It will be clear to most readers that Kinsey reached the following three general conclusions about human sexuality:
1. The normal expression of human sexuality is bisexuality. That this capacity is not realized in many people is because of “cultural restraints” and “societal inhibitions,” which are assumed to be negative influences.
2. Sexual contact with adults would be a normal part of growing up for children in a less inhibited society. This adult-child sexual relationship helps to socialize children and assists the development of full sexual potential in adulthood.
3. Promiscuity and diversity of sexual expression correlate with sexual health.
Neither Kinsey nor his coworkers spelled out their conclusions as clearly as stated here. But they are discernible as a common thread woven through the Male and Female Reports and in subsequent works by Kinsey co-authors. These conclusions are, however, succinctly summed up by Kinsey in his statement in the Female Report that “it is ... difficult to explain why each and every individual is not involved in every type of sexual activity”*. Actually, Kinsey does provide an explanation of sorts. He considered that the “human animal” developed “exclusive preferences and patterns of behavior, heterosexual or homosexual ... only with experience, or as a result of social pressures. * Female, pp. 450, 451.
Indoctrination is a perfectly lovely word that gets a very bad press. Indoctrination is leading people into the doctrines or teachings by which a community desires to live. Thus, for example, we indoctrinate children that racial discrimination is wrong and that they shouldn't throw their chewing gum wrappers on the sidewalk. Yet the word “indoctrination” is piously eschewed by many educators. Indoctrination, they say, smacks of manipulation, of judgmentalism, of imposing our values on others. Education, they say, is not a matter of transmitting teachings but of eliciting the capacity of children to clarify the teachings by which they choose to live. In no area is this idea of the child as free agent to be more assiduously respected, such educators insist, than in the area of sexual behavior.
A good many other people, notably parents, are given to thinking that there are truths and falsehoods, even rights and wrongs-especially when it comes to sex. Not all parents think that way, of course. In fact, many of today's parents were educated not to think that way, and, therefore, all the greater is their embarrassment when they discover themselves thinking that way about the sexual behavior of their own thirteen- or sixteen-year-old children. As a result of their own indoctrination in guilt-free sexuality, they feel awfully guilty about their feeling that there are some things kids should not do and should not be encouraged to do. These conflicted feelings have everything to do with the confused reactions and seething resentments surrounding sex education in the schools. A common objection is that sexuality is too important and too morally laden to be left to the schools. That is a subject, we are told, that should be addressed by the home and the church. Educators respond that most parents are ill-equipped and disinclined to teach their children about sexuality and are just as glad to hand that job over to the schools. The educators are undoubtedly right in many instances. As for the church, it becomes increasingly evident that at least some churches have nothing to teach that is discernibly different from the pop-sexology disseminated by the schools.
Females by Cole: 6 -- The Pro
Playboy, November 1954, Jack Cole, p. 24
In his Kinsey biography, Wardell Pomeroy uses the expression “Kinsey's grand scheme” (or “grand design”) several times. Pomeroy explains, “Our grand design, in simplest terms, was to try to find out ... what people did sexually”*. But there is evidence that Kinsey selected individuals and groups for his studies that would enable him to get results he could use to promote specific sexual behavior and lifestyles. He knew exactly how to do this. As will later become apparent, it was to provide a statistical base for a new morality.
* Pomeroy, Wardell Baxter. Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, Harper & Row, New York, 1972, p. 4.
Wardell Pomeroy states in his Kinsey biography that some of Kinsey’s best friends were scientists like himself who, in one way or another, were part of his “grand scheme”.* Kinsey’s research was in fact the scientific base which Kinsey and colleagues hoped to use in their effort to change society’s traditional moral values.
* Pomeroy, p. 155.
The Kinsey group (which included Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard) defined their concept of sexual normality as follows: “[W]e suggest that sexuality, in its biologic origins, is a capacity to respond to any sufficient stimulus .... This is the picture of sexual response in the child and in most other younger mammals. For a few uninhibited adults, sex continues to remain sex, however they have it” [Kinsey, et al. In Hoch and Zubin, 1949, p. 27].
Kinsey advocated that the sexuality of the young infant was “unspoiled” since the child could respond to any form of stimulus without judging the source. According to one-time Kinsey Institute researcher John H. Gagnon, the later development of diverse forms of sexual “preference” indicates a variety of human “sexualities” which are based upon learning experience and none are to be considered unnatural (Gagnon J.H. “Science and the Politics of Pathology.” Journal of Sex Research 23[1]:120-123, 1987).
