The Child Experiments
<< The Little Girl Experiments >>

Adult Offenders: The accompanying table presents figures regarding adult offenders whom Kinsey euphemistically labeled “Partners.” Chapter 4 of the Female volume, entitled “Pre-Adolescent Sexual Development,” contains the Kinsey data on female child sexuality. They vary considerably from that having to do with male children. For instance, there are no data about tests of “speed to orgasm.” Most of his female child “data” are obtained from adult recall. Pomeroy and Gebhard confirmed Jonsen and Mann’s report44 that the boys were timed to orgasm with a stop watch by adults and that “147 pre-adolescent females ranging in age from 2 to 15 years” were similarly “observed.” So, Kinsey’s data on the “Adult Partners” of 609 girls (unnumbered table) claims that, as pre-adolescents, 24 percent of his subjects were approached by adults in a sexual manner. He reports that 84 percent of those “approaches” were by non-kin and 23 percent by kin, and that all were harmless.
      44. Female, p. 105.

Female, p. 118.


Of the 609 girls, 52 percent were victimized by strangers; 32 percent by friends (family friends, brothers of a friend, and others); and 140 (23 percent) by relatives. That latter figure translates to an incest rate of roughly 2.4 percent of the 5,940 females sampled (percentages for the various Kinsey categories add-up to 107 percent).

While Kinsey included all sorts of arcane data in his tables on male and female sexuality, there are no similar tables for child molestation or incest.

It is likely that Kinsey welcomed the opportunity to defend attacks on the mechanics of his methodology to academicians and the public. This deflected attention from other, more controversial, aspects of the study, not the least of which was his potentially volatile child “orgasm” data. Kinsey wrote to a close friend, “You ask about the percentage of our histories who were sex offenders and other low characters. I will tell you as a good friend exactly why we did not publish the exact figures of the constitution of our population. We anticipated that there would be a good many people like Terman, who would have their own ideas as to the exact percentage of barbers and college professors of one rank and another who should be included. We anticipated that we would spend the rest of our lives arguing exactly who should be accepted as a normal individual, and who should be ruled out as a low character. Psychologists of Terman’s generation [suggest] we confine ourselves to a good, normal, middle-class group.”2-106
      2-106. Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey and The Institute for Sex Research, Harper & Row, New York, 1972, p. 286.

As noted earlier, Kinsey termed adults who had sexual intercourse with their children the children’s “partners.” Sexual activity was called “play.” In his listing of relatives, Kinsey does not differentiate the non-biological family (live-in, step, adopted relations) from biological relations. This is critical information for a nation told by sexologists that divorce and live-in partners are harmless and preferable for children over that of a strained marriage.

The Kinsey team presents a small sample of seven girls under four years of age on whom direct sexual experiments had allegedly been performed: “We have similar records of observations made by some of our other subjects on a total of 7 pre-adolescent girls and 27 pre-adolescent boys under four years of age (see our 1948 study: 175-181).”45
      45. The Case of “Esther,” Esther White: The Kinsey team had the name of at least one of their victims. According to an affidavit by Esther White, they were in regular contact with her abusers and even arranged to meet with them on one occasion. Mrs. White is a lovely, quiet lady with a tragic past who prefers to avoid publicity. She has kindly agreed to the inclusion of her story here. It details incestuous violations by her father and grandfather, whom she believes were two of Kinsey’s “observers.” Mrs. White appears as “Esther White” in the Yorkshire television documentary, Kinsey’s Paedophiles.
      Esther White’s sworn statement identifies her as “a victim of acts of sexual abuse perpetrated upon me by both my paternal grandfather and my father between the years of 1938 and 1946,” the years of Kinsey’s sex research project, when he was soliciting sex “histories” nationwide. Her abuse “began when I was four years of age and continued until I was age 12,” when her mother found out (1946), stopped it. Mrs. White's grandfather was a graduate of Indiana University, 1922, and “learned of the Institute's existence and its subject area of studies from alumni bulletins or some similar communications.”
      Mrs. White had reason to believe her grandfather was “personally acquainted with Alfred Kinsey.” She adds, “My father did not tell me that he was sharing information about the acts of abuse with the Kinsey Institute until it had stopped. My first knowledge that he was providing information about his abuse to the Institute occurred in 1947, when I was age 13.” Her father asked her if she had had “orgasm as a result of specific acts of abuse.” She believes “this questioning was done at the behest of the Kinsey Institute. He was documenting on papers (kept in an envelope) that he sent away. There was a deadline by which he had to return them. I had no idea at the time what they were for, or what he wrote.”
      Mrs. White states that in or about 1943 she was taken by her father to meet a man she recalls as “Mr. Stockman,” and another man named “Pomeroy.” In an interview with this author on October 3, 1997 in Washington, D.C., she stated that a third man, whom she did not know, was also in the room. He asked her several questions relating to her emotional state: “He wanted to know if I was happy, if my life was good with my father. I had been told what to say, of course and I answered in the affirmative. This seemed to satisfy the man. I had never seen a picture of Dr. Kinsey and recently received a brochure with his photograph on it and I definitely recognize that man as being Dr. Kinsey.”
      Following the interview, Mrs. White states that her “father and grandfather then left with these men to attend a meeting at Ohio State University.” A few years later, her father gave her a “signed copy” of the Kinsey report and “suggested that I read it to see the contributions he had made to the scientific findings it contained that would revolutionize the way the world would view sexuality in the future.” When her father died, Mrs. White threw the book away. She would now like to know what part Indiana University, through its Kinsey Institute, may have played in encouraging the abuse to which she was subjected. Mrs. White recalls films her father made of her abuse.
      We also have the testimony of Donna Friess, Ph.D., detailing her father's use of the Kinsey report as justification for the sexual abuse of her and her sisters. Friess wrote of her traumatic experiences in her book, Cry the Darkness: One Woman's Triumph Over the Tragedy of Incest (Health Communications, Inc., Deerfield Beach, Florida, 1993). It is not known if her father supplied Kinsey with information. In a letter to this author, Dr. Friess wrote that her father admitted that he “decided a long time ago to allow myself anything that dogs do.” Kinsey “advocated the animal model of human sexual behavior. My father subscribed to it. Everyone of his children own their own copies of the Kinsey reports. He forced me to make a gift of the Male report to my boyfriend (now my husband) when I was in college.”
      Writing in the July, 1992 issue of The California Psychologist Dr. Friess stated her belief that Kinsey was fully aware of the abuse of children, yet insisted on calling it “play.” She noted: “Kinsey does not distinguish between child-to-child sexual contact and child-to-adult sexual contact” (p. 27).

