the 'spirits'
Do u mean to insult the tribes people by suggesting that their world view is 'savage'.. or.. 'primitive'... ?

You are speaking from the 'privileged and peaceful' year of 2005, where we have been insulated from the factors which PRODUCED this environment, such as a couple of world wars, and a few side salads of Korea, Vietnam, and u could go back the other way, particularly to the Battle of Tours, which, if Charles the Hammer had not won, you would be speaking Arabic now, and the idea you are presenting would not even arise, because you would be under the 'guidance' of Allah for every aspect of your life, and 'harm minimization' as u put it is not a very popular doctrine in the foundation documents of that faith.

So, while what u said seems to make social sense, it also fails to address the issue of 'why am I here' etc.
King Solomon once wrote
"Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. ~ Ecclesiastes 3:9-11
The point is, most people.. DO have a God conciousness, an awareness of the eternal, spiritual and if u develop a social system which fails to address this, you will end up with meaningless Orwellian zombies. Having said that, I nail my colors at the top of the mast, and suggest we would all benefit eternally from a living relationship of repentance and forgiveness with and through Jesus Christ.
BOAZ

To Boaz_David.

Thank you for your interesting observations. I cannot comment on either the Sawi or Kelabit tribes, but from your brief remarks they would seem to be much deserving of criticism.

One of the arguments is that free speech allows me, if I so wish to comment on primitive practices and primitive people. You are quite right however about the problem of living in an Islamic culture. I doubt if I would have the courage to face the death penalty for the sin of apostasy. This does not mean that living in WA I should not be able to comment on any aspect of Islam or for that matter any other religion.

After all priests of all varieties are in general not shy of trying to impose their moral values on secular society. Further they are reasonably skilled in keeping errant members of their flock in order.

Most people you say have a God consciousness, an awareness of eternal, spiritual etc etc. I have no idea what any of this means, except to suggest it is from an ancient family of Memes* going back to stone age times. But then you seem to have an equal difficulty in understanding the public health concept of “harm minimization.”

* A term introduced by Richard Dawkins. Defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “a self-replicating element of culture passed on by imitation, [ 2003; R. Dawkins in A DEVILS CHAPLAIN, The Orion Publishing Group].

Have any of you actually seen this movie or bothered to log onto the Kinsey website? Clearly most of you critics needed to be in one of his classes or read his book.

Before you see a controversial film it pays to know the facts and understand any controversy so that you can judge by yourself - unless you want to be left to the mercy of the film-maker's propaganda.

Film-makers, on average, have lower morals than the rest of the community. They have a tendency to not let facts get in the way of a good story. Hollywood and the media love to rewrite history in their own image - which is ever sinking to lower morals - and they can't keep away from knocking the church & Christians. Methinks the laddies & ladies protest too much. E.g. fiction about the church opposing Galileo's ideas, Columbus opposed by Flat-Earthers, the Wilberforce-T.Huxley debate, or the play/film Inherit the Wind, it pays to know the documented facts so you can recognise when the facts have been ignored or fabricated to make the story say what the editor/producer wants it to say.

As I've documented above, the evidence is overwhelming that marriage outperforms all other forms of personal relationships (whether we look at health, wealth, sexual enjoyment, etc or what's best for kids and road safety). Now the manufacturer says sex is only good for us within marriage and, surprise surprise, that's what the evidence shows. But some poeple don't want to be confronted by the manufacturer let alone by supporting evidence (facts) - they want A.Huxley's 'vincible ignorance' and his free sex, free of guilt and the church's guidance/interferrence.

Well there's no such thing as a free lunch or free sex - it has a cost.

So why even bother to see propaganda and line the pockets of the promoters.

Incidentally, Hollywood doesn't seem to get the message that their morals are out of step with most people as shown by movies with a good moral message often being more profitable than their immoral blockbusters.

I have actually seen the film and find that the diatribe by Bill bares litte resemblance to the actual film content.

far from encouraging sex crimes I would say that the scene where clyde walks out of the room and kinsey is appalled at the behaviour highlight that this behaviuor is not acceptable to broader society.

What Kinsey does is record an oral history - In my view it is not the degree of social engineering that is suggested by Bill.

To equate bisexuality to sex crimes is typical of fundamentalist christians who perhaps are in denial of their own "true" sexuality.

I think there was a lot of merit in the film with regards to the harm done to the sexual welfare of people as a result of the moralistic christian fundamanetalists.

Grace Pettigrew has posted some rather twisted facts about Judith Reisman claiming that she has been discredited. This is not true.

See http://www.drjudithreisman.org/lawsuits.htm

Brief History Of Legal Actions Threatened By And Filed Against The Kinsey Institute Related To Kinsey’s Fraudulent Research

May 1983: Kinsey-co author, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy refuses to debate Dr. Reisman on CNN TV “Crossfire” and instead threatens to sue Dr. Reisman should she discusses Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). On Crossfire Dr. Reisman describes her findings of child sex atrocities conducted for Kinsey’s studies. She is not sued.

May 25, 1983 :
News columnist Patrick Buchanan reports Dr. Reisman’s child sex abuse charges in the press.

The Kinsey Institute threatens Buchanan with a libel lawsuit. Buchanan responds with “Buchanan v Kinsey Round 2,” documenting all of Reisman’s charges. He is not sued.

June 2, 1983 : A Kinsey Institute press release defames Dr. Reisman and denies all charges of crimes against children committed under cover of science and the protection of Indiana University .

February 2, 1984 : Press reports appear nationwide in concert with Playboy and similar materials, protesting a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention grant to Dr. Reisman to examine child pornography and to revisit the Kinsey research. In 1993 Dr. Reisman finds evidence of The Kinsey Institute’s secret role in discrediting this research.

