Fraud and Consequence

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©2003

One of the premises of modern sex education is that lack of sound information is a major cause of our problems. If kids are given the right information, they will act accordingly in light of what’s right for them. But not only is this assumption wrong, kids today aren’t even getting sound information.

Fraud and Consequence: The Kinsey Research and Planned Parenthood

How Deception Changed a Nation

One of the premises of modern sex education is that lack of sound information is a major cause of our problems. If kids are given the right information, they will act accordingly in light of what’s right for them. But not only is this assumption wrong, kids today aren’t even getting sound information. They are getting distortions seemingly designed to undermine traditional morality in support of sexual freedom. What’s worse; sex education courses are often based on the evolutionary premise that man is only a higher form of animal and that “traditional morality” is something unhealthy and repressive. This view of man and morality regulates the nature of sex education so that education about sex actually becomes the vehicle through which sexual immorality is encouraged. In this chapter we will show why much of what teens and preteens are taught is part of an agenda designed to lead them into sexual activity.

THE KINSEY RESEARCH

It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the original Kinsey Research upon modern sex education. Much of the influence of Planned Parenthood can be traced to the “scientific” findings of Alfred Kinsey and his group in the 1940s and 50s. In fact, this work continues today through the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction at the Indiana University campus: “This institute is currently expanding its national role more than ever—entering biomedical research, initiating and participating in conferences, distributing syndicated sex advice columns and providing massive sex information resources on an international scale.”^[1]

“No man in modern times has shaped public attitudes to, and perceptions of, human sexuality more than the late Alfred C. Kinsey.”^[2] Kinsey’s major texts were Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), both with Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin. “More than any other documents in history, they have shaped Western society’s beliefs and understanding about what human sexuality is. They have defined what people allegedly do sexually, thereby, establishing what is allegedly normal. Their impact on attitudes, subsequent developments in sexual behavior, politics, law, sex education and even religion has been immense though this is not generally realized by the public today.”^[3] (For example, the pervasive influence of the Playboy empire may be directly attributable to the transformation in perspective that Kinsey’s research wrought on an impressionable young Hugh Hefner).^[4]

But Hugh Hefner was certainly not the only person influenced by reading the Kinsey Research. We have received numerous letters from individuals who have commented that it was the initial Kinsey research that helped them see that all sexual behavior is relative. They told us how it encouraged them to abandon their moral upbringing and engage in sexual promiscuity. Steve wrote:

My first exposure to Kinsey was absolutely liberating. Finally, here was scientific proof that I could do whatever I wanted. Nothing was really wrong, and there were no reasons not to have all the sex I wanted. I even tried homosexual relations—and happily concluded I was bisexual.

Although I am now married with two children, I continue to have an exciting life with several male lovers. My wife is unaware of this; nevertheless, I find it tremendously invigorating to our relationship.

What Kinsey taught was that all sexual behaviors, including those considered deviant, were merely gradations on a “normal” scale. Because man is an animal and moral values are relative, all types of sexual behavior can be considered normal. But if the entire spectrum of sexuality is normal, then “restrictive” sexuality can be seen as the product of repressive social codes. Monogamous heterosexuality is, more or less, only a product of cultural inhibitions and social conditioning.^[5]

Unfortunately, thirty-five years after Kinsey’s research, his “conclusions have become, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are the basis for much that is taught in sex education and for an ongoing agenda to engineer public attitudes about human sexuality.”^[6]

A sex education “establishment” in the United States is well on the way to introducing full-blown Kinseyan philosophy into the nation’s schools, via control of sex education programming. (The distillate of Kinsey philosophy … is that every type of sexual activity is natural and thus normal, and should begin as early in life as possible.) How has this control been achieved? Quite simply, by gaining the power to set the accreditation guidelines for the only formal university based degree programs for human sexuality educators. In other words, many, if not most, of today’s professional sex educators are schooled and graduated in Kinsey’s philosophy.^[7]

Until recently, hardly anyone suspected that Kinsey’s conclusions might have been wrong—let alone biased, fraudulent, or implicated in criminal activity. The standard text Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving (1988) cites Kinsey as if his conclusions were valid: “The Kinsey Reports were based on extensive face-to-face interviews with 12,000 people from all segments of the population, and the findings were often startling. For instance, 37 percent of American men were reported to have had at least one homosexual experience to the point of orgasm after the age of puberty; 40 percent of husbands had been unfaithful to their wives.”^[8]

But this trust in Kinsey has proven false. In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith Reisman and others document the extent of bias and fraud that Kinsey and his co-workers have foisted upon the public. In the foreword Dr. John H. Court writes about Kinsey’s methods:

Starting from uncertain data, reported with surprising levels of inaccuracy, generalizing well beyond the limits allowed by the inherent bias in the samples, Kinsey is shown to have spawned a whole movement dedicated to conveying a radical view of sexuality which is fast becoming the norm. lb the advocates of homosexual liberation and pedophilia, this presents no problems, but rather a springboard for advocacy. . . . Perhaps we should not be surprised when we see the headway that has been made by gay activists and by pedophiles in shaping public opinion. Yet it is surprising that so many apparently responsible professionals can accept the Kinsey findings so uncritically even at a time when the STD’s, and especially AIDS, are making the risks of promiscuity and anal sex so enormous. We cannot afford to rest our understanding of human sexual response on false data. The implications are just too great.^[9]

Reisman and her associates revealed the following about the godfather of the modern sexual revolution:

• Criminal sexual experimentation upon children “formed the basis of Kinsey’s conclusions on childhood sexual potential. The results of these experiments are the basis for beliefs on childhood sexuality held and taught by academic sexologists today.”^[10]
• Animal sexual behavior was an appropriate model for human sexual behavior. “Nowhere are Kinsey’s interpretations more obvious than in his comparisons of human and animal behavior. Behaviors historically condemned by society are described as normal and justified by ‘normal mammalian practices:”^[11] Even sexual relations between humans and animals were granted a measure of dignity.^[12]
• Normal heterosexual relations were relegated to an inferior position along the sexual spectrum.^[13] Bisexuality was the more “balanced” sexual orientation for “normal uninhibited” persons.^[14]
• Kinsey’s allegedly “scientific” research was based on highly unrepresentative population samples: “Kinsey revealed little about the exact composition of his total male interviewee sample, which should have been representative of the population of the United States. It is now clear that it contained inappropriate numbers of sex offenders, pedophiles and exhibitionists, and a significant portion of it (perhaps 25 percent) consisted of prison inmates. Even those persons who volunteered for Kinsey’s research were shown to have been biased toward the sexually unconventional. Kinsey knew this, but concealed the evidence.”^[15]

Apparently, Kinsey hoped his own agenda—amoral sexuality—would undermine traditional Christian moral values through a consistent “hammering at Judeo-Christian legal and moral codes.”^[16] For example, besides citing his “findings” of high rates of homosexuality and adultery among males, his Female Report indicated that premarital sexual intercourse was helpful to women in their emotional, social, and sexual adjustment. Avoidance of premarital intercourse was a potential source of damaging inhibitions that could bring problems to marriage.^[17] Further, even children were held to be sexual beings from infancy, and “they could, and should, have pleasurable and beneficial sexual interaction with adult ‘partners’ who could lead them into the proper techniques of fulfilling sexual activity.”^[18]

But in drawing all these conclusions, Kinsey and his co-workers were apparently only manipulating data to justify their own biases:

There is good evidence that Kinsey’s research was designed to provide a scientific base for his pre-existing radical, sexual ideology: his coworkers were chosen for their bias; biased samples were knowingly used; unwarranted conclusions were drawn from data presented; methods are sometimes obscured, sometimes flawed; some data are contradictory; there is a prior history of deception in other scientific endeavors; Kinsey has dissembled [concealed intentions] in medical literature; Kinsey cp-authors have knowingly misrepresented their data in subsequent publications; criminal experimentation has been the prime source of Kinsey’s childhood sexuality data.” ^[19]

In conclusion, “In the case of Kinsey’s sex research, there is strong (we believe compelling) evidence of fraud, which would make this research the most egregious example of scientific deception in this century.”^[20]

Unfortunately, we live in a nation today where children are frequently the victims of social policies, family breakdowns, and sexual exploitation. The extent of Kinsey’s responsibility for the current conditions is unknown, but certainly his advocacy of adult/child sexual relations and the normalcy of homosexuality bears a significant responsibility for undergirding current liberal social attitudes that have betrayed children. Kinsey’s “data” is not only an encouragement to pedophiles even today, his own experiments with children were, according to Dr. Reisman and her colleagues, criminal.

With respect to Kinsey’s experimental child sex research, it will become obvious that this involved the actual perpetration of illegal and sometimes violent sex acts on children. . . . If Kinsey’s science is flawed, then today’s children are among his prime victims, which is ironic in a way because children also were the prime victims in the live sex experiments which took place in the 1940s and which form the basis of many Kinsey conclusions.