The public deserves to know more about those seven (or 147) little girls. In a letter dated March 11, 1981, Gebhard claimed that no follow-up information on any of the children was available. Regarding the 27 boy “subjects” who were also under ‘“four years of age,” Kinsey had stated that “observations made by some of our other subjects” strongly suggesting these small children were sexually tested by older “persons.”46 Subsequent investigation by Yorkshire Television confirmed that speculation.47
      46. See Gebhard's telephone interview, his testimony in the Masters and Johnson seminar on Ethics in Sex Research and Therapy, his articles in the press cited throughout this book, John Gagnon's admission of the Kinsey Institute team's crimes in his book Human Sexualities, Wardell Pomeroy's statements in his biography of Kinsey, etc.
      47. Gebhard, November 2, 1992, telephone interview with J. Gordon Muir, M.D., editor of Reisman et al., Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, 1990.

“ESTHER,” INCEST SURVIVOR INTERVIEW FOR “KINSEY'S PAEDOPHILES”
       Esther: My grandfather was a student here... when Alfred Kinsey was here... in a biology class in 1922... My father actually did mail some questionnaires... I believe, to the Kinsey Institute about the sexual abuse that he was doing on me... since 1938, which makes me about four years old... I had to meet with him and with Alfred Kinsey... Alfred Kinsey asked me some questions, was I happy... did I love my daddy? Of course, I was instructed... to be very nice to this man, that he was a very famous man... the conflict of emotions actually ended up in convulsions... it was crying and uncontrollable shaking...
       At the very peak of when all the abuse was going on, there was a time when there was a paper in a brown envelope and it... had little questions on it, with little blocks in front of it... but I didn't understand one of the words... orgasm... my father explained to me what an orgasm was. And he asked me to let him know when there was an orgasm. He always looked at his watch... he said, he had a deadline to meet and you had to send [the paper] away. So he put it in this envelope and I have never seen it since...
       ...I know he had a... camera that he used, but I don’t know how much he took... one incident he could have taken... in the act... There was one time that may have been photographed... there was one time when I do remember it [a movie camera] was running and he says, oh, don’t pay attention to that.... You could only be a little girl to understand that it couldn’t possibly be enjoyed. That was slavery.
       ...I think what he did, at least in my case was use the figures for incest in the 1953 book... Now I understand, they have passed on that incest information onto someone else who is publishing a book and that makes me angry... They didn't ask my permission to publish...
       ...I went into a psychologist myself and I found Kinsey's lies coming right back at me. And then I realized that the Kinsey Institute is teaching the psychologist, I just got through paying money to see.. most people seek [help] from a psychologist or psychiatrist that was trained by [Kinseyans].
       [The Kinsey books] are republished... reams of that information is going to be used in our public schools and perpetuate the lie again. Who is financing it...?
       Those archives need to be opened up so people can understand that if they feel they were connected with the Kinsey Institute that they can go back and know for sure... they used me and they used those children and that is a terrible way to feel, to feel that you've been used for a lie, and they perpetuated it so that it would happen again...
       My grandfather's perpetuation to my father was generational, and I think that's what Alfred Kinsey was after... They didn't think that molesting children was wrong, so they didn't want to interrupt it, the abuse that was going on. They wanted that to continue, that is what they are doing this book for... [re-release of the Kinsey Reports, 1998]

The names of some or all of the children are in the Kinsey records. In fact, during his November 2, 1992, phone interview, Gebhard stated that the Institute has the names of “some” of the children who were so used: “Most of the cases we don’t have the names of the children, but there are a small number of cases where we do have some names.”48
      48. Female, p.105.

