JAR-video-banner-small JAR-5-book-banner-small Stop-Kinsey-banner-small

Reisman Articles | Posted: December 31, 2003

Sex Science--Who Profits?

By Judith Reisman, Ph.D.
Author, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998)

The national communications media have been widely trumpeting the February 12, 1999 sex study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). JAMA issued a "sexual dysfunction" study which the authors claimed was "the most reliable since Dr. Alfred Kinsey did his landmark studies in 1948." As the author of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990) and Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998), I documented Kinsey as a scientific fraud who skewed his sex data to fit his own sexual psychopathologies. Does this mean the current JAMA sex survey is similarly grounded?

The authors, Laumann and Rosen, said they analyzed old, 1992 data published in a 1994 book in a new way, concluding that Americans are "sexually dysfunctional." That is, they said 43% of 1,749 women and 31% of 1,410 men reported either sexual disinterest, inability to orgasm, pain or impotence. While the authors largely blamed poverty, illness and overwork, they also noted that child sexual abuse created sex problems for women and men (the press excluded this finding of boys as victims of "same sex" assault).

The authors insist that these data demonstrate "a significant public health concern" requiring "appropriate therapies" to correct. How? The New York Times February 14 saw the sex study goal as "pills....sex doctors....to help juice up their sex nerves."

That Americans are sexually tired is confirmed daily by data on sex crimes, divorce, venereal diseases, AIDS, and apathy toward presidential sleaze. So what is news here? Perhaps the real aims of the sex study can be seen in what was excluded and why.

It turns out, first of all, that the authors were paid consultants for Pfizer, the Viagra producer, which could be "doubling its market" if the pill was used by women. Since Pfzier's interests lay in selling more product, while the public interest lay in curing our sexual malaise, the author's motives and findings are in question. And, it was not reassuring that JAMA excluded the authors' Pfizer ties in the original article. "An oversight," the JAMA editor said.

This author conflict between profit and public service may be seen in Rosen's comment about Cosmopolitan quoted in most news reports. "As a scientist, it makes my hair stand on end," Rosen said, that women get sex information from magazines like "Cosmopolitan." ''It's terrible."

Laumann and Rosen would know full well that while Advertising Age, 1994 said Cosmopolitan informed nearly 3 million female readers about sex and womanhood, Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler and other pornographies would be informing roughly 40 million males a month about sex and manhood. Since few can report negatively on something to which they are personally dependent or partial, the public interest is violated by what has been the core educational curriculum for sex researchers since Kinsey. For aspiring sex professionals are commonly trained by pornographic saturation workshops ("Sexual Attitude Restructuring"), deliberately designed to "restructure" and permanently "desensitize" all participants.

Rosen did not say his hair fell out thinking of the roughly 40 million boys and men dysfunctionally lusting over obedient paper, film, video and computer Centerfolds, bunnies and kittens. Gosh, Why not?

For while the public is kept ignorant by sexologists and establishment media about the copy cat sex crimes and general sexual ennui attributable to pornography, Laumann and Rosen would know the clinical and testimonial evidence on the harms of pornography quite well. Beyond the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography in 1986 and the Canadian Supreme Court agreement in 1992 that all pornography is harmful, any honest investigation of sexual "dysfunction" will find pornography facilitating real sexual disorders, from brutality to impotence to the heterosexual and homosexual child sexual abuse Laumann and Rosen admit causes severe sexual dysfunction (see: rsvpamerica@aol.com). To confess sex media causes harm however would severely weaken Viagra's magic pill market position and perhaps compromise the authors' future income.

In 1969, psychotherapist Rollo May warned in Love and Will, of "the whole turgid flow of post-Kinsey utilitarianism." Such "turgid" utilitarianism is seen in the Pfizer, Laumann, Rosen, Ford foundation and Big Government efforts to send us off into the Brave New World of soma pills. Their psycho-pharmacological sex drugs would mask the causes of national discontent.

As Aldoux Huxley warned in 1932, these soma gurus would have us opiate the threats to our humanity--felt by our lack of purpose, fears of commitment and sense of betrayal--by, , "sucking away at sex-hormone chewing-gum and looking at the [pornography] feelies." In his 1958 Brave New World Revisited, Huxley issued a plea for humankind to educate itself for freedom "before it is too late," before the "World Controllers" A.F. ("After Ford") pacify us all with their little blue pills, their "Orgy-Porgy" parties and yes, their "fellies."

So, who really profits from this newest JAMA "sex survey," supported by Viagra's Pfizer?