I was born Judith Ann Gelernter in 1935 in Newark, New Jersey. Mine was a large and thriving second-generation Jewish-American family, Russian on my maternal side, German on my paternal side. Both sets of grandparents had fled persecution in Europe, and upon landing at Ellis Island in New York, they thankfully embraced their adopted country, immediately took up menial labor, and raised large families of academically advanced achievers.
My father, Matthew, was born in Massachusetts and my mother, Ada, in New Jersey. They eventually owned Matthew’s Sea Food, a prosperous fish business, in Irvington, New Jersey. The Gelernters held family meetings every few months at Aunt Laura’s large home in South Orange, New Jersey. More than forty adults and dozens of children sat down to sumptuous dinners tastefully arranged and served, table manners always impeccable. After dinner, without the modern invention of television, political debates raged between my parents and the family, but all was ended when cousin Ruth sat down at the piano to accompany my father and three aunts, Laura, Shirley and Mary, as they sang old Yiddish and American folk songs in four-part harmony. I was mesmerized. They were musical giants, singing, swaying, smiling and beckoning. My dad, looked, I thought, movie-star handsome alongside my favorite Aunt Mary, a beautiful red-haired, green-eyed soprano who had rejected an offer to join the Metropolitan Opera in order to elope and raise a large, happy family. Instead of the Metropolitan, Aunt Mary would thrill me with her voice, singing together with Aunt Laura, Dad and Aunt Shirley at every Gelernter Family gathering.
Dad would often remind me that in German, Gelernter means “the learned one,” a name of distinction bequeathed to my ancestors to record who they were and what they did in life. “Your life should be an honor to your name,” Father would say. My mother, Ada, was of more common Goldberg stock. Charming and refined, Mother played the lead in major little-theater productions at the YMHA, the Young Men’s Hebrew Association, directed by Moss Hart, Dore Shary, and other local boys who went on to become major l930s Hollywood film moguls. While the artistic talent I inherited from my father and mother afforded me a rewarding profession as an adult, I also inherited from them their love of truth, concern for the powerless, and resistance to tyranny, all of which launched me upon the difficult journey described in this book.
I lived at a wonderful time. My mother welcomed me home every day and my father supported anything I did. I felt safe with neighbors, uncles or cousins as was the custom of that time. I married, and the hedge of protection about my life was not breached until 1966, when my 10-year-old daughter, Jennie, was molested by a 13-year-old adored and trusted family friend. She told him to stop, but he persisted. He knew she would like it, he said, he knew from his father’s glossy magazines, the only “acceptable” pornography of the time. The boy left the country a few weeks later, after it came to light that my daughter was but one of several neighborhood children he had raped, including his own little brother. My heart was broken for all the families involved. This appalling event in our lives, I would learn later, was a pattern with juvenile sex offenders, as they are known in law enforcement circles. Over the years that pattern would spread like an infectious disease.
I might never have known anything about her violation, except that my daughter slipped into a deep depression. Only after I promised not to call the police would she talk about what happened. After assuring her this was not her fault, I called my dependable, staid aunt who listened sympathetically and declared, “Well, Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. Children are sexual from birth.” Stunned, I replied that my child was not seeking sex, and I dialed my Berkeley school chum, Carole, still seeking confirmation of my righteous indignation at my daughter’s violation, which I badly needed to hear. Instead, Carole counseled, ‘Well, Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. You know children are sexual from birth.” I wondered at this same locution from two such different people so separated geographically. I did not know it then, but as a young mother, I had entered the world according to Kinsey. I would hear that “children are sexual from birth” again, but the next time, I would learn the hidden circumstances surrounding its source.
In 1973 I sat in the darkened CBS-TV film library pointing out the exact Encyclopedia Britannica clip for “Market Day in Old England” I would produce as my next children’s music video. With my dad’s voice and mother’s presence, I was still continually astonished that people paid me to write and sing songs for children! I was a segment producer of music videos for “Captain Kangaroo,” the most beloved, trusted, long-running children’s television program in the United States. Jim Hirschfeld, “Captain’s” producer, had immediately put me to work after seeing a sampler of my music-video productions from “Children's Fair,” an ETV PBS-TV program in Wisconsin, “Merry-Go-Round,” a CBS-TV subsidiary in Ohio, and “Art Through Music” which I had written for Scholastic Magazine in New York. On my way to “Captain” I had produced educational music histories for several museums: the Milwaukee Public Museum, the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Skirball Museum in Los Angeles. I was very concerned in those days about the way images impacted on the brain, mind and memory and took great care in my work to help my viewers find the best in themselves.