RECORDS OF 23 YOUNG GIRLS IN “ORGASM”
There are justified concerns about what happened to these little boys and girls. First, if it is indeed true that seven girls less than three years old were directly observed by the Kinsey team reaching “orgasm,” why are they not recorded as a separate group? No precise information (age, family data, race, religion, and other basic demographics) is provided for this unique, and apparently unprecedented, “population sample.”

Hyman and Sheatsley have noted that “[o]ne’s credulity is occasionally strained by a reported datum which Kinsey presents without qualification.”49 And the “actual observation” of three-year-old girls “masturbating” entailed a highly unethical indeed criminal procedure in the 1930s, even today. Hyman was a Rockefeller grantee and a highly respected interview specialist, while Sheatsley was well-known in the world of military analysis. Their article appeared in An Analysis of the Kinsey Reports,50 where they remarked that it was scientifically irresponsible for the Kinsey team to combine direct experimentation with memories gleaned from adult interviews.
      49. Herbert Hyman and Paul Sheatsley “The Scientific Method,” in, Donald Geddes, Ed., An Analysis of the Kinsey Reports, A Mentor Book, New York, 1954, p. 106.
      50. Hyman, Ibid., pp. 91-117.

The Kinsey team claimed to have witnessed four infant girls reach “orgasm” at less than one year of age. Developmentally, such infants would be nursed or bottle-fed at one year, [perhaps could walk, but perhaps could walk,] but could not speak, could not yet control their bowels, jump, or eat with a fork or spoon, etc. But the Kinseyites were certain that they had attained orgasm!

Kinsey’s Table 10 produces the following numbers on “pre-adolescent orgasm from any source.”51 Having claimed that it had “just recorded” “orgasm” data on one-year-old and three-year-old infants, the Kinsey team later indicated that no orgasm was recorded by age three “from any source.”52 Combining information from Kinsey Table 2153 and 25 (see below) yields the following information about girls who allegedly masturbated to orgasm. Whether the girls had the adult “help” that Kinsey admits in the Male volume is concealed:
AgeTable 10Table 146Table 147Table 21Table 25
Orgasm from
Any Source		Arousal from
Any Source		Orgasm from
Any Source		Experience in
Masturbation		Masturbation
to Orgasm
Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample		Total
Sample
%Cases%Cases%Cases%Cases%Cases
3—590815846—58731591305913
52586245799258264586625866
745835    7584145838
965772        
10857621657358576213580885802
1194577        
12  275711135738195784125778
13141144345697      
      51. Female, p. 127.
      52. Female, p. 544.
      53. These girls are typical of the youngsters about whom the Kinsey Institute claims it has no records. The location of these children remains an issue.

While fluctuating totals are not explained, another contradiction emerges: the sample size for orgasm from one source—masturbation (Kinsey’s Table 25)—is larger than the sample size for orgasm from all sources (Tables 10 and 147) for ages 3, 5, 7, 10, and 12. If lack of orgasm by age 3 is explained as a problem of recall, as Kinsey claimed (Table 25), then the 23 girls under three years of age to whom Kinsey referred on page 10554 (not merely the seven noted earlier) would also have been “direct observation” subjects.
      54. Female, p. 180.

Typically, according to Kinsey, the statement about “just” recording the baby “orgasms” was made alongside recollections by adult women of orgasms they allegedly experienced as children.55 Such information is essentially worthless unless we know the truth about the interviewers and those interviewed. Following is an oft-quoted graphic description from the Female volume about an “intelligent mother” who allegedly frequently observed her three-year-old masturbating: “Lying face down on the bed, with her knees drawn up, she started rhythmic pelvic thrusts, about one second or less apart. The thrusts were primarily pelvic, with the legs tensed in a fixed position. The forward components of the thrusts were in a smooth and perfect rhythm which was unbroken except for momentary pauses during which the genitalia were readjusted against the doll on which they were pressed; the return from each thrust was convulsive, jerky. There were 44 thrusts in unbroken rhythm, a slight momentary pause, then 10 thrusts, and then a slight momentary pause, 87 thrusts followed by a slight momentary pause, then 10 thrusts, and then a cessation of all movement. There was marked concentration and intense breathing with abrupt jerks as orgasm approached. She was completely oblivious to everything during these later stages of the activity. Her eyes were glassy and fixed in a vacant stare. There was noticeable relief and relaxation after orgasm. A second series of reactions began two minutes later with series of 48, 18, and 57 thrusts, with slight momentary pauses between each series. With the mounting tensions, there were audible gasps, but immediately following the cessation of pelvic thrusts there was complete relaxation and only desultory movements thereafter.”56
      55. Female, p. 104-5.
      56. Female, p. 104-5.

