External Articles | Posted: August 14, 2005
Sordid Science: The Sex Research of Alfred C. Kinsey (The Catholic Standard & Times - Part 6 of 7)
CATHOLIC STANDARD & TIMES
Exclusive Series: Alfred C. Kinsey and American Sex Ed
Part 6 of 7
by Susan Brinkmann
The repudiation of obscenity has long been the hallmark of every civil society. In her book, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," Dr. Judith Reisman points out the centuries-old conclusion that sexually explicit material leads to "copy cat" conduct, which is particularly harmful for children. It results in public disorder and the coarsening of men's attitudes toward women, leading to prostitution and violent sex crimes which, in turn, produce sexual diseases and other factors contributing to early death rates.
In the early days of her research into the harmful affects of pornography on children, Dr. Reisman
admits, "I had no notion of the role of Alfred C. Kinsey in pornography or exactly how 'hard' and 'soft' core pornography related to child sex abuse. I had no idea how bad the problem was or how deeply I would become involved in the attempt to solve it."
What she would discover is still relatively unknown to the American public. Not only was Kinsey linked with the world of pornography, the Kinsey Institute was actually funded by Playboy in the 1960's.
This happened after the 1954 Congressional investigation opened by Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee. The Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey's main financier, and other tax-exempt organizations who were funding research considered dangerous to society, came under intense scrutiny. Kinsey's worthless research was exposed by credible critics which caused the Foundation's president and future Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, to terminate its financial support of the Kinsey Institute.
Playboy stepped in to provide the funds that launched Kinsey's false sex data into mainstream America, which, in turn, dramatically lowered the standard of acceptable pornography. Playboy, the Kinsey Institute, Penthouse and Hustler went on to form an unholy alliance with prominent sex institutions in the United States, the same institutions that provide the nation's sex education.
With such close links to the pornography industry, parents need no longer wonder why America's sex education classes and materials are so explicit. In fact, a 1996 report issued by the Kinsey-spawned Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) actually urged school teachers to provide "sexually explicit visual, printed or on-line materials for schoolchildren in order to 'reduce ignorance and confusion' and to help children develop a 'wholesome concept of sexuality.'"
Very few parents in mainstream America would define "wholesome" the same way as Alfred Kinsey and Playboy Magazine.
The negative influence of these materials is beyond question. Reisman writes, "That Playboy and other producers of 'sexually explicit materials' encourage illegal juvenile sexual activity and copy cat crimes, including incest and child sex abuse, is documented in my peer-approved U.S. Department of Juvenile Justice report, obtainable via the U.S. Department of Justice web site."
Also available on the web site is Dr. Reisman's study linking erotica/pornography to the legitimization of child pornography. She writes, "Even now, child pornography can be ordered from Playboy's earlier editions and from other mainstream pornographic magazines as well as via the Playboy Press productions."
It is an established fact that child molesters regularly use pornography to seduce their prey, to lower the inhibitions of their young victims and to serve as a kind of "instruction manual."
In a study of 36 serial sex murderers interviewed by the FBI, 81 percent admitted using pornography. Of those studied, 87 percent of girl child molesters and 77 percent of boy child molesters admitted to regular use of pornography.
Decriminalizing pornography came about when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the revolutionary Model Penal Code with its recommendation of drastically reducing the penalties for
its 52 major sex crimes according to Kinsey's data.
Prior to that time, the definition of obscenity according to case law was "anything offensive to chastity or modesty, expressing or presenting to the mind or view something that . . . decency forbids to be exposed . . . tending to stir the sex impulses or to lead to sexually impure and lustful thoughts. . ."
The new Model Penal Code declared a thing obscene if "considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest . . . And if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description . . ." According to Kinsey, sexual activities such as sodomy incest, pedophilia, and bestiality are within customary limits, so one is left to wonder what exactly the Model Penal Code restricts.
This vague definition allows much in the way of loose interpretation, even in the sex industry itself, where a technique called Sexual Attitude Restructuring (SAR) is used to reform the attitudes of sex instructors.
Reisman describes how students are required to sit through "an orgy of pornographic couplings on film and video . . . utilized in academia to restructure students' modest sexual attitudes into the bizarre Kinsey alternative . . ."
George Leonard was one of 60,000 people to go through the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) by 1982. He described the typical SAR experience of having to endure hours of pornographic films in a kind of "sensory overload" meant to desensitize him to all forms of sex. He sat in the darkness on a Saturday night and watched "images of human beings - and sometimes even animals - engaging in every conceivable sexual act, accompanied by wails, moans, shouts and the first movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto . . . Over a period of several hours, there came a moment when the four images on the wall were of a gay male couple, a straight couple, a lesbian couple, and a bestial group. The subjects were nude . . . I felt myself becoming disoriented . . . was she kissing a man or a woman? I couldn't remember which was which. By the end . . . nothing was shocking . . . but nothing was sacred either."
Employing the usual Kinsey euphemisms, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy described this process as "designed to desensitize." In other words, brainwash.
"The SAR literally scars the viewers brain as it circumvents, short-circuits, his or her cognition and conscience," Reisman writes. She refers to the findings of Dr. Gary Lynch, a Neuroscientist,
who compares the damage done by the SAR technique with other high-resonance stimuli, namely,
that it produces "a structural change that is in some ways as profound as the structural change one sees in brain damage."
Reisman explains, "Functionally speaking, the SAR (and to a lesser degree, yet with more consistency, today's mass media) breaks down the inhibitions of the healthy brain . . ."
The SAR technique is now widely used to reprogram students in education, medicine, psychology, criminology, and even theology. By reconfiguring their neurochemistry, their human nature, the process has produced "a cadre of educated leaders who are part of the Kinseyan deviance," writes Dr. Reisman.
In the final part of this series, we will examine how Kinsey-educated sexologists formed themselves into the nation's sex education providers.
This series is based on the book by Dr. Judith Reisman, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," available through her web site www.drjudithreisman.org. "You can help Dr. Reisman if you call 1 800 476-0975. She will send you a FREE copy of this important book for a TAX-DEDUCTIBLE GIFT of $30 or more. Donate more and get more books for friends and foes!