In his 1977 book Human Sexualities (Scott Foresman & Co.), Gagnon advocates a process of social engineering that in practice combines his and Kinsey's models of sexuality. He sums up the problem of child sexual development from his own viewpoint: “ [T]here does appear to be something that could be called a competence for orgasm that can be realized at a very early age. What is more important is determining what activities or social circumstances might sustain the interest or contribute to the desire of young boys or girls to continue the activity” (p. 84). Gagnon suggests, “We may have to change the ways in which [children] learn about sex. We may have to become more directive, more informative, more positive--we may have to promote sexual activity--if we want to change the current processes of sexual learning and their outcome” (p. 381).
Essentially, Kinsey initiated a two-part strategy. First, he advocated the establishment of bisexuality as the “balanced” sexual orientation for normal uninhibited people. In effect, this would encourage heterosexuals to have homosexual experiences. This was the basic step in obliterating the existing heterosexual norm of sexuality with its traditional protective family structure, values and conventional sexual behavior (spousal heterosexual intercourse implied). This would open the way for the second and more-difficult-to-implement step-creating a society in which children would be instructed in both early peer sex and “cross-generational” sex (adult sex with children).
BEGINNING WITH HOMOSEXUALITY -- A PERSONAL AGENDA
Kinsey had published a paper on the topic of homosexuality several years before he completed his famous Male and Female Reports. In this he previewed his agenda by advocating the normalcy of homosexuality and stressing that heterosexuality and homosexuality were not “mutually exclusive”*. This rather obscure article indicates that Kinsey had already begun the process of promoting bisexuality as the norm of sexual health seven years before publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
* “Homosexuality: Criteria for a Hormonal Explanation of the Homosexual.” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 1:424-428, 1941.
To break down the stigma surrounding homosexuality, Kinsey, in his 1941 paper, called for an unbiased, objective, scientific study of homosexuality. He complained, “The best of published studies are based on the select homosexual population which is found within prisons, and it seems, heretofore, to have been impossible to discover the extent to which the phenomenon occurs in otherwise socially adjusted portions of the population”*. Kinsey clearly gave the impression that he wanted to be the first researcher to study a truly random sample of males to assess the extent of homosexuality in the general population. In the event, he purposely and deceptively did the opposite. He went on to bias the Male Report with the inclusion of 1,000 or more prisoners.
* Ibid., p. 425.
After publication of the Male Report, when Kinsey's colleague Paul Gebhard suggested that “it might have been a mistake to include prison inmates in the general population on which we based Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” Gebhard was soundly, and hypocritically, rebuked by his boss for making “assumptions” about the lives of prisoners. Recounting this in his 1979 book The Kinsey Data (W. B. Saunders), Gebhard explained that by this time Kinsey was more concerned with “building and defending the research” than he was with problems of bias.
In the book Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types (Heinemann/London, 1965), Gebhard, Pomeroy and John Gagnon tell more of the real story of how Kinsey went about the study of homosexuality. They relate that Kinsey (who had complained about previous homosexuality studies being done on prisoners) looked upon the prison institutions “as a reservoir of potential interviewees, literally captive subjects” (p. 32). And so the Kinsey research made “no differentiation in [the] 1948 volume between persons with and without prison experience” (p. 33).
Gebhard was fully aware of what the inclusion of prisoners meant in a study designed to measure the prevalence of sexual behaviors. He wrote that the Kinsey Male volume included data on “persons who had been incarcerated in jails and prisons where homosexual activity is relatively common... “ (The Kinsey Data, p. 8). Kinsey clearly also knew that he was building up a specialized collection of homosexual experiences from prisons -- where heterosexual contacts were not even an option -- in his data for the “normal” population.
When Gebhard questioned Kinsey about the inclusion of prisoners in the Male Report, he had also been told, “Why should we 'throwaway' a lifetime of useful data simply because of one misdemeanor or felony?” For whatever reason, however-perhaps embarrassment at the blatancy of the bias they were bringing to their research -- Gebhard and the other Kinsey co-authors managed to get their autocratic leader to exclude prisoners from their female sample. As Gebhard tells it, “During the preparation of the volume on females, Pomeroy, Martin, and I did conspire to compare prison with nonprison females and found a substantial difference in behavior.” Finally, Kinsey “agreed to omit prison females from almost all of the volume ... “ (The Kinsey Data, pp. 28, 29).