And on the Yorkshire Television interview, said Gathorne-Hardy: “[Kinsey] was an established professor who could go anywhere and do anything.... [M] oralists go around, horrified at the fact that quote unquote, Kinsey used pedophiles to get information.... Well, it’s true that Green... had intercourse with hundreds of males and females of every conceivable age... His girlfriend did the whole thing with her own daughter.”

Apparently, King’s (Green’s) “girlfriend” did not merely record her daughter’s bizarre conduct. This is an admission that she and/or King caused the child’s behavior.

This alleged “scientific” record has been cited by professionals in law and medicine worldwide. Typically, college sexuality texts by such authors such as Crooks and Bauer cite this page in Kinsey as evidence that children under age three are capable of orgasm. Future teachers, doctors, and other professionals, as well as parents, are told that “intelligent” parents should not be disturbed by such activities.

Though graphic, anecdotal stories are hardly science, when they were couched in scientific verbiage by Kinsey they helped pave the way for intimate physical examinations of children in their schools. For instance, the “Tanner Maturation Guide”57 claims the areola size of the breast and the presence of pubic hair determine whether a child is physically mature enough to play school sports. Using that guide, children in New York were required to strip so they could be examined to see if they were qualified for team sports. One New York mother was impelled to file suit against her daughter’s school, rather than allow her youngster to undergo the humiliation and embarrassment of a nude examination by her female coach.58
      57. The “Tanner Maturation Rating” questionnaire authorized by the New York Board of Education follows the Kinseyan pattern of sexuality “measurement”: “Starting this year, schools require applicants for everything from football to cheerleader to fill out the new form.... The definitions of the five stages include descriptions of the amount of pubic hair, and the size and shape of the penis, breasts and areolas.... Deputy Health Commissioner Mark Rapaport, whose office requires the form, defended it as perfectly sensible... it applies to kids who may be immature, a small kid who may be 14 and wants to compete” (NY Post June 28, 1988). The size of the areola has as little relationship to physical maturity as does hair color. One wonders why coaches and health teachers would want to read and rate the sizes and shapes of their student's genitals and the pigment surrounding their nipple area? In this modern extension of the Kinsey “measurement sexuality” mentality, as children develop in growth spurts, would boys classified as “too immature” for sports have an option to make the team should they “prove” sudden penis maturation? It seems preposterous to point out that a boy's penis size and a girl's breast size are irrelevant to their ability to swim, jump, kick a ball, or play a sonata.
      58. New York Post, June 28, 1988.

GIRL’S SEXUALLY VICTIMIZED BY MEN AND OLDER BOYS
Ages of Females Having Adult Contacts
Age% of
Active Sample		Author’s
Analysis		% of
Total Sample
45521
58832
69942
7131353
8171774
9161664
10262706
11242496
12252607
[should be 6]
13191976
[should be 4]
Cases10391682
Girls Molested		4407
Females

Another Kinsey table of girls under age 13 “Pre-Adolescents” is captioned “Age of Females Having Adult Contacts” (p. 118). It includes figures for pre-adolescent females who were sexually molested by males over 15-years-old. (My daughter would not count as a molestation victim since her rapist was 13-years-old.) Similar to other Kinsey team data, it entails a confusing and incoherent set of numbers. Clarence Tripp offers a few thoughts beyond quantification; beyond Kinsey’s numbers. It would have been helpful to the public in 1948 to read his descriptive narrative about King’s “fit problem,” “The children thought he was wonderful.... There was no force, no damage, no harm, no pain.... Well, there were two instances in which a young boy or girl — I think it was a girl— agreed to the sexual contact but then they found it very painful and yelled out when it actually took place. This was because they were very young and had small genitalia and Green was a grown man with enormous genitalia and there was a fit problem.”

Kinsey catalogued some adult-child “contacts” of his girl victims, but such details as Tripp’s “fit problem,” when “they were very young” were not revealed to the millions of Kinsey readers and Kinseyan disciples.

“Age” in the adjacent Figure refers to that at which a sexual approach by an adult male was recalled. The “% of Active Sample” appears to refer to 1,039 women who, Kinsey claimed, recalled an adult male molestation or attempted molestation. The shadowed column, added by this author, is a rough estimate (by age) of the number of girls who allegedly recalled molestations. And “% of Total Sample” refers to the 4,407 women who are not viewed as “active” molestation victims. The figures leave much to be interpreted by the reader.

This crucial and revealing table, as does virtually all of Kinsey’s data, falls short of the “meticulous” taxonomic “perfection” attributed to Kinsey by Indiana University, the Rockefeller Foundation, and almost all of Kinsey’s supporters. Kinsey’s child data were never challenged by anyone—other than this author.

It should be noted that 32 girls were actually raped, even according to Kinsey’s data (3% of 1,075), while the rest were subjected to exhibitionists or fondling. Kinsey states on page 120 that the men and boys exposed themselves specifically to upset the little girls, and that the offenders gained pleasure from seeing the “fright or surprise or embarrassment” on the children’s faces. He discounted the “harm” factor, claiming that the procedure provided “a source of pleasure to some children.” According to Kinsey:
       • 5% of the molested girls appeared to be “aroused”;
       • 1% were brought to “orgasm” by the offender(s);
       • 80% reported some fear, terror, and/or guilt.

