Subject: Letters to the Editor: Kinsey Has No Clothes Date: Published: 5/6/93 (98 lines) Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc. Letters to the Editor: Kinsey Has No Clothes The April 26 letter writers objecting to J. Gordon Muir's March 31 editorial page essay "Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy" asked what was the point of Mr. Muir's study showing that only about 1% of American men are homosexual, and implied that the study would only increase homophobia. In fact, there are good reasons for Mr. Muir's study. The conclusion that the prevalence of exclusive male homosexuality is in the 1% area is not something that should surprise anyone. The 10% figure has been known to be incorrect for many years by those familiar with research in other countries and the biases that Alfred Kinsey's research team knowingly built into their original 1940s male survey, from which this figure comes. The greater service in exposing the 10% fallacy (an error further confirmed by additional U. S. research released from the Alan Guttmacher Institute last week) is in getting this information -- finally -- to a wider public that has been kept in the dark about this important fact of life largely because it ran counter to politically correct wisdom and the agenda of a powerful interest group. As a coauthor of "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud" (copublished by Mr. Muir and Huntington House, 1990), I and others have been seriously hampered in discussing this issue by the use of false and stereotypical labels such as "right winger," "fundamentalist," "anti sex," and, of course, the obligatory characterization of "homophobe." What I am is a registered Democrat, a nonpracticing Jew and a sex researcher whose innovative work on male-female compatibility has been in a recent book. With the 10% issue resolved, one hopes, it may be easier now to move on and deal with other serious misunderstandings about human sexuality that also emanate from Kinsey's work. Just as the Kinsey 10% figure was no accident -- his bibliographer Gershon Legman pointed out 25 years ago that one of his "propagandistic purposes" was to "validate" homosexuality as normal behavior -- neither were his even more important conclusions on childhood sexuality. Without any credible evidence -- unless we are prepared to accept as science the activity of pedophiles illegally performing abusive "orgasm" experiments on infants and young children -- Kinsey and his team concluded that humans are sexual and have sexual needs from birth. Kinsey's homosexuality data supported his view of a sexual continuum from heterosexual to homosexual. His child orgasm data support his second postulated sexual continuum from birth to death. This is believed and taught as scientific fact in academia today. Creating an awareness of childhood sexual potential has been a stated goal of the highly influential Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (Siecus), which, in effect, is one of the mechanisms for applying Kinsey's ideology into sex education programs. Siecus has announced it is receiving grants from the Centers for Disease Control to develop national HIV information and education initiatives. Mr. Muir quoted Siecus cofounder Lester Kirkendall referring to the future "legitimacy" of even adult-child sex. That may still be some way off, but the avant garde of sex education is looking down that road. For those who have wondered why sex education elites are positively enthusiastic about school condom distribution and other programs that everyone knows encourage early sexual activity, the answer is it helps to advance their Kinseyan view of what constitutes normal human sexual behavior. For the most part, however, these ideological innovations are floated within the context of concerns about the spread of the HIV virus. In a 1989 National Research Council report supposedly relevant to AIDS prevention, sex research experts John Gagnon, Charles Turner and others informed us that "descriptions of the cultural life of `homosexual' groups in Papua New Guinea challenge Westerners to re-evaluate standard generalizations about adolescence and sexual development." One of their "challenging" examples is a tribe where young boys are initiated into homosexual practices, beginning at ages seven to 10. Educator James Ramey expressed the vision more graphically in a 1979 Siecus Report: "We are in roughly the same position today regarding incest as we were a hundred years ago with respect to our fear of masturbation." Yes, the Kinsey agenda goes way beyond the numbers of homosexual men, and the "scientific" data supporting its other components are equally phony. But the philosophy is entrenched at the highest levels. Writing in the October 1991 Contemporary Sexuality, a monthly newsletter of the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists, association past-president Carol Cassell said, "Look how we've used the Kinsey data. We've used it for assessing the stability of marriage to raising children to trying to understand human growth and development -- not just sexual but also psychological growth and changes over time." We are dealing here with the consequences of phony science. The real task will involve an investigation of the full nature of Kinsey's errors so that the public can be shown the scope of this ideological con. Edward Eichel New York [This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]