The overwhelming conclusion is that Kinsey knowingly presented a criminally biased model of sexual behavior to the world as “normal.” The atypical sexual behavior of prisoners and other biased groups was used to convince people that the normal population engaged in a higher percentage of aberrant sexual behavior (particularly homosexual relations) than was actually the case. Far from being an objective scientist, Kinsey intentionally weighted his data, attempted to obscure the bias and promoted a preset agenda.
ON TO PEDOPHILIA
From the standpoint that Kinsey's research was biased and reflected a personal agenda, it is worthwhile to question his philosophy and personal sex history. Kinsey, who so radically impacted upon ideas about the nature of human sexuality, challenged traditional concepts of normality. He argued that sexual differences--in orientation--were simply points on a continuum; the differences were a matter of degree, as opposed to being differences that could be defined as abnormalities or pathologies (Male Report, p. 639). Simply stated--Kinsey believed there was no such thing as sexual perversion; and it is clear he considered adult relations with children as a normal sexual activity.
In discussing variances of sexual behavior, Kinsey surmised, “Normal and abnormal, one sometimes suspects, are terms which a particular author employs with reference to his own position on that curve” (Male Report, pp. 199, 201). Logically, on the same basic premise, one can speculate that Kinsey's sexual orientation and behavior may have influenced his own viewpoint and affected his objectivity as a scientist.
Although the details of Kinsey's personal sex history exist, and are presumably in the archives of the Kinsey Institute, these have never been revealed, though some hints may have been dropped. Historian Paul Robinson, writing in the Atlantic Monthly (May 1972), expressed his own view: “I suspect that Kinsey's great project originated in the discovery of his own sexual ambiguities.”
Robinson went on to propose that the story of Kinsey and a close friend, described in Pomeroy's biography, “suggests that Kinsey may have discovered in himself the homosexual tendencies he would later ascribe to a large proportion of the population.”
Kinsey's credibility as an objective scientist, however, is much more compromised by what he apparently did (and did not do) in his research, and by his sweeping generalizations, than by opinions about his own history.
It is quite clear, for example, that, without any factual foundation upon which to base his case, Kinsey was advocating pedophilia. In chapter 2, Kinsey's view of the possible socio-sexual benefit of adult sexual contact with preadolescent females was reviewed. Kinsey made these claims in spite of the fact that 80% of the sexually molested girls that he reported on “had been emotionally upset or frightened by their contacts with adults .... “ He acknowledged that some girls “had been seriously disturbed,” and further reported a “clear-cut case of serious injury” and instances of “vaginal bleeding.” Kinsey nonetheless concluded, “It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched ... or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts” (Female Report, p. 121; emphasis added). Kinsey also reported, among other things, that young boys needed the help of older persons to discover sexually effective masturbatory techniques (chapter 1).
The pedophile mentality conveyed in Kinsey's reporting is also evident in the manipulative strategy he employed in the interviewing of young boys. Kinsey relates, “When the interviewer tussles with the four-year old boy, he may ask him whether he similarly tussles with the other boys in the neighborhood, and rapidly follows up with questions concerning tussling with the girls, whether he plays with any girls, whether he likes girls, whether he kisses girls” (Male Report, p. 58).
Kinsey's biographers have described behaviors in Kinsey's sex history that are remarkably consistent with character traits presented in the profile Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis, published by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation).11 Kinsey's background indicates that he placed himself in professional and nonprofessional positions where he had access to young boys, such as Y.M.C.A. camp counselor, boys' club leader, and Boy Scout leader-activities he kept up “during his college and graduate years, and even after his marriage.”12 As a sex researcher, Kinsey structured his research in a manner that made sexual experimentation with children a legitimate part of his scientific endeavor. And he used the research results to promote the acceptance of pedophilia. 11 Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis for Law Enforcement Officers Investigating Cases of Child Sexual Exploitation, by Kenneth v. Lanning, FBI Behavioral Science Unit, February 1986. 12 Christenson CV, Kinsey: A Biography, Indiana University Press, 1971, pp. 13, 14, 23.