Jim Hirschfeld was a kind, courteous man and a committed father, so he made wide allowances for me to work from my home in Cleveland, Ohio. I recorded at a local sound studio, had the songs illustrated, and sent the final product to New York. With no agent, relying only on my God-given talent, I was at the top of my field. I was deeply impressed that the American system of rewards-for-merit made that possible. Then, Jim called me into his office one day and reluctantly showed me a computer printout. A test group of children was studied, using a hidden camera to track their eye movements. Jim reassured me that while he loved my pensive music, advertisers wanted children’s eyes locked onto the screen. Without their mothers controlling the knob, children often watched television alone, tuning out Captain, and tuning into cartoons. I would have to speed up my tempo to compete with the fast action and the increasing violence of the cartoons on other stations. Jim and Bob Keeshan (Captain) were distressed by this, but felt they had no choice.
I found myself unwilling or unable to write for children that way and began to cast about for what to do. Having spent the last fifteen years as a university professor’s wife, I was keenly aware of the regard the world had for those with advanced degrees. I was also disturbed by what I privately considered a lack of intellectual curiosity and vigor among academics. Faculty parties and conversations somehow revealed a paucity of common sense, and, for all their degrees, most academicians seemed to welcome being out of touch with the reality of the majority of Americans.
My museum art work and my television experience left me worried about the way children were being influenced, reconfigured, actually changed, as images and other exciting stimuli daily altered the very structure of the receiving child’s brain. If a prestigious and responsible program like “Captain Kangaroo” had to speed up its format in the days of “Leave It to Beaver,” what would happen in the decades to come? What kind of children was television fashioning and how would these altered children change our institutions of education, theology, government, law, medicine, family—mass media itself?
With the excellent royalties from Captain, I decided to return to college for an advanced degree, studying mass media effects. Determined to earn a doctorate in communications, I entered Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland to study television effects and found, much to my surprise as a concerned media professional, that by 1972, television toxicity had been well documented in the Surgeon General’s report on television violence. By ignoring the report's hard findings, not reporting the facts, the mass media successfully discounted and concealed the toxic fallout of its own profession. That there already was an existing but ignored body of research on television's potential for harm caused the focus of my graduate work to shift, especially after I witnessed what could be called a worrisome unmonitored experiment in verbal versus nonverbal behavior.
In one of my classes, a young communications student, whose fiancée had just left him, had scripted a video production using graphic pictures from Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and similar magazines. Dr. Lowell Lynn, the course professor, assured me all the students working on the video gave prior consent to its content. They had “no problem” with the pictures, he said, and after the initial nervous giggling subsided, the ordinarily collegial student television production team toiled in utter silence. Later, during the video screening, we found none of the sex photos were focused on the videotape correctly.
Female students, who happened to be working the key jobs—from director to camera crew—had verbally denied that the sex pictures disturbed them in any way. This amazing study of nonverbal behavior wholly discrediting verbal behavior was confirmed later by interviews and other checks. It just turned out that none of the women were comfortable with the sex content of the production. They were so discomforted that none would look at the sex pictures they allegedly filmed. Each denied her own feelings and blamed the others for “not looking” at the sex pictures during production. I walked away thinking that if women and girls are exposed to these images nationwide, significant numbers of women and girls nationwide are also denying very real emotions and aversions.
These images could wreak havoc in the delicate relations between husband and wife, I thought. Since I had daughters I wanted to see happily married to well-adjusted men, I decided I had best look into this issue. It was 1976. I had no notion of the role of Alfred Kinsey in pornography nor exactly how “hard” and “soft” pornography related to child sex abuse. I had no idea how bad the problem was or how deeply I would become involved in the attempt to solve it. However, I already could see the evidence of how the cultural acceptance of pornography’s view of sex was increasing rates of divorce and sexual disorder.
