Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution
by Judith Reisman, Ph.D.
Americans bestow authority-and billions of tax dollars-upon science in the belief that scientists will make important contributions to society. There is the further belief that scientists, in their responsibility and trust, will behave ethically, especially in research that involves human subjects. While the former is certainly historically accurate, such trust in the class "scientists" as honest, humane persons who deserve unquestioned public faith is sustained neither by cross-cultural or American science history.
Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.
But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments? The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act."The Science Crime & Fraud Context
Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are modern cross- cultural examples of totalitarian regimes which produced highly educated scientists who served their leaders without question-but with frightening and disastrous results. As cruel as were the actions of key scientific brutes like Dr. Joseph Mengele, just as instructive is the evidence of wholesale collusion by colleagues, universities, colleges and higher order think tanks. Thousands of state and private professional and pedagogical clubs and agencies were aware of the inhuman and unethical scientific activity, but rarely was there a protest made. Instead, their educated colleagues obsequiously bowed and jealously coveted association with the chosen scientific barbarians.
But, it has not only been totalitarian governments which have produced unethical scientists. Our own nation-a government designed to be of and by and for the people-was betrayed by our fantasy of non-judgmental, objective science. (It is only the trust in scientists as a "special" moral population that permits our nation to approve of fetal and DNA experimentation, as well as other forms of God-like tampering.) For example, consider the Willowbrook school scandal:
Pappworth published 'Human Guinea Pigs', a detailed recitation of experiments reported in reputable journals in which subjects were exposed to a variety of risky procedures not intended to benefit them. In chapter after chapter, he described the insertion of catheters and biopsy needles into important organs of the body (bladder, kidney, heart, liver) and resulting meningitis, shock, liver damage and cardiac arrest. The subjects of these procedures were newborns, infants and children (both healthy and diseased), pregnant women, prisoners, patients undergoing surgery, the mentally disabled, the aged, the critically ill, and the dying...[revealing] little concern on the part of investigators for their subjects ....experiments which involved injecting hepatitis virus into mentally retarded children at the Willowbrook State School in New York.
Part of the problem is that the establishment press remains amazingly silent in the face of the most vile domestic scientific barbarisms. The Willowbrook school scandal and similar inhumane scientific abuses reflect but a few of the unprosecuted science felonies to reach the public. For example, examine some cites from Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948 by Frank Kofsky (1995):
"Beginning in the late 1940s, under programs authorized by Truman, the U.S. government deliberately dropped radioactive material from planes or released it on the ground in a dozen experiments after World War II....Eight of the tests occurred in Tennessee and Utah in an effort to create a battlefield radiation weapon. In four other tests, radiation was released into the air in New Mexico....In at least four of these 12 experiments, radiation spread beyond the planned boundaries of the test....
"[And] All the tests were conducted between 1948 and 1952. The implication is clear: so vile were these 'experiments' that even the Eisenhower administration could not stomach their continuation.... Nineteen mentally retarded boys who thought they were participating in a science club in the 1940s and 1950s were actually fed radioactive milk by scientists who wanted to learn about the digestive system, the Boston Sunday Globe reported.' The 'scientists' in question were affiliated with such ruling- class institutions as Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; their too-trusting subjects came from the Fernald State School....
"[On radiating expectant mothers to see what the results would be] The figures in the Boston Globe's initial stories, however, proved to be far short of the mark, for the number of expectant women actually dosed with radioactive materials during these "experiments" probably numbered in the thousands. . . .several of the children exposed to the radioactive iron during their mother's pregnancy died....Army spokesmen acknowledged that 239 populated areas from coast to coast had been blanketed with bacteria between 1949 and 1969. Tests involved covering areas of Alaska and Hawaii and the cities of San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, and Panama City in Florida. Some tests were more focused, such as those in which bacteria were sprayed onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike or into the New York City subway system.
"Distinguished scientists," writes Leonard A. Cole, "testified at the hearings that the tests were inappropriate and dangerous....the incidence of illnesses suddenly increased in some areas near the tests."
The other part of the problem is, without an informed public directing its own community af-fairs, science historically serves its funders. Scientific patrons tend to be a small, powerful elite, which is necessarily subversive of a self-governing republic. If the medical, or the harder science experiments cited here are difficult for Americans to come to terms with, these aberrant experiments at least adhere to scientific form and are possible to replicate and validate or repudiate. However, the public does not understand (nor do scientists seem to understand) that the softer social sciences are largely not science, but rather what Professor Hobbs termed, "scientism." Human behavioral experiments without the limits of scientific protocol are easily manipulated and have frequently been misused by those in positions of trust to undermine the American way of life in the second half of the twentieth century.