It is unclear why the total number of molested female child victims was reduced from 1,075 (as noted elsewhere) to 1,039, or why the total sample dropped from 4,441 (also noted elsewhere) to 4,407. Moreover, it is a mystery why so much of the scientific world has accepted Kinsey’s claim that only one child out of 4,441 perhaps suffered some “serious injury” by adult sexual abuse. Or, why the word abuse or molestation never occurs in Kinsey’s two books.

THE FEMALE DATA
Rather callously Kinsey claimed to have found sexual abuse of young girls to be harmless, claiming that adult women were never traumatized by childhood sexual abuse and incest. Of 4,441 females interviewed about adult-child sex, he reported that 1,075 (24 percent) had been “sexually approached” in childhood. He claimed: “[W]e have only one clear-cut case of serious injury done to the child, and a very few instances of vaginal bleeding which, however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.”6-7
      6-7. Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1953, p. 123.
      Within the total pages devoted to children, neither Kinsey nor Pomeroy express any concern for the critical issues of child venereal disease, pregnancy, from kin or non-kin, emotional vulnerability and blackmail, resulting patterns of prostitution, drug and alcohol abuse, self-inflicted harm (cutting, burning of the body) or suicide, and the like, all of which is well and completely documented as the common result of children's early sexual abuse. All the more so in Kinsey's day, the "data" on the harm to children from sexual relations with adults was understood in the medical and psychological literature. Indeed, that was one of the key reasons for the unified efforts of "Puritans" and feminists at the turn of the century. It would have been impossible, however, for men on the Kinsey team, men who viewed "convulsions" in an infant being raped by a man as "definite pleasure," to hear, much less accept, much less print, the facts, about the trauma of child rape. Moreover, having interviewed the rapists and the incestuous rapists, Kinsey and his team had nothing to say about the interviews with their victims.

The Kinsey team claimed that by January 1, 1950, it had secured data from 7,789 females (p. 22) between “two to ninety years” (p. 31), including 216 minors (calculated from the school-age and underage girls on p. 32), and seven girls who were apparently under the age of four (p. 105). Further, 1,849 (24 percent) were removed from the non-random sample because they were either nonwhite (934 (12 percent)) or prison inmates (915 (11.7 percent)) (p. 22). Some of these subjects, as we shall see, may have been returned to the sample when their data proved particularly useful in promoting Kinsey’s “grand scheme.”6-8
      6-8. As noted by Simon, Gebhard and Johnson in Marginal Tables, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1979, p. 29.

The claim that the data were purged due to small sample size is refuted by Kinsey himself. In the discussion of “Pre-Adolescent Contacts With Adult Males; Incidence and Frequency of Contacts with Adults,”6-45 he claims that child sexual victimizations are harmless. A strong pro-pedophile bias appears to have influenced the decision to purge the data about poor black women and prisoners. The subjects were largely from fatherless and unconventional homes with a high incidence of early sexual experience. Conversely, black college women may have been purged due to a high percentage of biological fathers in their homes, therefore a lower incidence of early sexual activity.
      6-45. Female, p. 117.

The Kinsey team describes sexual “contacts” between children and adults, speculating that such incidents of abuse appear to have occurred, in poorer city communities where the population was densely crowded in tenement districts.… We would have found higher incidences of preadolescent contacts with adults if we had more cases from lower educational groups, or if we had included the data which we have on females who had served penal sentences, and on Negro females. These latter groups, however, were excluded from the calculations… [because they] would have seriously distorted the calculations on the total sample.6-46 [Emphasis added.]
      6-46. Female, pp. 117-118 and 22.

This statement is an amazing admission of bigotry and open disdain for both the black community and the well-being of children. If the data showed that the poorer “tenement” black community was experiencing higher levels of early child sex abuse and greater dysfunction, why did Kinsey hide this information? Was it not essential to inform the poor black community—in 1948 and again in 1953—of the need to protect their children from sex abuse, and to urge judges to disallow parole for convicted child abusers? Was it not imperative for black parents to know that sexual abuse of their children could lead to a life of crime, drugs, homosexuality, and/or prostitution?

If a large number of imprisoned women were victims of early child sex abuse, as confirmed by the literature on child abuse and prostitution,6-47 then early sexual abuse is implicated as a causative factor in creating female felons. Why wasn’t the nation told? Why would Jones, Pomeroy, and Christenson testify that Kinsey would “weep” for sex offenders in prison, even as he was purging the testimony of child-abuse victims from his data?
      6-47. See Judith Reisman, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler, IME, Arlington, VA, 1948, and National Legislation of and International Trafficking in Child Pornography, Center on Speech, Equality and Harm, University of Minnesota Law School, 1996. See also massive body of documentation used in the Canadian Supreme Court Decision, Butler v. The Queen, February 27, 1992, declaring all pornography illegal in Canada.