In addition to his interest in sex experiments with children, Kinsey was an avid collector of pornography13 (and maker of sex films) -- an elemental feature of the pedophile syndrome. 13 Kinsey began an erotica collection-including drawings and writing from prison inmates and material confiscated by police departments. According to Wardell Pomeroy's biography of Kinsey, this grew into “the largest collection of erotica in the world ... presumed to be more extensive than the legendary Vatican collection.” The Kinsey collection is housed in the Kinsey Institute, but the “Vatican collection,” it now appears, was a figment of Kinsey's imagination (see Fidelity magazine, April 1989).
In the final analysis, was Kinsey objectively researching the nature of human sexuality in his child sex experiments--or was he attempting to establish the idea that children should start sexual activity early under the guidance of adult “partners”? Certainly, if the partner idea ever caught on, the conditioning of children away from normal heterosexual development would be in progress; Kinsey himself stated that a disposition toward homosexuality or bisexuality “depends in part upon the circumstance of early experience” (Male Report, p. 204). Clearly this suggests the possibility of manipulating--rather than facilitating--the process of psychosexual development. Pomeroy may have hinted at the answer to the question concerning Kinsey's motivation and goals when he acknowledged that Kinsey's “very faults” -- “his dogmatic and aggressive nature” -- “made it possible for him to get his grand design in motion ... “ (Pomeroy, 1972, p. 472).
In the interest of promoting a new scheme of human sexuality, it appears that Kinsey initiated a two-part strategy. First, he advocated the establishment of bisexuality as the balanced sexual orientation for normal, uninhibited people. In effect, the objective was to get heterosexuals to have homosexual experience. This was the basic step in obliterating the heterosexual norm of sexuality, with the traditional protective family structure, values and conventional sexual behavior (heterosexual intercourse) implied. This would open the way for the second and more difficult step--the ultimate goal of” cross-generational sex” (sex with children).
PEDOPHILIA--THE EMERGING “ORIENTATION”
Although difficult to achieve, the goal of making adult-child sexual relations acceptable is looking more possible than ever. Even Kinsey might be surprised if he could know of the academic and intellectual validation that is being attempted for the practice of pedophilia. An effort is clearly underway to “respectabilize” this behavior formerly regarded as deviant. The first requirement for this process was establishing that children were sexual beings. Academic sexology largely accepts that Kinsey did this. The second requirement is to have pedophilia regarded as an “orientation,” just as Kinsey's scale enabled homosexuality to be so perceived. This second requirement is now being met, according to the publication Behavior Today (incorporating the former Sexuality Today), a weekly newsletter for mental health, family relations and sexuality professionals: “A new sexological theory often begins with a softly spoken comment heard by a few who then initiate discussion and, over the years, begin to write and research on the idea. At the SSSS 31st Annual Conference, Dr. Sharon Satterfield made a soft three-sentence comment within her three-hour presentation on “Child Sexual Abuse.” Dr. Satterfield, a nationally recognized expert on sex offenders and the sexual abuse of children, stated that pedophilia--a condition where adults are sexually attracted to prepubescent children--may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. She then raised the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights. While no one, including Dr. Satterfield, believes that pedophiles should be allowed to victimize children, three days (and hundreds of papers) after her presentation, people were still talking about the idea of pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Several individuals were already drawing parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia: common early childhood “onset” and the immutability of the orientation as well as the social attitudes to both “orientations.” As more and more clinicians keep reporting failure at helping pedophiles change their sexual desires, just as they have found that they cannot help homosexuals become straight, we may have to look more closely at what is for many a very uncomfortable theory that pedophiles may always have as their primary sexual orientation an erotic to pre-pubescent children. In the final analysis the difference between sexual orientation and deviance may not be a scientific judgment, but a reflection of what society finds acceptable or repugnant.” Behavior Today, December 5, 1988, p. 5; emphasis added.
The classification of pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation is not the final step in a Kinseyesque agenda. Another sex theorist has attempted to advance the status of the pedophile to that of Good Samaritan, dedicated to helping children learn about, and develop, their sexuality. In other words, pedophiles could be viewed as natural helpers of children, with special gifts--much as John Money views homosexuals as special people.