Another turning point came in 1977 when I went to Wales to deliver a research paper on women and pornography at the British Psychological Association International Conference on “Love and Attraction” at Swansea University. When I arrived in London, I heard that Tom O’Carroll, the leader of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), had been blanketing England on a public relations tour, promoting sex with children on his way to speak at my Swansea conference. All of England was in an uproar over the daily press reports describing the aims of PIE and O’Carroll. It was reported that PIE specialized in providing specific lists of places where pedophiles could locate and seduce children. When they heard O’Carroll was to speak from their college podium, the Swansea University housekeeping staff went on strike. He speaks and your beds will not be made, nor food cooked, nor clothes washed, they promised. They would not have the conference give place to a man promoting sex with their children.
I brought eighty slides for my presentation as evidence supporting my findings of child pornography in Playboy and Penthouse. I had already clashed with an American professor, Larry Constantine, a Penthouse board member advocating child pornography in his paper on “The Sexual Rights of Children.” So, when Constantine sent out a harried bulletin for a meeting of conference speakers, I hastened to join the group. Constantine was urging all international attendees to sign a “free speech” petition demanding that PIE’s O’Carroll speak—and that our beds be made. I urged the group to reconsider. We were guests here and would leave in a few days, I reasoned. What right had we to leave behind a community undone by our having given place to a proselytizing child molester? I was the only speaker to refuse to sign the petition. Ultimately, the Swansea University president ruled that O’Carroll was not credentialed to speak. Housekeeping service resumed.
How and Why, I wondered... was the university’s domestic staff able to aggressively protect their children, while trained academicians remained apathetic, even sympathetic toward this pedophile, O’Carroll? My old dissatisfaction with the university community increased as these men and women exhibited such indifference to their hosts, contemptuous of what I saw as very legitimate public concerns for their children’s safety.
O’Carroll was whisked safely out of Wales. I was leaving for the London train when a Canadian psychologist took me quietly aside. Certainly I was right, he said. The images I screened of children in Playboy/ Penthouse would cause harmful sexual acting out on children. But if I was looking for the cause, he directed me not to neglect reading about Kinsey in The Sex Researchers, by Edward Brecher. “Why?” I asked. “I worked with Kinsey and Pomeroy,” he said. “ One is a pedophile and the other a homosexual.” Which is which, I asked? “Read and discover,” he replied.
As I flew back to the States, I pondered the events of the last few weeks. Certainly, I now knew because I had witnessed it, that there was a growing and proselytizing “international academic pedophile movement” which was on record as wanting sexual access to children of all ages. I had stumbled right into their midst at the conference. Again I wondered what kind of academic training was producing such a coarsened and predatory intelligentsia?
Taking up the Canadian psychologist’s charge, as soon as I got home I did read The Sex Researchers. I was unsure which stunned me more at the time, Kinsey’s use of infants in sex experiments, or Brecher’s acceptance of their abuse as a research methodology. Speechless, I went back to Kinsey’s original book to check Brecher. Yes, he was quoting Kinsey accurately. Now I finally knew there was a “source,” an authority for children's increasingly being viewed sexually. For me, personally, the question from years before was answered. My aunt and Carole somehow learned that “children were sexual from birth” from Kinsey and his modern disciples throughout the sex profession.
After graduation, doctorate in hand, I left America with my family to conduct research in Israel. By 1981 I sat in my mountain-top office at Haifa University in Israel, staring at the tables of numbers which were staring right back up at me from Kinsey’s world-famous book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. As I had done so many times before, I was studying page 180, Table 34, straining to see if there was something I missed, something I may have misunderstood. I had checked all the Kinsey citations and references in the library, but nowhere was there any mention of child abuse data. I searched all the books on Kinsey, read the biographies, the hundreds of positive articles about him and his work, and the few scathing reviews, but nowhere was there any criticism of these tables and graphs. I was beginning to accept the fact that the thousands of international scientists who studied Kinsey never saw what was right before their eyes.
In March 1981 I received a reply to my letter to The Kinsey Institute from Kinsey’s coauthor, Dr. Paul Gebhard. I had written to ask about the child data in Tables 30-34. Gebhard, who succeeded Dr. Kinsey as the Kinsey Institute Director, wrote to me that the children in Kinsey’s tables were obtained from parents, school teachers and male homosexuals, and that some of Kinsey’s men used “manual and oral techniques” to catalog how many “orgasms” infants and children could produce in a given amount of time.