From his 18,000 alleged interviews of women and men, Kinsey tallied only one possible child abuse victim. 48
      6-48. Female, p. 122.

Until recently, it was assumed that the 5,940 females formally selected for the survey were young, white, middle-class, and well educated. To the contrary, 147 subjects are described as “preadolescent,” ranging in age from two to 15 years, while the remainder are categorized as “adolescent and adult females,” ranging in age from 11 to more than 70 years. At a minimum, 69 other minors were recorded as 16 to 18 years of age (p. 32). It appears, then, that roughly one-half of the respondents (3,051) were ages 16 to 25, with the greatest number between 16 and 35 (4,342 (73 percent)). This is hardly representative of age distribution for the American female population.

Lumping unrelated groups of young girls and elderly women into one massive group is inexcusable. Kinsey contended that his technique for collecting “human material” did not differ from that employed by public opinion pollsters to predict a group’s behavior. One would be hard pressed, however, to find a polling organization that would lump infants with sexagenarians (and older) to predict an election.

INCEST OFFENDERS DEFINED AS CHILDREN’S SEXUAL “PARTNERS”
One technique for hiding information is failure to list relevant words in a book’s index. The Female volume claimed to be an objective report on female sexual behavior. Yet the term “incest” does not appear in its 31-page index of some 4,300 entries. (It was, however, listed once in the Male volume.)

The Kinsey team allegedly recorded when children were molested by Kinsey’s “adult partners,” as recalled by female interviewees from childhood. You will recall Pomeroy’s claim that Kinsey chose terms meticulously, avoiding “euphemisms” that would distort meanings. Kinsey used the euphemism “partner” to mask adult molesters, pedophiles, and others who sexually assault children. The use of the term “partner” suggests the activity was mutually agreed upon. It serves to discount the harm resulting from adult sexual abuse of children. As reported by Donna Friess and Esther White, Kinsey’s incest data had, and continues to have, a dramatic impact on children. In fact, those who have suffered from the abuse perpetrated by Kinsey’s pedophiles may yet obtain access to the files sequestered at the Kinsey Institute. According to Gathorne-Hardy, who believes that “As a scientist I thought Kinsey was marvelous, exemplary,” the Institute fears that some of Kinsey’s victims may yet come forward: “[The Kinsey Institute] is nervous, people will read the journals and identify someone in them. Green described having sex with this... little girl, this little boy or this man or this pig.... I think the Kinsey Institute felt... right wing figures... would pluck out things.... I think they are right to keep them undercover because they are not dealing with scrupulous scholars, they are dealing with people out to wreck them... there are descriptions of Green buggering boys nigh on 13 ...[who] doesn’t enjoy it. I mean it’s quite sort of harsh stuff some of it.”

The pedophile claim that adult sex with children is harmless has obtained a large following during the last half-century. Current estimates of “one in four females (and one in seven boys) having been molested by age 18”59 suggest that American children are today experiencing unprecedented rates of sexual abuse.
      59. Judith Reisman, SoftPorn Plays Hardball, Huntington House, Lafayette, LA, 1991.

The table below presents figures from Kinsey’s table on prepubescent girls and their adult “partners.” This author has added a “victim” data column for clarification. As noted earlier, an incest rate of 2.4 percent (147 cases among the 5,940 female subjects) was indicative of a serious problem for society in general and law enforcement in particular. From the Kinsey team’s child-sex normalcy perspective, however, there was a motive to obscure the data. And again, Kinsey’s “% of Active Sample” category totaled 107 percent, which reflects Kinsey’s pattern of well-funded bad statistics. Are there 645 child abuse victims (based on his percentages) or are the added 36 cases multiple abuses? For a study alleged to be the most “meticulous” work on sexuality ever conducted, Kinsey actually hides the number of child victims in both his Male and Female volumes.

RELATIONSHIP OF ADULT TO GIRL INCEST “VICTIMS” ADDED TO KINSEY’S ORIGINAL UNNAMED TABLE
Adult PartnersPercent of
Active Sample		Author’s Analysis
[Number of Girl “Cases”]
Strangers52317
Friends and acquaintances32195
Uncles955
Fathers424
Brothers318
Grandfathers212
Other relatives530
Cases reporting609651

“Author’s Analysis:” This column was added to show
the actual number of children represented by Kinsey’s percentages.


Among the many aspects of incest that the Kinsey team opted to ignore were:
       • number of resulting pregnancies;
       • number of resulting abortions;
       • relationship of victim to perpetrator (father, brother, uncle, stranger, etc.);
       • instances of venereal disease;
       • number of girls victimized by more than one relative;
       • duration of the incestuous relationship;
       • number of offenses per child;
       • number of girls who reported their ordeal to parents and/or authorities;
       • ages at which the offenses occurred;
       • number of victims battered, blackmailed, or photographed for pornography;
       • number of girls given pornography as model behavior to copy;
       • number of victims attempting suicide;
       • number of victims subsequently entering prostitution or becoming substance abusers.