In her article “Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experience” (Journal of Sex Education & Therapy 15(1):3-12, 1989), Joan A. Nelson, Ed.D., advocates a model of adult-child sexuality in which sex acts with children are to be viewed as acceptable and even essential to the healthy development of the child. She minimizes the harmful effect of what has generally been perceived as child sexual abuse; and she emphasizes the harmful effect of “society's condemnation” of adult-child sex-an approach straight out of the pages of Kinsey et al.
Dr. Nelson provides a new vocabulary that is designed to change the normal viewpoint about sex with children. She is aware of the Kinseyan strategy of changing words to influence how people think--and, ultimately, to influence behavior. Nelson recommends that both the adult and the child engaging in a sex act be mutually referred to as participants-paralleling Kinsey's use of the term “partners” --rather than as child molester and victim, respectively. Sex acts with children are to be referred to simply as sexual experience--an “inclusive, non-condemnatory” term, rather than as “abuse, victimization, molestation, assault, and exploitation.” Nelson further advocates that the general area of adult-child sex is to be covered by the neutral-sounding term intergenerational sex. (She has also used the equally innocuous-sounding description “cross generational sex” in an earlier article, “Incest: Self-Report Findings From a Nonclinical Sample” [Journal of Sex Research 22(4):463-477, 1986].)
Finally, Nelson suggests a new classification of sex offender in place of the term pedophile. She recommends that the pedophile be referred to as a visionary. She makes the distinction that the “visionary” type “participates in sexual contact not for her or his own gratification, but in response to a child's attempt to acquire practical knowledge.” Nelson points out that the “visionary” is also an “advocate” of “children's right to work,” and “to vote,” etc. The visionaries “believe the troubles that characterize our times are rooted in childhood sexual repression that prohibits age-free expression of sexual affection.”
Nelson builds her case that adult sex with children can be beneficial to the child. She points out that the “visionaries” of the pedophile movement cite Kinsey (1953) in suggesting “that early sexual experience is often positively correlated with greater adult sexual and interpersonal satisfaction.”14 She continues to press the same basic Kinsey line, citing a contemporary sexologist, Domeena C. Renshaw, M.D., on the topic of incest: “There may ... be a strong sense of [the victim's] self-satisfaction at having emerged and adapted well in spite of, or even because of, the incest experience”15 (emphasis added). 14 In a March 1980 Psychology Today article, “The Pro-Incest Lobby,” essayist and critic Benjamin DeMott notes that Joan Nelson describes herself as having experienced as a child” an ongoing incestuous relationship which seemed ... the happiest period of my life.” 15 Renshaw DC,lncest, Little, Brown, 1982.
Pedophilia and Incest appear to be following in the footsteps of Homosexuality. Quoting sex research historian Edward Brecher, James Ramey wrote in 1979 that “after the homosexual taboo began to break down, incest as the last social taboo would soon follow suit.” According to Ramey, “we are roughly in the same position today regarding incest as we were a hundred years ago with respect to our fear of masturbation” (SIECUS Report, May 1979, p. 1).
Clearly pedophilia is a potential orientation for the future. Many of its academic sympathizers are still in the woodwork, but pioneering spirits are following the same subtle path that is accomplishing the normalization of homosexuality. One milestone to watch for will be the appearance of the word “pedophobia.” We haven't quite got that far yet, but expressions like “age-free affection” and similar euphemisms are beginning to appear from the lips and pens of academic sexologists.
MELANESIAN STUDIES--ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR BISEXUALITYjPEDOPHILIA
The Kinsey ”grand scheme” is just now finding its way to the cutting edge of the U.S. government’s initiative against AIDS, with a little help from selective anthropological data from primitive tribes. In 1989 the National Research Council published an advisory report AIDS: Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use.16The section of the report that deals with “Sexual Behavior and AIDS” lists the lead author as John H. Gagnon, former project director at the Kinsey Institute. In the section on “Anthropology's Perspective on Human Sexual Behavior,” discussion centers on the fact that in “perhaps 10-26% of all Melanesian groups” homosexual experience is “not a deviant form of cultural behavior” (p. 160). (However, neither was ritualistic cannibalism in some groups, but the report does not cover this; see below.) 16 Charles F. Turner, Heather G. Miller, Lincoln E. Moses (eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
The reader is further informed that among the Sambia of Papua, New Guinea, for example, homosexual practices begin at ages 7-10, when all young boys are taken from their mothers to be initiated into the male cult. For some 10-15 years, they engage in erotic practices, first as fellator, ingesting the semen of an older bachelor, and then as fellated or semen donor .... The pattern of same-gender sexual activity and avoidance of women continues until marriage, after which young men may follow “bisexual” behaviors for some years [pp. 160, 161].