Paul Gebhard stated: “Since sexual experimentation with human infants and children is illegal, we have had to depend upon other sources of data. Some of these were parents, mostly college educated, who observed their children and kept notes for us. A few were nursery school owners or teachers. Others were homosexual males interested in older, but still prepubertal, children. One was a man who had numerous sexual contacts with male and female infants and children and, being of a scientific bent, kept detailed records of each encounter. Some of these sources have added to their written or verbal reports photographs and, in a few instances, cinema. We have never attempted any follow-up studies because it was either impossible or too expensive. The techniques involved were self-masturbation by the child, child-child sex play, and adult-child contacts-chiefly manual or oral.”
Letter from Paul Gebhard, Kinsey Institute Director, to Judith Bat-Ada (Reisman) in Israel, dated March 11, 1981, in the author’s archive.
Armed with Gebhard’s letter and admissions, on July 23, 1981, I created an uproar in Jerusalem at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology when I lectured on Dr. Kinsey and his child data. I was confident my sexology colleagues would be as outraged as was I by these tables and the child data describing Kinsey’s reliance on pedophiles as his child sex experimenters. Perhaps worst of all for me, as a scholar and a mother were pages 160 and 161 where Kinsey claimed his data came from “interviews.” How could he say 196 little children— some as young as two months of age—enjoyed “fainting,” “screaming,” “weeping,” and “convulsing”? How could he call these children’s responses evidence of their sexual pleasure and “climax”? I called it evidence of terror, of pain, as well as criminal. One of us was very, very sexually mixed up.
I was positive that the international, educated, sexuality community would react as I did. Certainly this revelation about Kinsey, his team, and all of these infant and child data would electrify a conference of global Ph.Ds, and many would agree to my call for an investigation of Kinsey. The human sexuality brain trust worldwide was in attendance at the Jerusalem conference: Great Britain, the United States, France, Denmark, Israel, Norway, Canada, Scotland, Holland, Sweden and scores of other nations were represented. All attendees knew of my paper. It had been the talk of the convention, receiving even more notice than Xaviera Hollanders’ (“the Happy Hooker”) address on “Out of Touch With Sex.” People were abuzz about the issue of Kinsey’s children during the entire conference.
My paper, titled, “The Scientist as A Contributing Agent To Child Sexual Abuse; A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations,” had been released in the Abstracts. The result was no less than I expected—a standing-room only session. I was gratified that so many people were as concerned as I was. After screening my slides of Tables 30 to 34 which described Kinsey’s report of rates and speeds of “orgasms” of at least 317 infants and children (again, the youngest a mere two-months old), I rested my case and looked out over the audience. The room was totally silent. Finally, a tall, blond, Nordic type who had been standing near the podium stepped forward and fairly shouted at the audience: “I am a Swedish reporter and I never have spoken out at a conference. That is not my role. But, what is the matter with all of you? This woman has just dropped an atomic bomb in this very room and you have nothing to ask? Nothing to say?”
That broke the ice, and hands shot up to speak. Although a Kinsey Institute representative protested that none of this was true, and comments from those in attendance were limited by the conference moderator, (there was a tacit agreement that an investigation would take place). The reaction in the room was heavy: it was numbing for some, discomforting for others. Later, the director of sex education for Sweden approached to tell me she was shocked that children were used without consent. However, she hastened to assure me that children could be sexually stimulated by adults, even parents, were this for strictly therapeutic reasons, of course. Late that afternoon my young assistant from Haifa University returned from lunch visibly shaken. She had dined at a private table with the international executives of the conference. My paper was hotly contested and largely condemned, since everyone at her table of about twelve men and women wholeheartedly agreed that children could, indeed, have “loving” sex with adults.
I began to realize that the entire field of sex research therapy and education relied on Kinsey’s human sexuality model for authority, and I was there to tell his key disciples Kinsey was a fraud. While I was very disappointed to witness the fear and protectionism of the attendees, with so many international agencies present with vested economic and emotional interests in Kinsey’s credibility, I understood why the promised investigation of Kinsey never would take place.