Who, by now, has not heard of the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments? 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"? 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? 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? The Historical Context
Truman took office in 1945 and shortly thereafter released the atomic bomb. Kofsky's documentation suggests that Kinsey's revolutionary report was a welcome public diversion for Truman's administration. However, while the A-bomb took the lives of thousands and did untold damage to Japan for generations, "Kinsey's Bomb" has taken the lives of millions and is fomenting the disintegration of the local school, university, and public control, nationwide.The 1945 A-Bomb:
World War II ended in 1945 after America, under scientists headed by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, and like a modern Prometheus, dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In an instant, all of America was reeling, as both joy and anguish hit the nation with the force of that nuclear blast. Emotion rode high, for along with the immense relief that "it worked" and the brutal war was ended, came the quaking realization that while God had created the earth, science could now destroy it.
On the one hand, Americans were awed by Oppenheimer's ability to end the worldwide threat of war. On the other hand, our faith in ourselves as the world's savior was shattered by both the nuclear scare and ensuing newsreels of burning Japanese children, subverting our sense of moral integrity and who we really were as Americans. Aided by an army that now dispensed condoms, Yankee soldier-saviors of Europe and Asia broke the promises of their Puritan homeland. GIs returned home to wives and sweethearts in 1946 with the highest rate of venereal disease since the original VD epidemics of World War I. Yet, the overwhelming VD epidemic which raged overseas was quenched in the U.S. as young lads overflowing with penicillin waited for the marriage bed to carnally embrace the "girl next door."The 1948 A-Bomb:
Three years later, after decades of clandestine preparation and a relentless publicity campaign, Dr. Kinsey launched what was then called "The Kinsey A-Bomb" on America's now fragile sense of moral virtue. Wrapped in Oppenheimer's flag of science as the final authority, Kinsey's fraudulent sex science statistics seemed to "prove" middle America to be a nation of sexual hypocrites, liars, cowards and closet deviates, despite the fact that all of Kinsey's data were repudiated by the then current public health data. While the Armed Services found skyrocketing VD and illegitimacy rates abroad, we found no such domestic rates for these disorders or for abortion, rape and other sex crimes and sexual disorders. Wrong or right, the fighting men might be misbehaving overseas but by and large they were not doing over here, what they were doing over there.
Despite the common sense fact of low rates of illegitimacy and VD, despite personal knowledge of faithful and virtuous family and friends, mainstream America was dramatically shaken by Kinsey's data. The popular press hawked Kinsey as a diversion from Truman's ominous cold-war warnings, heralding the astonishing scientific findings-that 98% of men and roughly half of women had premarital sex, 95% of American men were legally sex offenders and 10% or more of men were largely homosexual. And, while no one noted that 317 infants and children were "tested" for Kinsey's child sex data, educators repeated his conclusions-that children were sexual from birth, hence school sex education, Kinsey style, should be mandated.
The question anyone should be asking is: How did Kinsey get the statistics on childhood sexuality... that were to revolutionize the schoolroom, courtroom, pressroom, and bedroom? More succinctly put, did the Kinsey team participate in the pedophile abuse of 317 infants and children?
Below is a reproduction of... "Table 34. Examples of multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males. Some instances of higher frequencies" (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948). How were these figures gleaned?
AGE NO. OF ORGASMS TIME INVOLVED
5 mon. 3 ?
11 mon. 10 1 hr.
11 mon. 14 38 min.
2 yr. 11 65 min.
2.5 yr. 4 2 min.
4 yr. 6 5 min.
4 yr. 17 10 hr.
4 yr. 26 24 hr.
7 yr. 7 3 hr.
8 yr. 8 2 hr.
9 yr. 7 68 min.
10 yr. 9 52 min.
10 yr. 14 24 hr.
11 yr. 11 1 hr.
11 yr. 19 1 hr.
12 yr. 7 3 hr.
12 yr. 3 3 min.
12 yr. 12 2 hr.
12 yr. 15 1 hr.
13 yr. 7 24 min.
13 yr. 8 2.5 hr.
