Debunking Kinsey's Infamous Table 34,
by Miss Poppy Dixon

What Judith Reisman writes about Alfred Kinsey and his work is shocking. When I first read it I found it impossible to believe and so I purchased a copy of Sexual Behavior In The Human Male, by Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin to either verify or contradict her sensationalistic claims. Sexual Behavior In The Human Male is a big book and I was a bit intimidated, but Kinsey turns out to be very readable, with an enthusiasm that carries the reader easily from chapter to chapter.

I urge anyone interested in the public debate on Kinsey to secure a copy of Sexual Behavior In The Human Male (it is available free in most public libraries and inexpensively at used bookstores), read it, and draw your own conclusions.

The following questions from Reisman's Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution lead me to wonder if she has ever read Kinsey, as many of these questions are answered in the first few pages of the book. If she has read Kinsey's work, what are her reasons for deliberately ignoring the facts as given?

 1. But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? 1

But it wasn't.

 2. What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts?

But it doesn't.

 3. For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children?

Kinsey's sole method for collecting data was the interview.

 4. Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments?

But they didn't. A broad range of sexual behavior was illegal at the time of the interviews, and much remains so today. Kinsey interviewed people who were engaged in illegal sexual activity, but did not encourage, or facilitate in any way, any sexual behavior. He did not "allow...child abusers to conduct experiments" as the Kinsey institute conducted no experiments, nor trained anyone to do so.

 5. Who, by now, has not heard of the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments?

 6. If some American scientists could knowingly allow men to die slowly of syphilis, if others could infect pregnant women and endanger the lives of their unborn children, if still other unethical scientists could inject healthy and mentally retarded children with hepatitis, could not some American scientists teach pederasts and pedophiles techniques for sexually abusing children for "science"?

It's possible, but it has never been proven to have happened, though you have to wonder about a person who could dream up such a scenario with no evidence of its ever having taken place.

 7. Looking candidly at the facts of American scientific felons and the commonality of collegial collusion through silence or support, could scientists-who often feel unconstrained by Biblical standards or fears-not deceive a plebeian public about the percentage of men engaging in illicit sex, and those who are homosexual?

Hmm. Just what is she asking here? First I would like her to present the facts of "American scientific felons" and then I will decide if 1) they have ignored biblical standards in the course of their scientific research, and 2) deceived the public, and 3) try to figure out what any of this has to do with Kinsey.

 8. Could scientists, together with philanthropic, pedagogical and legal colleagues of like mind and sexual proclivity, now strategize to use their considerable influence in the latter half century to change America's attitudes and sex crime laws to favor their own personal interests?

Ah, conspiracy! In trying to decide if this were possible, facts would be useful.

 9. How did Kinsey get the statistics on childhood sexuality...that were to revolutionize the schoolroom, courtroom, pressroom, and bedroom? [her elipses, not mine]

He interviewed people.

10. More succinctly put, did the Kinsey team participate in the pedophile abuse of 317 infants and children?

Even more succinctly put, no!

11. How were these figures gleaned?

Through interviews.

12. Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices?

The practices of the people that Kinsey interviewed? No.

13. And did he actually use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34?

Kinsey interviewed a cross section of the American public, and that group included pedophiles.

14. What was the nature of the training given to these "trained observers"?

The Kinsey Institute has never carried out sexual experiments on children, either during Alfred Kinsey's time as director or since. As stated clearly in the first Kinsey volume, [Sexual Behavior in the Human Male], published in 1948, the information about children's sexuality responses was obtained from older subjects recalling their own childhoods, parents observing their children, and a small number of adult men who had engaged in sexual contacts with children and who were interviewed by Dr. Kinsey and his staff. The Kinsey Institute did not employ or train these men, or pay them for this information. The large majority of such information, including all that was reported in Table 34, was gathered by one individual, between 1917 and 1948, and documented by him. He died before Kinsey. No knowledge of the identities of the children involved or their parents has ever been available to The Kinsey Institute. 2*

15. And, who "trained" them?

[see the answer to 14 above]

16. What kind of men were they, this Kinsey team?

Men? Besides the authors, funders, statistical staff, and other advisors listed in the acknowledgements the men and women of the actual working staff are listed as,

Dr. Glenn V. Ramsey, now of Princeton University, was responsible for a series of histories from younger boys and served on this staff for a short time before going into the Army as clinical psychologist during the recent war. Dr. Vincent Nowlis, now psychologist at the Child Welfare Research Station of the State University of Iowa, and Dr. Robert E. Buggbee, now of the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Rochester, were formerly members of this staff, took some of the histories, and contributed to the laboratory handling of the data. Dr. Nowlis has critically reviewed the whole manuscript of this volume. Dr. Paul H. Gengard, trained in anthropology at Harvard University, has been a member of the staff during the past year. Mrs. Elizabeth Murnan has given full time as statistical calculator during the past three years. Mrs. Velma Baldwin, Mrs. Enola Van Valer Trafford, and Mrs. Ellen Lauritzen Welch have served as secretaries and researh assistants on the project. Mrs. Hedwig Gruen Leser has been the German translator on the staff.

