Category Archives: Pornography

Kinsey: Brave New World?

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

November 19, 2004

On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  World War II focused national attention on a global threat to mankind.  Meanwhile, unobtrusively, in the heartland of America, the seed of a quieter, but equally profound attack on America was taking root.

On the quiet campus of Indiana University, a group of researchers was busy interviewing men and women, collecting data on their intimate sex lives.  Alfred Kinsey seemed to be the perfect man to direct this project:  married, a father of three children, a zoologist well-respected for his work with gall wasps, and known around campus for his open and comfortable approach to talking about sex.

Kinsey’s move from gall wasps to humans began even before 1938 when popular lore has it that “the Association of Women Students petitioned Indiana University for a course for students who were married or contemplating marriage.”  On the side, outside of his regular teaching duties in the zoology department, he began to collect sexual histories, developing an extensive list of over 350 interview questions which he committed to memory.

When soldiers returned home in 1945, Kinsey was on the home stretch of preparing his findings for the American public.  On January 5, 1948, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published.  While it had only one week as #1, it spent 43 weeks, just short of one year, on The New York Times bestseller’s list.  A second volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, followed in 1953.

Kinsey’s authority on sexual behavior went virtually unchallenged for thirty years.  Then on July 23, 1981, at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology in Jerusalem, a diminutive American psychologist stepped to the podium to present her research findings to a standing-room only session.

I was confident my sexology colleagues would be as outraged as was I by these tables [Tables 30-34 from Male] and the child data describing Kinsey’s reliance on pedophiles as his child sex experimenters.  Perhaps worst of all for me, as a scholar and a mother were pages 160 and 161 where Kinsey claimed his data came from ‘interviews.’  How could he say 196 little children—some as young as two months of age—enjoyed ‘fainting,’ ‘screaming,’ ‘weeping,’ and ‘convulsing’?  How could he call these children’s responses evidence of their sexual pleasure and ‘climax’?  I called it evidence of terror, of pain, as well as criminal.  One of us was very, very sexually mixed up.

Dr. Reisman laid out her charges methodically, presenting slides of Tables 30-34 and analyzing the specific entries which calculated the rates and timed the speeds of orgasms in at least 317 infants and children.  How, she challenged the audience, did rape and molestation of children ever make the transition from criminal activity to research?  And she rested her case.

“The reaction in the room was heavy:  it was numbing for some, discomforting for others.”  A Kinsey Institute representative present for her presentation predictably “protested that none of this was true.”  Yet, Dr. Reisman felt certain her documentation would be a call to action, stimulating an immediate and thorough scientific review of Kinsey’s research.

She recalls what actually happened. “Late that afternoon my young assistant from Haifa University returned from lunch visibly shaken.  She had dined at a private table with the international executives of the conference.  My paper was hotly contested and largely condemned, since everyone at her table of about twelve men and women wholeheartedly agreed that children could, indeed, have ‘loving’ sex with adults.”

This potential “loving sex” is best described by Kinsey’s coauthor Dr. Paul Gebhard in a letter to Dr. Reisman, where he explained the source of data on the tables in question.  The data, Gebhard explained, “were obtained from parents, teachers and male homosexuals, and …some of Kinsey’s men used ‘manual and oral techniques’ to catalog how many ‘orgasms’ infants and children could produce in a given amount of time.”

Further research by Reisman linked “some of Kinsey’s men” to one man in particular, Mr. Rex King.  Biographer James Jones fleshes out the details in an interview for a Yorkshire documentary, Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles.  “Kinsey relied upon [King] for the chapter on childhood sexuality in the male volume….I think that he was in the presence of pathology at large and…Kinsey…elevated to, you know, the realm of scientific information…what should have been dismissed as unreliable, self serving data provided by a predatory pedophile.”

While trained sexologists easily dismissed this sexual abuse of children as “loving sex with adults,” persistent inquiries from concerned lay people finally prompted The Kinsey Institute to post responses to these charges on its web site.  These statements, drafted by Director John Bancroft, M.D., are carefully worded denials that proceed to confirm the truth of the charges but “explain” them in “harmless” terms.  In other words, “It depends on what the meaning of is is.”