The list could to on and on. Failure to raise such points suggests a strong—indeed pathological—bias aimed at blinding readers and other researchers to the critical, often life-threatening situations facing boy and girl victims of incestuous abuse. Kinsey purged all homosexual incest from his report.

Many persons responded to Kinsey’s call for diaries and sexual calendars. They were “solicited” and “urged” to keep records of any future or on-going “outlets.” One woman’s recollection of her grandfather60 includes the “forms” he mailed to the Kinsey Institute, on which he apparently recorded his sexual abuse of his granddaughter, and her alleged “responses.” Kinsey states, “Many of the calendars have come from scientifically trained persons who have comprehended the importance of keeping systematic records. Many of the calendars are a product of our call for such material in the Male volume.… Persons who… are willing to begin keeping day-by-day calendars showing the sources and frequencies of their outlet, are urged to write us for instructions.”61
      60. Female, p. 84.
      61. Ibid.

Follow-up data on the child molestation and incest cases have, according to the Kinsey Institute, been maintained from time to time, but are yet to be made public. It is understandable, since the team sought-out actual and potential offenders and urged them to keep records of their future planned sex acts with children to “help science.” The recent admissions by Gathorne-Hardy, Paul Gebhard, and Kinsey Institute Director Bancroft that the Institute has some of the abused children’s names, and some of the original child abuse data, confirms that the information has been, and is being, deliberately suppressed.

If, as the Kinsey team claimed, a parent was always present during interviews, and if the name of each subject was coded in the Institute data base, why cannot the children be traced? And why was there apparently no follow up to determine their subsequent physical and emotional status? Such data could have helped to confirm or refute Kinsey’s allegation that adult sex with children is harmless.

Childhood incest and the sexual abuse of women has been shown to result in; divorce, battery of wives and children, jealousy and rivalry between mothers and siblings, obesity, anorexia, venereal disease, pregnancy, abortion, attempts to run away, suicidal ideation, and suicide, promiscuity, “voluntary” and forced prostitution and/or pornography, addiction to alcohol and drugs, early marriage, incest on younger siblings and later child victimization.62 All are current, commonly recognized variables of the incest victim profile.63
      62. See the growing body of literature on incest research and data.
      63. Reisman, SoftPorn., Ibid.

As academic dean of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, Kinsey co-author Wardell Pomeroy sanctioned incest as beneficial when advising readers of Penthouse, Chic, and other pornographic magazines. He based his position on Kinsey Institute data supposedly supporting the notion of “positive incest.” Pomeroy stated in his sexuality text, Girls and Sex (1969), that the “medical” reasons for “the incest taboo” are that “the children of an incestuous union will be likely to inherit the outstanding good characteristics of both [parents].”64
      64. Wardell Pomeroy, Girls and Sex, Pelican Books, New York, 1969, pp. 133-4.

Hardly. The British Medical Journal, reporting on studies of first generation father-daughter and brother-sister incest births, ignoring the emotional costs, found 42 percent to be apparently normal, 58 percent diseased, retarded, or still-born.65
      65. The British Medical Journal, 282:250, 1981. Scrutinizing combined data from two 1967 studies, the Journal reported that “of 31 children born to father-daughter (12) and brother-sister matings (19) only 13 were normal,” and, “[T]wo died from recessive disorders (optic fibrosis and glycogen-storage disease) and one from an almost certainly recessive disorder causing progressive cerebral degeneration and loss of vision. Two of those alive probably had disorders, both with severe mental retardation with cerebral palsy, and one a possibly recessive disorder, severe non-specific mental retardation. Two others died in the neonatal period...Two had congenital malformations.... Eight others...were mentally retarded, with IQs in seven ranging from 59 to 76.”
      And this excerpt from Female, pp. 121-122: “There are, of course, instances of adults who have done physical damage to children with whom they have attempted sexual contacts, and we have the histories of a few males who had been responsible for such damage. But these cases are in the minority and the public should learn to distinguish such serious contacts from other adult contacts which are not likely to do the child any appreciable harm if the child's parents do not become disturbed.” [Emphasis added.]

During a December 1977 Penthouse interview, past Kinsey Institute Director Paul Gebhard also claimed that incest was harmless. With their reputations enhanced as Kinsey co-authors, the opinions of Pomeroy and Gebhard have been widely quoted by others, and cited authoritatively in state and federal court decisions (see Chapter 9, “Kinsey and the Law”).

Kinsey’s incest data were requested from the Institute by this author in 1981. In his reply, Director Gebhard stated that it had been passed along to Warren Farrell, who was said to be working on a book entitled, The Last Taboo: The Three Faces of Incest:66 “We omitted incest (in the Female Report), except for one brief mention, because we felt we had too few cases: 47 white females and 96 white males, and most of the incest was with siblings. We have turned our incest data over to Warren Farrell to supplement his larger study which I think is still unpublished.”67
      66. Gebhard's letter to Reisman, March 11, 1981, in the author's archive.
      67. Ibid.