Finally, much of the success of this project is to be attributed to our wives, without whose encouragement and specific help, and without whose support it would have been impossible to have carried this project through to its present point of development. 3

17. The question remains: Who did these experiments?

The Kinsey Institute has never carried out sexual experiments on children, either during Alfred Kinsey's time as director or since. 4

18. How did the Kinsey team know that an 11-month-old had 10 orgasms in one hour?

The large majority of such information, including all that was reported in Table 34, was gathered by one individual, between 1917 and 1948, and documented by him. He died before Kinsey. No knowledge of the identities of the children involved or their parents has ever been available to The Kinsey Institute. 5

19. How did they verify these data?

Under the chapter "Objectives in the Present Study,"

But no generalizations can yet be made for many important elements in the population...We have only begun to accumulate data for the highly important chapter that involves infants and very young children. 6

And under the chapter "Pre-Adolescent Orgasm,"

In consequence, the record on such early experience is incomplete in most of the histories, and it is as yet impossible to make any exact calculation of the incidence or frequency in the population as a whole. 7

20. Where were the children's parents?

[see the answer to 18 above]

21. Have attempts been made to locate the children?

[see the answer to 18 above]

22. Who were the subjects of Table 34?

[see the answer to 18 above]

23. Did Kinsey and his colleagues behave in an ethical fashion in the way they collected and published data from human subjects, especially children?

Under the chapter "Establishing Rapport,"
It is imperative, therefore, that the investigator be able to convince the subject:
1. That he, as a scientist, offers no objection to any type of sexual behavior in which the subject could possibly have been involved.
2. That the confidences of the record will be kept without question. 8

And under the chapter "The Confidence of the Record,"

It has, therefore, been possible to guarantee that no history will ever be published in a form which would identify it as an individual history. 9

And under the chapter "Interviewing Young Children,"

For children who are twelve or older, it is usually feasible to adapt the regular interview to their vocabulary and experience, securing quite satisfactory answers. For younger children, especially for those under eight year of age, it is necessary to use a totally different approach. An interview then becomes a social session involving participation in the child's ordinary activities. One of the parents has been present in all of our interviews with these younger children. 10

24. Apart from the ethical considerations, did they analyze and publish their data correctly from the scientific point of view?

If Mrs. Reisman has proof that they did not, it might be more effective to present it in the form of a statement, rather than a question.

25. Were federal funds solicited, used, and accounted for appropriately?

It is incorrect to in any way insinuate that federal funds were used to support research conducted by the late Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey. To state such was the case is patently false. In fact, one of his biographers wrote that Dr. Kinsey was, "suspicious and fearful of undue control of both his materials and his findings by government agencies" (Christenson, C.V. Kinsey: A Biography, Indiana U. Press, 1971).11

26. Do the answers to the preceding three questions indicate any violations of federal law?

No.

27. If the information collected and published by Kinsey proves, on examination, to be badly flawed or to involve fraud or criminal wrongdoing, what are the implications for the use of this information in science, education, law and public policy?

Whether or not the Kinsey data proves to be efficable or flawed, the public could benefit from a new, and similar, study with a larger, more comprehensive sample. This is something for which Kinsey had always hoped.

28. Specifically, to what extent should the federal government fund or recall the dissemination and use of this information?

The government did not fund this information, and there is no proven reason to recall this information.

29. What could be the motive of Kinsey's fraudulent data, which often found up to even half of average American males homosexual?

If Dr. Reisman had read Kinsey she would know that only 4% of the sample identified as purely homosexual. What would be the motive of Dr. Reisman in attempting to misrepresent this data?

30. Quite possibly, it amounts to Kinsey's wishful thinking, which he quantified in order to recreate others in his own distorted image. Was Kinsey himself a closet homosexual, pedophile or pederast?

As Mrs. Reisman states later, Kinsey's sexual preference is not relevant to the study. Her baseless attempt to smear him as a pedophile or pederast however, casts serious doubts on her integrity as a scientist.

31. In the past, science fraud has taken place for economic and political reasons-but with Kinsey, was his "science" rather the outgrowth of personal morality and sexual proclivity?

Having accepted a $700,000 grant to study pornography, and having formed relationships with right-wing conservative Christian organizations, Reisman's "science" hardly seems unbiased, or unmotivated by her own normative judgments.

The truth is that Kinsey's work has withstood scientific scrutiny while Reisman's has not. The American University, where her 1981 study of pornography was academically based, refused to publish it, and Reisman was forced to have it published by Huntington House, which publishes politically and socially conservative works and conspiracy theories, along with survivalist and anti-globalist issues.