February 1984: Dr. Reisman is called before American University ’s Institutional Review Board several times. The board forbids her to study Kinsey’s data. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secret role in censoring this research.

April 1984: Dr. Reisman is called to testify for the first of three congressional hearings to challenge the Department of Justice award for this research. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secretly involved in these Congressional efforts to stop the investigations.

1985: Dr. Reisman completes her study, "Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler," over significant obstacles. The research is successfully used at the US Supreme Court level as well as in lower courts.

1990: Kinsey Institute Director, June Reinisch threatens to sue a radio station should Dr. Reisman be interviewed about her recent 1990 book, Kinsey, Sex & Fraud. The radio station drops Dr. Reisman’s planned interview.

1990 Dr. Reisman discovers that The Kinsey Institute is secretly circulating “confidential” defamatory materials about her, worldwide. The cover page of the 89 page tome states these “confidential” materials “are not to be attributed to the Kinsey Institute”.

1990: A nonprofit law firm offers to represent Dr. Reisman pro bono for defamation against the Kinsey Institute and June Reinisch. Although her DOJ peers approved Reisman’s findings (the past president of The American Statistical Association concluded “This is a sound study”) the secret Kinsey Institute package mailed to numerous recipients injures Dr. Reisman by falsely claiming the DOJ research is not peer approved.

December 1990, Dr. Reisman appears and handily exposes Kinsey’s child abuse culpability on “Phil Donahue.” Later Dr. Reisman discovers Donahue was threatened with a lawsuit if Dr. Reisman appears on air. He is not sued.

1991: A lawsuit for defamation is filed by Dr. Reisman against The Kinsey Institute and its (then) Director, June Reinisch.

May 1993: In deposing June Reinisch at Indiana University , Dr. Reisman discovered handwritten file notes. One note said, “sue Am. University for sponsoring things she threatens to do.” Another note said “had lengthy conversation” … “Am. Univ. Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects.”

Dr. Reisman believes this “lengthy conversation” explains why the AU Institutional Review Board censored her legitimate study of Kinsey in her U.S. Justice Department research.

March 22, 1994 : Dr. Reisman’s pro-bono law firm said they could not financially continue the lawsuit. If plaintiff (Dr. Reisman) could pay $53,000 in court costs the judge ruled that this would allow her to file the same lawsuit later against the same defendants. Therefore, considering the non frivolous nature of her complaint, the judge would dismiss her case WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending its reopening.

Circa May 1994: Unable to obtain $53,000 to continue the case for a “without prejudice” decision, the judge dismissed the case “with prejudice” meaning Dr. Reisman could not sue for this collection of “confidential” papers, but could sue later on any other charge.

In sum, due to lack of money not lack of merit this defamation suit was dismissed

The judge did not absolve the Kinsey Institute or June Reinish of defamation.

This legal proceeding was not about the facts or fraud with respect to Kinsey’s research. The court NEVER ruled that Dr. Reisman’s defamation charges have no “merit.” The defamation case NEVER even addressed Kinsey’s crimes. [Note: It has been brought to our attention that The Kinsey Institute claims otherwise, and thus continues its history of trying to twist the facts. Just ask them for a complete copy of the law suit briefs, motions and rulings should you have any doubt.]

Dr. Judith Reisman has proven that the research conducted by A. Kinsey, his associates and collaborators was fraudulent and has invited and continues to invite the Kinsey Institute to debate her publicly about her research. The Kinsey Institute has never taken Dr. Reisman up on her offer, neither has the Kinsey Institute ever sued anyone who claimed that Kinsey’s research was fraudulent.

To date, the Kinsey Institute has failed to repudiate any of the facts Dr. Reisman has brought to light against the Kinsey research. Rather than admitting that Kinsey’s research had no scientific merit, the Kinsey Institute has engaged in secret cloak and dagger missions to destroy the reputation of those who seek to uncover the truth.

The Kinsey Institute until today continues to deny access to its files to any researcher critical of the “research” conducted by Alfred Kinsey.

AK

I enjoyed reading Bill's article. It helped to provide a balance to the film I saw last night on Australian TV. We all approach these questions from a personal perspective with our own values inextricably connected to the scientific, philosophical and religious views expressed. I wrote the follwoing prose-poem after watching the film trying, as I did, to connect my own experience and my values, as far back as the 1950s, to the issues involved.
____________________________________________
THE RISING ORB

In the last month of the Holy Year, October 1952 to October 1953, commemorating the centenary of the rise of the Orb of Bahá'u'lláh’s Revelation in the Siyah Chal, the first intimation of His glorious Mission, Dr. Alfred Kinsey published his Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female. 1953 was a remarkable year for both the Bahá'í community and the wider world. The Baha’is saw a sixty per cent increase in the number of sovereign states included within their pale. The double-helical structure of DNA was discovered and Josef Stalin died. And there was much more.-Ron Price with thanks to several sources one of which was SBS TV, “Alfred Kinsey,” 10:05-11:30 p.m., May 26th 2006.

I did not know any of this
back then when Miss Tcheta
was sending me out of the room
for talking and I was playing
third base in softball in the big
park down at the end of New Street.

I did not know any of this
orgasm business that Kinsey
was unfolding; I did not know
about origami or ornamental
lamps and I had no idea that
a revolution was beginning for
women and men--for I was only 9.
Indeed I came to believe that
a wonderful and thrilling motion
had appeared in the world
of existence and was permeating
everywhere--something we called
the inception of the Kingdom.1

1 Abdu’l-Baha in God Passes By, Shoghi Effendi, Wilmette, 1957, p.351.

Ron Price
May 27th 2006.