The purpose of this information is to show that human sexuality is “astonishingly plastic and variable in its expression” (p. 160), which implies a range of normal sexual behaviors, adult-child sex included. Gagnon's source here is Gilbert Herdt's book Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia (University of California Press, 1984). Herdt, it should be noted, is editor of the book Gay and Lesbian Youth (Harrington Park Press, 1989), which suggests a specialized point of view. Herdt's work is also quoted in support of the view that heterosexuality is not the norm and that “sexual behavior is primarily a sex act, and the sex of the partner is of secondary consideration.” 17 17 See, for example, Coleman et al.. Journal of Sex Research 26(4):525, 1989.
Gagnon, for his part, has previously expressed the view that there are various sexualities. These are based upon learning experience; none are to be considered unnatural (Journal of Sex Research 23[1]: 120, 1987). Gagnon has also written in his 1977 book Human Sexualities (Scott Foresman & Co.), “we may have to change the ways in which [children] learn about sex. We may have to become more directive, more informative, more positive--we may have to promote sexual activity--if we want to change the current processes of sexual learning and their outcome” (p. 381).
The NRC document is consistent with the Kinsey two-point agenda. Bisexuality and adult-child sex are implied to be an advance over the “cultural restrictions” of the modem Western world. In this report--supposedly relevant to AIDS prevention--it is stated that “descriptions of the cultural life of the Sambia and other 'homosexual' groups in New Guinea challenge Westerners to reevaluate standard generalizations about adolescent and sexual development” (p. 161). In case this might seem a bit extreme, the reader is assured in the preamble that “the members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.”
Anthropology has been enlisted both in the service of a gay agenda and a pedophile agenda. In his article “Bisexuality, Homosexuality, and Heterosexuality: Society, Law, and Medicine,” the well-known Johns Hopkins sexologist John Money appears to advocate bisexuality as the norm of sexual health. He applies the term “obligative heterosexuality” to individuals who are exclusively heterosexual, implying that exclusive heterosexuality is a quasi-pathology--a cultural artifact of repressive societies. Money claims that “condemnation of homosexuality induces impairment of all sexuality rather than an increase of heterosexuality.” He supports his case for bisexuality with anthropological findings on the Batak society of Lake Toba in Sumatra (Journal of Homosexuality 2(3):231, 1977).
THE GAY AGENDA AND PEDOPHILIA
From some of the foregoing it will be obvious that the agendas of gays and pedophiles are closely connected. There is a commonality of research sources used for “scientific” support, an overlap of objectives and a similarity of language, cliches and tactics, particularly in the pursuit of “rights.” In addition, a number of activists share both agendas.
Compounding the problem is the fact that Alfred Kinsey, who laid the foundations for the modem gay movement, implied a whole spectrum of non-traditional and abnormal sexual behaviors under the term homosexual. As John Gagnon has pointed out, “For 'homosexual,' Kinsey could have substituted any form of sexual activity .... He regarded it all as part of biological potential and mammalian heritage” (Human Nature, October 1978). Also, Kinsey’s view of human sexuality involved a continuum from heterosexual to homosexual and a parallel continuum from birth to death. He did not believe in distinct categories of sexuality or in trying to force facts about behavior into “separate pigeon-holes” (Male Report, p. 639). He polemicized that “only the human mind invents categories [like heterosexuality or homosexuality] and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex”. However, he set his own categories and agenda.
The association of two agendas has been a problem for some in the gay movement who have resented the attempt by pedophiles to piggyback on adult homosexual and lesbian issues. Lesbian columnist Nancy Walker has said in response to North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) founder David Thorstad's claim that he is “fighting for the rights of children to control their own bodies”: “Let Thorstad and his confreres at least say what the real issue is: that they want to [copulate with] children. Prepubescent children are not taboo because this is a sex-negative society, but because they can be physically hurt and may be psychologically injured as well by sexual intimacy with adults” (Time, September 7, 1981).