Gebhard’s letter underscored the contradictions of the Kinsey incest data. The Female volume listed 147 instances of female incest victims, (23 percent of the 609-subject “Active Sample”), not 47.68 Moreover, most of the incest alleged by the team was committed by uncles and fathers not by “siblings.” Again, Kinsey says nothing about whether these incest offenders were biological or non-biological (step family/adoption) kin.
      68. Female, p. 118.

As of this writing, Farrell’s “positive incest” book remains unpublished.

SEXUALIZED IMAGES OF CHILDREN
According to Newsweek, Kinsey Institute Director June Reinisch once stated that she found the Institute’s “collection of child pornography so distasteful... that she cannot bear to look at it.”69 Yet Pomeroy and Gebhard both reassure their audiences that adult sex with children, including incest, is not only harmless, but in some instances beneficial. Dr. Pomeroy is on the Board of Consultants for Penthouse Forum Variations, a periodical which refers to incest as “Home Sex.”
      69. Newsweek, “Keepers of the Flame,” June 18, 1984, p. 15.

Along with articles and images recommending and demonstrating bestiality, sadism, homosexuality, and bisexuality, Penthouse Forum Variations published Pomeroy’s article, “A New Look at Incest.”70 It appeared alongside a letter from a supposedly happy incest daughter who wrote, “My early memories of a typical morning when I was five or six are of getting in bed with dad when my mother left for work.” The Penthouse editor graphically described sex with “father” as “marvelous.”71 In his book, Boys and Sex (1981) Pomeroy recommended sex with animals as “potentially joyous,” unless one is discovered by the inhibited and sexually repressive “Mrs. Grundys” of the world.72
      70. Wardell Pomeroy, Penthouse Forum Variations, “A New Look at Incest,” 1977, pp. 85-90.
      71. Penthouse Forum “Letters,” Ibid.
      72. Wardell Pomeroy, Boys and Sex, Penguin Books, New York, 1981, pp. 134-135.

Also accompanying Pomeroy’s Penthouse Forum Variations article was a letter-to-the-editor from an anonymous woman. Entitled, “Another Look at Incest,” it graphically described a five-year-old girl, deserted by her mother, who lived sexually with her father for years. The youngster was described as healthy and loved. Indeed, the writer claimed that after dating and sleeping around with a number of boys, she planned to marry someone wonderful—like her dad.

Pomeroy “scientifically” reinforced what the reader had just learned about the benefits of incest and adult sex with children. He wrote: “When we look at a cross-section of the normal population (rather than look at a selection of those in prison for incest), we find many beautiful and mutually satisfying and healthy relationships between fathers and daughters. These may be transient or ongoing, but they have no harmful effects.”73
      73. Pomeroy in Penthouse Forum , ibid.

Needless to say, Pomeroy never had a “cross-section of the normal population.” So, the Kinsey team did not provide any reliable data confirming that “we find many beautiful and mutually satisfying relationships between fathers and daughters... [that] have no harmful effects.” Writing about “positive incest” in the December 1977 issue of Penthouse, Philip Nobile, erstwhile Penthouse Forum editorial director, advocated an end to the incest taboo by calling on the expertise of then-Kinsey Institute Director Gebhard: “Actually, Kinsey was the first sex researcher to uncover evidence that violation of the taboo does not necessarily shake heaven and earth. Unpublished data taken from his original sex histories (some 18,000 in number) imply that lying with a near relative rarely ends in tragedy. “In our basic sample, that is, our random sample, only a tiny percentage of our incest cases had been reported to police or psychologists,” states Kinsey collaborator Dr. Paul Gebhard, currently director of the Institute for Sex Research in Bloomington, Indiana. “In fact, in the ones that were not reported, I’m having a hard time recalling any traumatic effects at all. I certainly can’t recall any from among the brother-sister participants and I can’t put my finger on any among the parent-child participants.” The nation was hardly prepared for such talk in the ’50s, but Gebhard is releasing Kinsey’s startling incest material for incorporation in Warren Farrell’s work-in-progress, The Last Taboo: The Three Faces of Incest [Emphasis added].”74
      74. Penthouse, “Incest, the Last Taboo,” December 1977, p. 181. Kinsey did not call it incest, or sex with kin, but (according to Nobile) “lying with a near relative.” Pomeroy, in his 1977 Penthouse Forum Variations article, “A New Look at Incest,” claimed that adult-child incest could not only be harmless, but could benefit the child emotionally. He wrote: “Incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience....When there is a mutual and unselfish concern for the other person, rather than a feeling of possessiveness and a selfish concern with one's own sexual gratification, then incestuous relationships can—and do—work out well....[Incest] can be a satisfying, non-threatening, and even an enriching emotional experience, as I said earlier.” (Penthouse Forum Variations, 1977, pp. 86-90).

Interestingly, that was presumably the same “incest material” that Gebhard, in his later letter to this author, claimed entailed “too few cases [so that] we omitted incest, except for one brief mention” in the Female volume.

>>