statistical procedures,’ we have nownreported observations on such specificallynsexual activities as erection, pelvicnthrusts, and the several other characteristicsnof true orgasm in a list of 317npre-adolescent boys ranging betweenninfants of five months and adolescencenin age.”nThe crucial item here is the phrasen”records from trained observers.” Thentabular records in this section looknremarkably like other tables based onnKinsey’s and his associates’ own studies.nE)id they themselves make thesensexual experiments? I doubt it verynmuch, because in spite of what Kinseynsays, I do not think children havenorgasms at all and I am recalcitrantnenough to find the idea of a four-yearoldnhaving 26 orgasms over 24 hoursnuttedy bizarre. I also still believe, innspite of all of the above and more, thatnKinsey was basically honest and that,nhad he made such direct observationsnof children, he would not have report­ned that they had orgasms.nMy guess is that Kinsey or somenco-worker(s) tried to turn somenpederasts — perhaps from their prisonernor ex-con sample — into “trainednobservers” and that the pederasts eithernwere delusionary enough to believenthat their victims enjoyed their victimizationn(in the same way some rapistsnbelieve women enjoy being raped) ornthey were “putting on” the mad scientists.nMy hunch is that on this matternKinsey was hoodwinked by someone innthe same way he was taken in by a greatnmany of his sex-talkers. He probablynfell into the same trap that caughtnMargaret Mead in Samoa when shenstudied love under the palms amongnSamoan giris, and that journalists routinelynstep into when they ask politicians,n”Do you believe your programnwill serve the public good?” In short,nKinsey was very gullible in all the waysnyou would expect an entomologistnstudying human sexuality to be.nAmore Mistico Palesenby Peter RussellnEveryone admires the beauty of the Stars.nWhen have the stars known Love as we knownWhose bodies to each other revealnBodies as radiant veiling inner worldsnSecretly manifest between the veils?n> Children at school we were taught literal truthsnWe took for granted like the outer forms . . .nThere comes a time though when the moonnRises and the stars are dimmednAnd hidden wodds light up in silver light . . .nThe old world’s nothing but smoky bonfiresnAnd ugly shouts from end to end the earth.nWhen She reveals her golden breasts and dropsnSilken and glistening her black massnOf jet on the luminous bloomnOf waxen ivory shoulders.nIn the thoughtful amazing shadownStadight and moonlight fade.nAnd brighter light from darkness that is goldennIssues precipitous in talking silences.nnnMore importantly, sexologists, socialnscientists, and the general public havenbeen even more gullible in believingn, that “scientists” were presenting themnwith the truth about themselves. Butnthis is not surprising. Gullibility is thenexternal sign of the Great Myths of thenage. The textbook writers who refer tonthe “great” work of Kinsey do notnremember what bizarre things he actuallynsaid, nor do they care. They willnlikely not read this book, but willnprobably denounce it, the way anthropologistsnvoted in a general meeting toncondemn Derek Freeman’s revelationsnin Margaret Mead and Samoa beforenthey even saw the book.nI suggest that sexologists and thenUniversity of Indiana have a publicnresponsibility to determine as clearly asnpossible at this late date what really didnhappen in this famous — or infamousn— study. But I have a hunch that thisnwill not be done.nnSEPTEMBER 1991/35n