13 yr. 9 8 hr.
13 yr. 3 70 sec.
14 yr. 11 4 hr.Kinsey's Research on Child Orgasm
Dr. Alfred Kinsey's research on child orgasm is described in Chapter 5 of his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948). Some of the observations are summarized in Tables 30-34 of the book. The numbers of the children in the five tables were, respectively, 214, 317, 188, 182, and 28. The minimum ages were, respectively, one year, two months, five months, (ages of children not recorded for Table 33), and five months. The tables identify sex experiments; for example, Table 32 speaks of: "Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm; Duration of stimulation before climax; Observations timed with second hand or stop watch."
Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices? And did he actually use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34? In his book, acting as the on-site reporter, Kinsey did not clearly describe his own role. However, Kinsey's close colleague, C. A. Tripp, made a revealing statement in a 1991 televised interview by Phil Donahue:
"[Reisman is] talking about data that came from pedophiles, that he [Kinsey] would listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches, knew how to record their thing, did careful surveys....[T]hey were trained observers."
Two questions cry out for an answer: What was the nature of the training given to these "trained observers"? And, who "trained" them? Perhaps Dr. Tripp or others can answer these questions. A 1991 book review in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet, noted:
"[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are the imperfections in the [Kinsey] sample and unethical, possibly criminal observations on children....Kinsey...has left his former co-workers some explaining to do."
Tripp is not the only former Kinsey colleague to admit that actual pedophiles were involved in the Kinsey Institute's child sexuality studies. A taped telephone interview with Dr. Paul Gebhard, former head of the Kinsey Institute and Kinsey co-author, also confirms this fact:
Interviewer: "So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?"
Dr. Paul Gebhard: "Ah, they do if we tell them we're interested in it!"
Interviewer: "And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to...."
Dr. Gebhard: "So, second hand or stopwatch. OK, well, that's, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many."
Interviewer: "These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal."
Dr. Gebhard: "Oh yes." Molesting Children in the Name of Science
In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
, Dr. Kinsey reported that the data on the 317 children came from "9 of our adult male subjects." However, Dr. John Bancroft, current Director of the Kinsey Institute, contradicted this claim. After examining the data, Dr. Bancroft indicated that the data for Table 31 came from a single adult male subject. There are a number of other instances where Kinsey's published claims about numerical or factual data-claims with important implications if true-are now believed to be misleading or false.[13,14,15] A review of Kinsey's original data, claims and possible involvement is long overdue.[16,17]
Kinsey's "trained observers" tested babies "5 months in age," for repeated orgasms via:
"...empirical study and statistical procedures... which resulted in...reported observations on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrust and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys, ranging between infants of 5 months and adolescence age."
Orgasm was defined as follows:
"Extreme tension with violent convulsions: ...sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body... gasping... hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching...violent jerking of the penis...groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).... hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject.... some...suffer excruciating pain and may scream ...if the penis is even touched....some...before the arrival of orgasm, will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax although they derive definite pleasure from the situation."
Lester Caplan, M.D., Diplomate, the American Board of Pediatrics, reviewing Kinsey's Chapter 5 (as above) said, "One person could not do this to so many children-these children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly," especially if, as Dr. Gebhard notes, a cinema record was being made.
Child interviews were unusually long. Kinsey said after two hours, "the [adult] becomes fatigued and the quality of the record drops." Still, Kinsey reported 24-hour orgasm "interviews" of a four-, a 10- and a 13-year-old; a four-year-old for 10 hours; a nine and 13-year-old for eight hours; and so on. Dr. Gebhard's taped phone interview further details some of these techniques.
Dr. Kinsey even reported that some observers "induced...erections [in the children]...over periods of months or years," but that the Kinsey team interviewed no "psychotics who were handicapped with poor memories, hallucination, or fantasies that distorted the fact."
What kind of men were they, this Kinsey team? The question remains: Who did these experiments? As noted, the Kinsey team reported on a cadre of "trained observers." In Kinsey's own words...
"Better data came from adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys' experiences. Unfortunately ....[only] 9 of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal....on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self- masturbation or....with other boys or older adults."