The problem of pedophiles in the gay movement is complex, however, because pedophiles have not always identified their sexual preference and agenda. And there is evidence that advocates of adult-child sex have clandestinely originated some of the basic strategies of gay activism. In fact, pedophiles may have been leaders in the gay movement.
Dutch social psychologist and pro-pedophilia lecturer Theo Sandfort, who has been a guest speaker at New York University's Human Sexuality Program summer seminar in Holland, has given some insight on the strategy of pedophiles. In his 1987 article titled “Pedophilia and the Gay Movement” (Journal of Homosexuality 13(2/3):89, 1987), Sandfort describes how in The Netherlands pedophiles have been an influential force in the gay movement. From time to time they surface, and pressure is put on homosexuals and lesbians to include pedophilia and “broaden the idea of the gay identity.”
Many members of the homosexual and lesbian community are not naive about the exploitive activities of pedophiles and have resisted the pressure to tie in a child-sex agenda to unrelated social causes. At a gay rights march in April of 1980, NAMBLA leader Thorstad's appearance “caused the National Organization for Women and the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights to pull out ... “ (Village Voice, August 20-26, 1980).
Regardless of current tensions between proponents of pedophile and strictly gay agendas, Kinsey is the philosophical father of both. His 1940s research remains the “scientific” foundation on which these overlapping movements rest.
BEYOND THE KINSEY GRAND SCHEME
While adult-child sex is identified as a major objective of the Kinsey “grand scheme,” arriving at such a goal will not be easy. For those who subscribe to both gay and pedophile agendas-and they are in influential positions in academic sexology--there is a challenging road ahead. But the challenge is being met with a subtle and com .. prehensive campaign affecting society's most-prized belief systemst professions and institutions. We are fully aware that the following alleged elements of this campaign may sound like science fiction, even though we have already seen most of them in the sex education and sexology literature:
• Encourage gay-activist movements, and establish homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation.
• Declare pedophilia a sexual orientation and add adult-child sex to the agenda.
• Promote widespread promiscuity to create a sexual anarchy, where so many are implicated that the distinction of pedophilia might seem insignificant.
• Promote the sexual rights of children, to open the way for pedophilia.
• Attack religion to undermine the Judeo-Christian concept of sin and eliminate the distinction between right and wrong.
• Attack psychoanalysis to eliminate psychoanalytical concepts that associate aberrant sexual behaviors with mental illness. Dissociate sex from pathology.
• Lobby the judicial system to reform sex laws so that aberrant sexual behavior is not considered criminal. Legalize aberrant sex acts to eliminate punishment for sex crimes.
• Promote hostility between the sexes. Align feminists with gay activists in a campaign against heterosexuality per se.
• Exploit childhood rebellion to alienate children from parents. Separate children from the protective traditional family structure.
• Redefine Family to break the heterosexual model of a nuclear family with a mother and father.
What chance of success does such an agenda have? Probably not much. When mainstream Americans learn to recognize the components of such a campaign, however cunningly disguised the elements are inside “AIDS education” programs, “initiatives” to dispel “homophobia,” and the like, they are likely to make short shrift of them.
A logical next step for Kinsey disciples is to claim that if some heterosexuals have tried anal intercourse, then anal intercourse can be declared to be as normal for heterosexuals as penile-vaginal intercourse. The association of anal sex with heterosexuals serves to standardize a gay model of sexual behavior for heterosexuals. A grand coup would then be almost complete: the standardization of 1) a gay model of sexual orientation for everyone-with bisexuality considered the norm of sexual health-and 2) a gay model of sexual behavior for everyone-with anal intercourse considered as natural for heterosexuals as vaginal intercourse. The basic tenets of the real Kinsey” grand scheme” might then be established.
The book that helps teenagers “to clarify their sexual needs and values”: “Anal sex refers to the insertion of the male penis into the anus of his partner .... Unlike the vagina, the anus does not have its own source of lubrication, thus great gentleness and care must be taken, and a lubricating substance is often necessary for insertion. . . . Again, however, unless there are special medical problems, when cleanliness and care are observed, there are no special medical dangers associated with anal sexual contact”[emphasis added].
Kelly G. (1986). Learning About Sex: The Contemporary Guide for Young Adults. Hauppage, NY: Barron, p. 70-71.