It is Kinsey’s work which established the notion of “normal” childhood sexual desire. This “scientific” fact about children provides justification for pedophiles and a “scientific” basis for the children-can-enjoy-sex-with-peers (then with adults) movement that clearly exists within the sexology and sex education establishments today. Children are victims here also because they are not in a position to take part in the debate over the scientific evidence for their own sexuality. They are not in a position to analyze Kinsey’s research data that are used to argue the case that they can benefit from, and have a right to sex with adults. The debate also is being directed to some extent by those who, while seeming to champion “children’s rights,” are on record as desiring legal sanction for adult sex with children. . . . One requirement necessary for legitimization of adult/child sexual activity has been met with Kinsey’s “demonstration” that children can and should have active sex lives. Steps toward meeting the other requirement have just recently (1988) begun to be discussed openly, with the proposition from a “nationally recognized expert on sex offenders” that “pedophilia . . . may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation.”^[21]

Thus, the growing pedophile movement in our country, as represented by the homosexual national man/boy love association (NAMBLA) and other groups, often cite Kinsey’s work as justification for its existence and activities. “Another group grateful to Kinsey is the proliferating pedophile movement, which justifies its advocacy of adult sexual relations with children by quoting Kinsey’s child sexuality findings. Tom O’Carroll, an active pedophile, chairperson of the International Organization PIE (Pedophile Information Exchange) and author of Pedophilia: the Radical Case . . . cites Kinsey’s research (correctly) as [allegedly] supporting the harmlessness of adult/child sexual interaction.”^[22]

As a result of Kinsey’s research, homosexuality is also increasingly taught as a normal lifestyle option in sex education courses today. Children throughout America learn that

Kinsey established that 10 percent of American males are “normally” homosexual. In the Los Angeles school district, for example, a program was introduced in 1984 called “Project 10” (after Kinsey)—a gay and lesbian counseling service for youth. Described in the publication United Teacher as “a model for school districts throughout the United States,” this program offers books featuring stories on homosexual love-making (claimed to be written by children) and is an attempt to help children “accept” their homosexuality, as well as their sexual potential.^[23]

The fact that Kinsey’s statistics on the prevalence of homosexuality in society were grossly in error has somehow been ignored by modern sex educators. They continually cite the 10 percent figure. But Kinsey claimed only that 10 percent of white American males are “more or less exclusively homosexual” for at least three years between the ages of sixteen and fifty-five—and even this was probably false when written. The true figure for lifelong homosexuality today is probably 1 to 4 percent at best.^[24]

Even incest can find justification in the Kinsey research. Pomeroy argues, “It is time to admit that incest need not be a perversion or a symptom of mental illness. . . . Incest between . . . children and adults . . . can sometimes be beneficial.”^[25] Leading sex researcher John Money of Johns Hopkins argues, “A childhood sexual experience, such as being the partner of a relative or of an older person, need not necessarily affect the child adversely.”^[26]

Further, the Kinsey research has fueled the multibillion dollar pornography industry in the United States—with all its enormous consequences—and in addition, “the Kinsey studies, as much as pornography, shaped the context in which the Supreme Court responded to the obscenity issue.”^[27] Further, “if the legitimate pornography industry is, in a sense, another Kinsey legacy, then its leaders are clearly grateful. According to Christie Hefner, in the 1960s the Playboy Foundation became the major research sponsor of the Masters and Johnson Institute and made the initial grant to establish an Office of Research Services of the Sex Information and Education Counsel of the U.S. (SIECUS). The latter organization is heavily involved in the incorporation of Kinsey’s basic sexual philosophy into school sex education programs.”^[28]

The average American has little understanding of the horrendous consequences of the multibillion dollar pornography industry in society—ranging from child abuse and the degradation of women to the spreading of AIDS and other STDs. Christian organizations around the country have received thousands of letters from individuals who “innocently” became trapped into a pornographic lifestyle by exposure to “soft porn” magazines such as Playboy. Many of these individuals later became addicted to frightening forms of sexual expression. This placed their own health and life at risk—or that of others, even young children.

Yet the more enlightened in our nation would have us believe that pornography carries virtually no social consequences and must be defended at all costs as a form of “freedom of speech.” Tell that to Nick. He recalls:

I never intended to become addicted, but I found myself being compelled by something more powerful than my will to resist. At first, it was just looking at magazines. Then, it progressed to X-rated movies, including child porn and sadomasochistic stuff, even snuff films. After that, I began having strong desires for sex with children. I hurt several of them.

It seems that every sexual experience I had soon burned out, and I needed a stronger or more bizarre experience to retain the excitement. Finally, after molesting three dozen children (I even killed two for a sexual thrill), I was caught and sentenced to life in the Federal Penitentiary. I have been raped four times in my first two years.