In 1982, shortly after the confrontation in Jerusalem over Kinsey’s Table 34, I was invited by the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, to return to America from Israel. I was appointed to a Full Research Professor rank at American University as the principal investigator of an $800,000 grant to investigate Kinsey’s role in child sexual abuse and his link to children appearing in mainstream pornography, specifically, Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. Responding to an onslaught of sexual crimes against children committed by older youngsters and adults, in 1983 the Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) had requested that I examine the major magazines that provided sex, sadism, and drug information to the nation.
Playboy, August 1973, Marty Murphy, p. 206
A total of 6,004 photographs, illustrations and cartoons depicting children appeared in the 683 magazines beginning with Playboy’s initial December 1953 issue through Playboy Penthouse and Hustler issues of December 1984. From 1954 to 1984, these 6,004 images of children were interspersed with 15,000 images of crime and violence, 35,000 female breasts and 9,000 female genitalia. Hustler depicted children most often, an average of 14.1 times per issue, followed by Playboy (8.2 times per issue) and Penthouse (6.4 times per issue).
Findings included the following:
-- 1,675 child images were associated with nudity.
-- 1,225 child images were associated with genital activity.
-- 989 child images were associated sexually with adults.
-- 792 adults were portrayed as pseudo-children.
-- 592 child images were associated with force.
-- 267 child images were associated with sex with animals or objects.
-- 51% of the child cartoons and 46% of the child photographs showed children age 3-11.
-- More girls than boys were associated with sexual assault.
-- More boys than girls were associated with violent assault.
-- Almost all depictions of child sexual abuse portrayed the child as unharmed or benefited by the activity.
Sexual and nonsexual child depictions and sexual and nonsexual crime and violence depictions were common themes throughout all three magazines. The pairing of these themes over time with images of adult female nudity and graphic sexual display are pertinent to the current debate on erotica/pornography.
Several issues were raised for future study:
1. The role of these magazines in making children more acceptable as objects of abuse, neglect and mistreatment, especially sexual abuse and exploitation.
2. The possibility that these images of children reduce taboos and inhibitions restraining abusive, neglectful or exploitative behavior toward children.
3. The possible trivialization of child maltreatment in the minds of readers; and,
4. The consequences of presenting sexual and violent images of children in magazines that call attention to sexual and/or violent activity.
“Dr. Reisman recommended the National Institute of Mental Health, the Department of Justice and child welfare agencies cooperate to address the problem of pornography in our society through the use of task forces and research efforts. She further recommended a voluntary moratorium on child or pseudo-child images until verifiable research can be conducted on the harm factor. Such action by sex-industry representatives could be seen as an act for responsibility based on concern for the welfare of children, rather than an admission of guilt.” Preventing Sexual Abuse, Summer 1986.
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, sent clandestinely worldwide by the Kinsey Institute, as well as articles published by pornographers, to discredit both my study of Kinsey and that of children appearing in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. The Kinsey Institute had secretly threatened American University with a lawsuit if I was allowed to carry out my study. Therefore, concealing why they were being such obstructionists, American University administrators demanded that I halt any investigation of Kinsey. Of course, this was a complete violation of academic freedom as well as the public’s right to know, indeed what the taxpayer was paying to know. Since then, the Kinsey Institute has maintained a constant stealth effort, lobbying those in Congress while largely censoring me and my findings from print and broadcast media, all relevant professional conferences and journals, book publishers and such.
In 1990, when some of my child-abuse findings were printed in a small-circulation book, Phil Donahue, a popular talk show host and Kinsey devotee, telecast Kinsey’s general importance to the world. A boy in his audience asked why Kinsey should matter to him, today. Mr. Donahue instructed the youth, too young to remember: “Kinsey was to sexuality what Freud was to psychiatry, what Madame Curie was to radiation, what Einstein was to physics. Comes along this woman [Reisman] saying, Holy cow! E doesn’t equal mc2. We’ve based an entire generation of education of sexologists on Kinsey, and Kinsey was a dirty old man.”