There are serious questions which must be answered by the Kinsey Institute directors-for Kinsey's is arguably the most influential model for scientific sex taught to the nations' schoolchildren today. The proposed Congressional investigation is critical for that reason alone. How did the Kinsey team know that an 11-month-old had 10 orgasms in one hour? (See Table this article.) How did they verify these data? Where were the children's parents? Have attempts been made to locate the children? Who were the subjects of Table 34?[29,30] Certainly these were not the children pictured in the publicity photographs which were distributed to the press and the gullible academic world, such as the little, braided girl of roughly four years, sitting with "Uncle Prock" in innocent play.
Further, Dr. Gebhard claimed in a letter to me, that they did no follow-up on these children since it was "impossible or too expensive." Later Gebhard said Kinsey was correct, some children were followed up and "we do have some names" of the children. There is still no answer to the question, "Where are the children of Table 34?" It is finally in the hands of Congress to determine what really happened at the Kinsey Institute.
H.R. 2749, the Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995, is a bill to determine if Kinsey's two principal books on human sexual behavior "are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing." Clearly a useful step would be the gathering of facts on the work of Kinsey and his colleagues and a public disclosure of these facts in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Congress is in a strong position to carry out this kind of fact-finding as a precursor to legislation. An attempt should be made to answer certain questions that bear directly or indirectly on H.R. 2749:
* Did Kinsey and his colleagues behave in an ethical fashion in the way they collected and published data from human subjects, especially children?
* Apart from the ethical considerations, did they analyze and publish their data correctly from the scientific point of view?
* Were federal funds solicited, used, and accounted for appropriately?
* Do the answers to the preceding three questions indicate any violations of federal law?
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? Specifically, to what extent should the federal government fund or recall the dissemination and use of this information? Kinsey's Figures on Homosexuality
With the above in mind, it is shocking that, almost overnight, following release of Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
(and a succession of earlier private, public relations briefings at the Kinsey Institute for favorable interviewers), books, articles, films, news clips, cartoons, radio, TV, and front-page stories appeared coast to coast as part of a publicity campaign to institutionalize Kinsey's claims. Americans believed "the most famous man for ten years" that primitive, sexually permissive cultures were happier than were Mr. and Mrs. Jones.
However, without question, any "scientists" who reprint and encourage production of data on child sexuality which have been taken from child sex offenders engaged in "manual or oral" sex with babies and children, are not scientists but propagandists-indeed guilty of admitted criminal sexual conduct, by the descriptions in their publications, whether the sexual offender(s) were identified and prosecuted or not. To trust anything these men or their disciples produce is to put one's faith in those who use the language of science to accomplish personal, criminal, and/or sexual interests. Hence, whatever Kinsey's claims of homosexual percentages and normality were, these become, pragmatically, as invalid as his child sexuality data.
Kinsey fathered not only the sexual revolution, as Hugh Hefner and others have said, but the homosexual revolution as well. Harry Hay gave Kinsey that credit when Hay read in 1948 that Kinsey found "10%" of the male population homosexual. Following the successful path of the Black Civil Rights movement, Hay, a long-time communist organizer, said 10% was a political force which could be melded into a "sexual minority" only seeking "minority rights." With Kinsey as the wind in his sails, Hay formed the Mattachine Society.
But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders." As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast. This group of social outcasts and deviants were then redefined by the Kinsey team as representing your average "Joe College." With adequate press and university publicity, the people believed what they were told by our respectable scientists, that mass sexual perversion was common nationwide-so our sex education and our laws must be changed to reflect Kinsey's "reality."
Following the release of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, the then Kinsey Institute Director, Dr. June Reinisch, initiated a "CONFIDENTIAL," international, 87-page mass-mailing of accusatory materials calling upon recipients to repudiate "Judith Reisman's accusations." One of the accusations Reinisch wanted repudiated was the fact that Kinsey's 10% to 47% or more homosexual data were fraudulently generalized to the "general public." (Kinsey's homosexual figures were exposed as wholly false in 1948 by Albert Hobbs et al, as well as by several other scientists then and since.) In her letter to past Kinsey Director and Kinsey co-author Dr. Paul Gebhard, Reinisch denies the Kinsey team's culpability for the child sex abuse data and states that the Kinsey team never did "conduct experiments." She asks Gebhard's aid in discrediting me. She adds:
"Further, with regard to sampling and the generalizability of the findings to a broader portion of Americans, throughout both volumes Kinsey very clearly identifies exactly which data from which groups he is referring to when drawing conclusions. He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public."