Don’t tell me pornography has no consequences. I’ll put a gun to your head.

Yet incredibly today, for many sex therapists and educators, pornographic magazines and movies are actually supplied to people seeking counseling assistance as “tools” to help their sexual “dysfunctions.”

When we visited the SIECUS headquarters in New York, talked with staff, and examined the materials for sale, as well as their extensive sex library, it became obvious that SIECUS, too, was a powerful governmental arm for promoting liberal/Kinseyan sexual attitudes in society.^[29]

What’s worse, most scientists involved in the creation of the Kinsey findings are today living and functioning as influential researchers, scholars, lecturers, writers, experts on sexuality, courtroom witnesses, and authorities in sex education. They continue to espouse the Kinsey data as factual science when it appears to be little more than fraudulent social engineering. Why these individuals have not renounced Kinsey and apologized to the nation is a question that can be answered only by them. As Dr. Reisman observes, “Fraud is a serious charge. It calls for re-evaluation of the greatest single human sexuality research project ever undertaken and an assessment of the damage it may have caused to society. And since Kinsey co-authors Pomeroy and Gibhard are still well-known and influential sexologists, and the Kinsey Institute presumably still houses all Kinsey’s original data, it calls for a response from these sources.”^[30]

PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Planned Parenthood is, in some respects, another legacy of the Kinsey research. Until recently, it was a largely ignored or maligned institution that barely scraped by. But in the last two decades it has become one of the most powerful social organizations for disseminating almost everything that is wrong in modern attitudes toward sexuality and sex education.

When we visited the national headquarters of Planned Parenthood in New York to gather research materials, we were startled at the almost Machiavellian atmosphere. It was a bit like a minimum security prison. Locks, restrictions, and security guards were strategically placed—there was even a lock on the library, and no entrance was granted without special permission.

The influence of Planned Parenthood programs in modern sex education is dramatic. “In spite of this prevalence of sex education, Planned Parenthood has targeted various states so that schools would be mandated to teach comprehensive sex education. In its most recent `Five-Year Plan,’ Planned Parenthood Federation of America commits to increase to fifteen the number of states with mandatory K-12 sexuality educational curricula. . . . As states are considering how to resolve the problem of teenage pregnancy, they tend to be strongly influenced by the Planned Parenthood concept of what sex education should be.”^[31]

Further, “family planning proponents often insist that their programs do not promote promiscuity, and therefore they are not at all responsible for the teen sexuality crisis. Yet, Planned Parenthood listed ‘universal reproductive freedom’ as its major goal in its Five-Year Plan for 1976-80. As early as 1963, then-president of Planned Parenthood, Alan Guttmacher (after whom the organization’s research arm was named) acknowledged that contraceptive information for teens would bring about an increase in sexual promiscuity.”^[32] Indeed, the work of Planned Parenthood has helped to bring about:

General social acceptance of teenage birth control and sex outside of marriage

An epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases

Millions of teenage pregnancies and abortion on demand—regardless of parents’ wishes

The increasing denigration of parenthood and the family

Homosexuality as a legitimate sexual lifestyle option

Increasing social engineering and perhaps even increasing openness to eugenics

Planned Parenthood, like the Kinsey research, has become a major force for social evil.

Supreme Court decisions in federal policy have basically made the United States a vast laboratory for Planned Parenthood’s ideas these past twenty years. Abortion has been available on demand until term. . . . 1.5 million teenagers per year, and maybe more since 1983, have been enrolled in birth control programs; 150 school-based clinics have opened; media of all kinds have glorified pro-birth control sexual ethics. Major victories for traditional family values have been few and far between. . . . Planned Parenthood’s grand experiment has truly proven, as George Grant has written, a grand illusion. What a tragedy it is that our nation has been forced to pay the price of so many broken lives, so many wounded families.”^[33]

For example, those who read George Grant’s Grand Illusion: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood or Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan’s Blessed Are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood or Douglas R. Scott’s Inside Planned Parenthood will be shocked at what they discover. Planned Parenthood is truly a “sensually fueled death machine that has taken on worldwide proportions.”^[34] Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former leader in the abortion industry, who personally presided over sixty thousand abortions, comments about Blessed Are the Barren: “This encyclopedic, monumental work is a veritable resource handbook for anyone interested in the sinister workings of the infinitely evil Planned Parenthood empire. It should be required reading for those who understand the malevolent dynasty of the House of Sanger. I recommend this book without reservation or qualification.”^[35]