Before you buy a ticket to the new movie Kinsey, consider this.  Papers promote the film with an endorsement from Paul Gebhard, the man who catalogued orgasms of infants and children and used this to demonstrate the benefits of incest.  He likes the film.  He gives Kinsey a thumbs-up.

What could this film do to offend Mr. Gebhard?  He gives a thumbs-up to Kinsey, but consider who is behind the thumb.  Endorsing fame and adulation for one of the greatest child abusers of the modern world is child’s play for a man unmoved by the ‘screaming,’ ‘weeping,’ and ‘convulsing’ of innocent children.

Considering seeing Kinsey?  Don’t.

See Archives for past editorials.


Abused by Freedom

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

July 2, 2004

There are many ways to abuse a child.  And porn fits right in there with the biggies.  It is a sad day for parents when the supreme law of the land is unwilling to protect our children from porn.

Thanks to five of the nine Supreme Court justices, child abusers are free to practice their “business”.

Why?  If you take out the mumbo-jumbo and use plain-speak, the answer is simple.  The law is too restrictive on the rights of pornographers.

Wow!  I don’t know about you, but I feel so much safer in America now that I know smut peddlers are free to do business in “the least restrictive” manner.  Never mind child abuse.

We surely wouldn’t want pornographers to use some of their billions of dollars in revenue to pay for computer software that ensures children can’t access porn.  Heaven forbid.  Those dastardly restrictions!!

If upheld, the COPA law would impose criminal penalties of a $50,000 fine and six months in prison for the knowing posting, for “commercial purposes,” of World Wide Web content that is “harmful to minors.”

Under COPA, websites pushing porn would have been required to verify the legal age of their clients.  Users would verify age using a credit card, adult personal identification number or other similar technology.

The “Supremes” have a better idea.  Parents all over the country are advised to go out and buy $40 filters for their computers…filters that will be outdated within six months because smut peddlers can use all that money they save in criminal fines to wiggle around them.

Wow!  Imagine that.  Parents, who are already taxed to the limits, who scramble daily to keep up with the ordinary job of being parents, will now have to fit in one more teeny tiny chore to protect their kids.

Imagine this.  Parents will subscribe to Consumer Reports, analyze all computer filter equipment known to man, pick out the absolute best product available, go to the store, charge it on their credit card, install it, learn it, monitor it…and just when they think they have it down…technology will change…and they will be back where they started.  Consumer Reports, the store, the credit card…well, even if the “Supremes” can’t get the picture…parents can.

Or…we could tell smut peddlers to spend their own money on software that keeps porn out of the hands of our children.  But that’s too restrictive!  That’s right.  Restrictive.

I thought that was the point of laws…to restrict the ability of abusers to abuse.

Well, I must be truthful.  The “Supremes” were concerned with bigger issues.  They didn’t want adults to be embarrassed.  That’s right.  Embarrassed.

You see, we have perfected porn on the internet.  No more slinking around dirty bookstores, ordering magazines in brown paper wrappers, or embarrassment.   Under the COPA law, entering our credit card number on a computer screen…well…that’s embarrassing.

Really?  Would that we had a few embarrassed adults for the sake of protecting our children from abuse!

Well, to be totally and absolutely truthful, the “Supremes” are hoping our children will be safe…eventually.  Looking into their collective crystal ball, they know that eventually, if we spend enough money, we might be able to devise some incredible software that might perhaps protect our children from abuse by porn.  Eventually.

Wow!  Imagine that.  A new governmental Department of Computer Technology, funded by rebates on all the filtering software parents are buying to protect their children.

Eventually, years down the road, if all things go well, maybe, and hypothetically, our children might be safe from abuse by porn.  But today, immediately, in the here and now, our children have been sent out to play on the internet freeway with no guardrails in sight.

The Supremes should be defrocked.  And if they are, they won’t have to worry what they wear under their robes.  If it’s indecent, if they’re standing there in their collective birthday suit, they have nothing to fear.  It may be porn.  But it’s protected by law.

Alas, instead, we must fear for our children who are still at risk, under assault and abused by the freedoms of those who don’t care.

Supreme Court Decision, June 29, 2004:  Comment by Congressman Todd Akin

CNET News, January 21, 2009:  Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law

See Archives for past editorials.