Unfortunately, Dr. Gebhard wrote back to Reinisch on December 6, 1990 that she was wrong and that Kinsey did use "the gay community," pedophiles and prisoners to generalize to the population at large. Gebhard writes:
"In your recent letter of December 3, which I gather was sent to a number of individuals as well as me, you refuted Judith Reisman's allegations about Kinsey and the Institute. However, I fear that your final paragraph on page 1 may embarrass you and the university if it comes to Reisman's attention. Hence I want to warn you and relevant university officials so that some damage control might be devised. The paragraph ends with this sentence: "He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public." This statement is incorrect. Kinsey did mix male prison inmates in with his sample used in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male....
"As to generalizing to a wider population, in his first volume Kinsey did generalize to the entire U.S. population. See, for one example, the tables on page 188 and 220 where he clearly extrapolates to the U.S.....
"I am distressed that neither you nor your staff seem to be familiar with Kinsey's first book nor with The Kinsey Data and consequently produced the erroneous statement in your letter."
Kinsey is a powerful example of one's personal orientation affecting one's science and the moral shape of society. What could be the motive of Kinsey's fraudulent data, which often found up to even half of average American males homosexual? 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?
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? If that were true, he has certainly not been the last. In recent years, the world has seen other "men of science" (Hamer, LeVay, Pillard et al) whose work lacks objectivity and who seem to be justifying their own lives with their [questionable] findings. Were these scientists making claims about beetles, fauna or supernovae, there would be less cause for alarm; however, the travesty is that-in a culture in which science is the preferred religion (a no-fault religion) and scientists its high priests-these men's words are being received as "gospel" (no matter how little factual basis they have) on a subject as important and wide- sweeping as human sexuality. Unfortunately, the scientific world and the western world at large has all too eagerly embraced Kinsey's work.
No matter what Kinsey's own sexual orientation, scientists and laypersons alike must acknowledge that he engineered a study of child sexuality which was unthinkable. The Kinsey Institute's data on child orgasms are, at best, a human concoction or, at worst, the results of child molestation. In either case, the Kinsey Institute is guilty of criminal activity and their findings on all subjects are suspect and misleading. Too, science must be re-evaluated, for Kinsey's work has hijacked an entire body of science for almost half a century, leaving behind untold damage to families, relationships and human souls.
The control of sexuality information has for too long been in the hands of the Kinsey elite-unethical scientists, men without moral conscience or honor, who fathered a bastard sexual revolution. It should come as no surprise then to those on our campuses and in the halls of legislative, judicial and educational power, that as our nation has followed Kinsey and his disciples, we too have become increasingly coarsened to conscience and honor. It is clear that sexual aggression, brutality and hedonism have greater sway in our society post-Kinsey than was the case pre-Kinsey.
No matter what Kinsey's own sexual proclivities and biases, after WWII Kinsey began to move in concert with a cadre of revisionist educators, lawyers and other professionals who determined with their sponsors to forever alter the American way of life through its educational system (the future) and the legal system (the standard of judgment). Prior to the Kinsey Reports, American law held that not only were sodomy, adultery, fornication and the like transgressions, those who committed such acts were themselves unacceptable. Post-Kinsey, these once-criminal acts and their actors began moving toward acceptability. The new law system used Kinsey as its primary and only scientific authority, and pointed America in a downward direction, promoting today's entire panoply of sexual deviances more common to the Pre-Christian era.
In the upheaval of the post-World War II period, Kinsey, for his part, refashioned the way humankind looked upon sexuality and separated this most powerful of human acts from its labor-intensive procreational function, pronouncing true human sexuality in the new human nature to be free, self-fulfilling and recreational.
Kinsey lives and reigns today in classrooms across America. The Ten Commandments may be out of our classrooms, but the Kinseyan-based "One in Ten" project is in, and "prima nocte"-the medieval practice of an overreaching government taking a young person's innocence, modesty and virtue (as depicted in the film Braveheart)-is a pervasive and accepted practice today in the schools of our American village.
Kinsey sold his soul to win his place in time, but now is the time to take back America's soul which has been led astray by fraudulent and criminal science. It is soon fifty years since Kinsey foisted his hoax upon a trusting and moral American people. The American standard was right all along. Let's pull the curtain back and call for a proper investigation of Kinsey's fraudulent investigation into human sexuality. Write and call your political representatives now to begin the debunking and defunding of Kinsey and truth will restore social virtue once again to our nation.