John Cardinal O’Connor writes, “This is a sickening book, terribly difficult for any reader who wants to believe in the integrity of the political system, the judiciary, the legal and medical professions, the decency and reasonableness of the people in a whole variety of influential positions. The story of deceit the book relates is devastating.”^[36]

But perhaps the legacy of Planned Parenthood is not all that surprising, considering its founders. For example, the founding mother of birth control, Margaret Sanger, was the originator of Planned Parenthood.^[37] Sanger hated Christianity. She supported political assassination and leftist movements in general, where she “learned the propaganda techniques that were later to stand her in such good stead.”^[38] She accepted “open marriage” and engaged in sex freely, whether single or married. She even claimed that “the marriage bed is the most degenerating influence of the social order . . . a decadent institution, a reactionary development of the sex instinct.”^[39] Sanger was also heavily involved in the occult. “Biographer Madeline Gray has written that Sanger sought ‘poise and surcease for her recurrent depression through astrology, numerology, sex, religious cults. . . .’; [she] attended seances; and [she] was a member of the Rosicrucian Society. . . . Sanger believed she had undergone numerous reincarnations.”^[40]

Regardless, the impact of Planned Parenthood has been unmistakable:

If the world needs more food, Planned Parenthood proposes to kill more children or sterilize couples. lb cope with sexual desires, eliminate the consequences (children), because curbing sexual desire is impossible. More venereal diseases, rely upon antibiotics because chastity does not work. Fidelity is bothersome. Take the Pill, get sterilized. If killing a child is morally bothersome, simply redefine the baby out of existence. If the family is breaking down in the wake of the contraceptive-clad sexual revolt, appropriate more money for government day care. Faced with growing poverty, abort (kill), contracept, or sterilize the poor. Johnny and Jane cannot read, never mind, give them condoms and the Pill before they propagate any more of their like.

French philosopher Etienne Gilson once said that “Philosophy always buries its undertakers.” Applying this adage to the present situation, we might say that the Planned Parenthood movement in all its social manifestations is its own best funeral director. It believes in death, it inflicts death; let this movement have what it has given others.^[41]

Notes

1. ↑ Judith A. Reisman et al., Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, La.: Huntington, 1990), 4.
2. ↑ Ibid., 1.
3. ↑ Ibid., 2, first italics added.
4. ↑ E.g., Reisman et al., Kinsey, Sex and Fraud 14; Thomas Weyr, Reaching for Paradise: The Playboy Vision of America (New York: Time Books, 1987), 11.
5. ↑ Reisman et aL, Kmsey, Sex and Fraud 1.
6. ↑ Ibid., 2.
7. ↑ Ibid., 117.
8. ↑ Ibid., 20-21.
9. ↑ John Court, in Reisman et al., Kmsey, Sex and Fraudviii.
10. ↑ Reisman et aL, Kmsey, Sex and Fraud 3.
11. ↑ Ibid., 216.
12. ↑ Ibid., 7.
13. ↑ Ibid.
14. ↑ Ibid., 8.
15. ↑ Ibid., 17.
16. ↑ Ibid., 3, 6.
17. ↑ Ibid., 3.
18. ↑ Ibid.
19. ↑ Ibid., 15.
20. ↑ Ibid.
21. ↑ Ibid., 13; cf. Patrick J. Buchanan, “Sex Revolution Has Flimsy Basis,” Houston Chronicle, 20 Oct. 1990, who cites the 31st annual conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex where a sex expert argued that pedophiles also have “sexual rights.”
22. ↑ Ibid., 4.
23. ↑ Ibid., 11; cf. Appendix D.
24. ↑ According to research from the Family Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
25. ↑ Reisman et al., Kmsey, Sex and Fraud 225 citing Tune, 14 April 1980.
26. ↑ Ibid.
27. ↑ Reisman et al., Kmsey, Sex and Fraud, 3.
28. ↑ Ibid.,3-4; cf. chap. 4.
29. ↑ In March 1992, cf. Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, Blessed Are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1991), 66-78.
30. ↑ Reisman et al., Kmsey, Sex and Fraud, 220.
31. ↑ Dinah Richard, Has Sex Education Failed Our Teenagers? A Research Report (Pomona, Calif.: Focus on the Family, 1990), 18.
32. ↑ Ibid., 11.
33. ↑ Marshall and Donovan, Blessed Are the Barren, 96.
34. ↑ Ibid., 320.
35. ↑ Ibid., back cover.
36. ↑ Ibid., ix.
37. ↑ Ibid., 1, 8-10, 60-63.
38. ↑ Ibid., 5-7.
39. ↑ Ibid.,7.
40. ↑ Ibid., 131.
41. ↑ Ibid., 1, 8-10, 60-63.