While Donahue countered that day that Kinsey was really a fine family man, I suggest it is time to let people decide for themselves who and what Kinsey was. Despite what Mr. Donahue says, this much is certain: the world has a right to know what has been hidden up to now, a right and a responsibility to know what happened to the children of Table 34?
It is time to identify what effect Alfred Kinsey, the father of the sexual revolution and sex education has had on the lives of so many. Since 1948, public health report data confirm the social costs and consequences of this “sea change in the way America and the rest of the Western world view human sexuality. As America’s founding moral order has been jettisoned and the shift in the standard of judgment has occurred over the last 50 years, it is certain, based on the statistical evidence, that our present direction deserves review. It is much worse and more threatening to our children than even Mr. Donahue said. For, what happens to a society which has “based an entire generation of education of sexologists on Kinsey, and Kinsey was a dirty old man?”
Kinsey used his data to argue that all children are sexual beings from birth. The modern sex education movement is built on his premise. As a result, advocates say it logically follows that children should be taught about sexual acts from the earliest ages. Today, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), a group founded by Kinsey followers, recommends beginning sex education as early as kindergarten. Dr. Mary Calderone, SIECUS’ founding president, has written extensively on the value of “child sexuality.” L7 Children should be taught that masturbation is a good thing, and that no sexual act is wrong. “The words deviant and deviation ought to be used scientifically with no moral or values connotation,” she writes.L8 Meanwhile, research indicates that from age six to puberty, children’s sexual curiosity is at a minimum—unless they are exposed to sexually graphic materials. L7. See, for instance, Mary S. Calderone, M.D., and Eric W. Johnson, The Family Book About Sexuality (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1981). L8. Ibid, p. 113.
In contrast to the view of sexual license which Kinsey's promoted, a 1996 study published by researchers at The University of North Carolina supports the traditional view of sex. It was found that lower sexual activity among adolescents is correlated with higher levels of well being. For example, sexually active girls are over three times as likely to report depressive symptoms than those who abstain (25.3% vs 7.7%), and sexually active boys are over twice as likely to report depressive symptoms (8.3% vs 3.4%). In fact, these two groups report higher incidence of suicide attempts; boys in particular are at 8 times the risk for a suicide attempt if they are sexually active (6.0% vs 0.7%).*
*. Robert E. Rector, et al. “Sexually Active Teenagers Are More Likely to Be Depressed and to Attempt Suicide”. Center for Data Analysis Report #03-04 on Sex Education and Abstinence, June 3, 2003
Kinsey’s philosophy is seen everywhere in modern America. It explains the popularity of values-neutral sex education in the school system and the inclusion of homosexuality in the curriculum. And it also undergirds former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders’ controversial contention: “We taught them what to do in the front seat, now it’s time to teach them what to do in the back seat.” Elders also promotes teaching young children how to masturbate and she wrote the forward for a book that advocates lowering the sexual age of consent to 12.L9 L9. Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), pp. ix to xi.
“That’s right, Nick... a DOLL! One of those inflatable kind
you can blow up as big as the baby-sitter... the kind with tits
and everything... the kind you can stick your wee-wee into!”
Hustler, January 1976, Tom Stratton, p. 94
Most Americans understand that early exposure to sexuality has a negative impact on children. Dr. Melvin Anchell notes that adult perverts are typically the product of premature sexual experiences or seductions—often occurring in early childhood. He gives a special warning about the dangers of SIECUS-type sex education: “The sex material used in schools is essentially the same found in commercial pornography,” he writes. “However, the pornography presented in schools is more damaging to the child. Students suspect that debased sexuality in movies, magazines, and books is make-believe, but similar presentations given by teachers are regarded as truth.”L10 L10. Melvin Anchell, M.D., Sex and Sanity (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971), pp. 256-257.
What does this mean for us all? In 1989, the National Research Council said American society can be divided into the “Pre- and Post-Kinsey Era.” I have no argument with that. Indeed, Kinsey has had a significant impact on all our lives. Today the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University celebrates Kinsey’s past 50 years of pioneering contributions to society. It is my greatest hope, as a scholar and as a grandmother, that the truth presented here will help many to understand the great significance Kinsey has had on their individual lives and the influence the Kinsey reports continue to have on the lives of their children and grandchildren. Then, whether a celebration is in order, is up to you. 1998
