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

External Articles | Posted: August 14, 2005

Sordid Science: The Sex Research of Alfred C. Kinsey (The Catholic Standard & Times - Commentary)

CATHOLIC STANDARD & TIMES

Exclusive Series: Alfred C. Kinsey and American Sex Ed
Commentary
by Susan Brinkmann
CS&T Correspondent

The first question people ask when they read the series on Alfred C. Kinsey is, "How could this happen?"

The obvious reason is, of course, money. Promiscuity in American is making a lot of people very rich, such as pornographers, contraception providers, abortion clinics.

But there's a much less obvious reason and it's a very old trick, one that mankind has been falling for since biblical times. We know it today as "spin." By an artful twisting of words, something totally disagreeable can be made to sound like something entirely different. This same disagreeable subject is then sold back to the public under its new, sanitized name. How well does it work?

Too well.

Take the Kinsey's case, for instance. This is a textbook example of the power of spin combined with slick marketing. By hiding his perverted background, Kinsey's work could be marketed under the respectable name of "science." The public bought it hook-line-and-sinker. The 1999 Intercollegiate Review made this embarrassingly clear: "So mesmerized were Americans by the authority of Science, with a capital 'S,' that it took 40 years for anyone to wonder how data is gathered on the sexual responses of children as young as five."

When we call abortion the killing of the unborn, the majority of Americans consider it morally wrong. Now let's apply a little "spin" and call it "a woman's choice." Who can argue with a woman's right to make decisions about her own body? Not too many of us. When called by its new name, the number of Americans who believe abortion is morally wrong drops my almost ten points. Works like a charm.

Euthanasia isn't helping someone commit suicide, it's "death with dignity." Don't let Aunt Millie remain in a persistent vegetative state but do the "compassionate" thing and pull her feeding tube. It certainly sounds like the right thing to do, until you read the medical journals and find out how little science actually knows about the persistent vegetative state (PVS), and even some levels of coma. The June 1991 Archives of Neurology found that out of 84 patients who were diagnosed with irreversible PVS, 58 percent recovered within a three year period. In addition, many patients in supposedly unconscious states are later found to have been very aware of their surroundings. In other words, pulling Aunt Millie's feeding tubes may be subjecting her to death by dehydration and starvation - one of the slowest and most painful deaths a person can suffer. How's that for "compassion?"

Another popular name game concerns homosexuality. Again, the majority of Americans consider homosexual behavior to be immoral, but by calling an "alternative life style" it sounds a whole lot better. And if we throw in the rest of the popular rhetoric such as "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," we'll not only agree with what we find totally disagreeable, we'll actually make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy about it too. Meanwhile, this tiny fraction of the population is successfully manipulating an entire nation into accepting their agenda whether they agree with it or not. And let's not forget the suffering of millions of Christians whose churches are being split asunder by this same handful of people who insist on forcing this issue into mainstream religion. Does the word "selfish" come to mind, or is it just me?

"Cohabitation" or "domestic partnership" sounds a whole lot better than what it really is - unmarried couples living together in sin. It sounds so good, in fact, we're giving these couples the same benefits as married folks.

Who could possibly support population control programs if we called them what they are - the barbarous practice of forcing sterilization or abortion upon poor Third World women. But call it "women's reproductive health" and it sounds like something that deserves a donation.

The examples could go on and on. The point is, for such an educated and savvy nation, we seem to be particularly vulnerable to the deceptive power of the name game. We're fooled by rhetoric all the time, even in matters that most Christians know are against the law of God.

St. Paul seemed to know all about spin when he exhorted the Colossians to let no one deceive them by specious arguments. "See to it that no one captivates you with an empty seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ." He advised these early Christians to remain "established in the faith that you were taught . . ." (Col 2:6-8)

If we remain loyal to what God has taught us, He will protect us from these modern deception, but we have to do our part and resist popular trends that tempt us to embrace positions that are contrary to His law, which is founded upon perfect Truth. Seeking our own selfish agendas instead of God's truth places us at grave risk of losing His protection.

" . . . Because they have not accepted the love of truth . . . .Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned."(2Thess 2:10-11)

When we consider the moral confusion of our times - even in our own Christian ranks - we can't help but feel a chill when we read St. Paul's warning: "For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth, and will be diverted to myths." (2 Tim 4:3)

Man is free to either accept or reject the Gospel, which is the revelation of God's love for man. This love is a gift that we can either embrace or refuse. According to the Jerome Biblical Commentary on the above verses, "God punishes man's rejection of His gift by handing him over to the deceptions of Satan. This passage suggests the terrifying responsibility of human freedom."

When we take our eyes off of God, we run the risk of falling into the deadly downward spiral of popular "spin." Perhaps this is what happened in the case of Kinsey's bogus sex research. We forgot that the author of all science is God, not Alfred Kinsey. By blindly following after this so-called scientist, even though much of what he supposedly discovered was in direct contradiction to the fundamental tenets of our faith, we naively trusted him and opened the door to all kinds of evil.

It's sad to admit, but we've been falling into this same trap over and over again throughout human history. Calling evil by some other name doesn't make it any less evil. All that matters is whether or not it deviates from the commandments God gave us.

The next time you feel yourself falling for popular spin, remember that this trick is as old as the hills. In fact, Satan himself is credited for its invention. He convinced Adam and Eve that the apple wasn't the forbidden fruit God said it was. "It will make you like God!" he lied. Unfortunately, they bought it, and only when it was too late did they realize the truth.

The forbidden fruit was just what God said it was - forbidden.

This series is based on the book by Dr. Judith Reisman, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," available at www.drjudithreisman.org