KINSEY’S “FINDINGS”
Current Kinsey Institute Director Bancroft, a medical doctor with a behavioral modification background, has described Alfred Kinsey as his own youthful “model.” At first, he refused to be interviewed by Yorkshire Television, but subsequently agreed, provided that all questions were submitted for his advance approval. His carefully crafted answers to the 14 questions were still revealing.
Yorkshire producer Tim Tate, a long-time Socialist, asked Bancroft: “If its scientific value is uncertain, why have you republished [Kinsey’s] material?” Bancroft replied, “We haven’t republished, we have reprinted” Kinsey’s books. Yet in the next figurative breath he stated that he was “very keen that these books are being republished,” since he wanted critics to read “what Kinsey actually says.” He then defended adult sex abuse of children as a method of avoiding “ignorance”: [I]f you want to remain in ignorance then so be it... But for many of us, there is the belief that there is a need for better knowledge and... you can’t do that if you then turn round and report to the police. 96 96. Tim Tate video interview with John Bancroft at Indiana University, excerpted from the complete interview transcript, July 21, 1998, p. 18.
Tate then asked: “But what has the material in Table 31 to Table 34 actually contributed to science’s understanding of sexuality in children?” Bancroft replied that it showed that boys “before puberty were capable of experiencing more than one orgasm, whereas, after puberty that is not the case.” Otherwise, he said, Kinsey’s child sex data have been scientifically “irrelevant.” 97 97. Ibid., p. 4.
Bancroft’s justification for immoral and unethical conduct is that facts are needed to dispel “ignorance,” yet he falsely claims that Kinsey made no “moral judgments”; that Rex King died before Kinsey’s books were completed; that the 40-year-old King was an adult molester “for about 30 years before Kinsey met him,” 98 and so on. Bancroft became increasingly hostile, finally blurting: “All this crap about Table 31 and 34!.... [Kinsey] opened up the subject... made it possible to talk about in a sensible way... He has de-mystified the subject of sexuality.... He stands... above the rest of researchers in the field.... He is a superb scholar... a fine mind... a pioneer. I have great respect for the man and for his integrity.” 99 98. Ibid., p. 9. 99. Ibid. p. 20.
In fact, however, Kinsey’s devious and deviant data has “opened up” children to precocious early sex activity (encouraged by pornography in our homes, schools and libraries), based on Kinsey’s widely repeated and wholly unproven mantra that children are sexual from birth. These data from child rapists now influence our courts, education, medicine, theology, and politics, generating laws which violate parental rights to protect their children while undermining our culture in ways too numerous to count.
The Kinsey team contended that if Americans would follow their analysis of human sexual conduct, they would eventually arrive at a socio-sexual paradise. Here is a summary, prepared by this author, of the key findings that were to pave the way to Kinsey’s nirvana:
• All orgasms are “outlets” and equal— whether between husband and wife; boy and dog; man and boy, girl, or baby—since there is no such thing as abnormality or normality.
• As the aim of coitus is orgasm, the more orgasms from any “outlet,” at the earliest age, the healthier the person.
• Early masturbation is critical for sexual, physical, and emotional health. It can never be excessive or pathological.
• Sexual taboos and sex statutes are routinely broken, so they should be eliminated. That includes laws against rape and child rape, unless serious “force” is used and serious harm is proven.
• Since sex is, can be, and should be commonly shared with anyone and anything, jealousy is passé.
• All sexual experimentation before marriage will increase the likelihood of successful long-term marriage, while venereal diseases and other socio-sexual maladies will be reduced dramatically.
• Human beings are naturally bisexual. Religious bigotry and prejudice force people into chastity, heterosexuality, and monogamy.
• Children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth and are not harmed by “consensual” incest or sex with adults. Indeed, they often benefit from such practices.
• There is no medical or other reason for adult-child sex or incest to be forbidden.
• All forms of sodomy are natural and healthy.
• Homosexuals represent ten to thirty-seven percent of the population or more. (Kinsey’s findings were fluid on this point.) Some educators have interpreted his findings to mean that only four to six percent of the population is exclusively heterosexual, so it is “heterosexual” bias that should be eliminated.
Each of these “findings,” gleaned from Kinsey’s reports, has been disproven by credible research and actual human experience over the past fifty years. Yet “accredited” AIDS and sex education in elementary, secondary, college, graduate, and post-graduate schools is almost entirely predicated on the Kinseyan “variant” sex model.
