sense or obvious facts will stop it, asnHegel might have noted. For whatevernreasons, the Great American Spirit hadndecided in favor of sexual modernism,nand Kinsey’s “scientific statistics”nstruck a mighty media blow on itsnbehalfnThe crucial point oiKinsey, Sex andnFraud is that Kinsey’s statistics were notnvalid or reliable statistics, but werenlargely factoids (that in some instancesnmay have been collected in criminalnways) used to defraud the public. Thenauthors do a good job of pulling togethernthe scholarly facts, which shownthat the statistics upon which SexualnBehavior in the Human Male arenbased were collected from a very biasednsample, with great overrepresentationsnof prisoners and other subpopulationsnknown by everyone to be, of all people,nthe most casual and deviant in theirnsexual practices. They also show thatnthese biases were largely hidden orndeclared insignificant in the labyrinthinenanalyses of the book, and thennlargely forgotten by later generations ofnsexologists who used Kinsey’s work as anmedia shibboleth to advance the causenof the new faith.nThe authors do, however, overemphasizenthe more recent use ofnKinsey’s data in this way and thencontinuing impact of his “findings.” Asnfar as I know from my decades ofncontacts with social scientists, the greatn34/CHRONICLESnmajority of them are aware that there isnsomething “foul” about the Kinseynstatistics. After all, as the authors show,nthere is a whole literature by socialnscientists about what is wrong withnthem. The important point is that, innspite of this knowledge, a great manynsexologists and some other social “scientists”ncontinue to refer to Kinsey as ankind of scientific totem.nK insey,nLIBERAL ARTSnVIVE LA DIFFERENCE?nAs Richard Rothschild reported in thenChicago Tribune last June 25, Californianpsychiatrist Diane Mosbacher,ndaughter of Commerce Secretary RobertnMosbacher, has revealed she’s anlesbian, saying, “It’s important for gaynpeople to have role models and fornothers to realize we are everywhere.”nShe said of her father, “I love andnrespect him very much, but we’re asndifferent as a Republican and a lesbiannactivist could be.”nSex and Fraud shows thatnKinsey and his colleagues went tongreat extremes in their pursuit of sexualnfactoids. As Paul Robinson and othersnhave already shown, Kinsey redefinednsex in a totally egalitarian manner,ninsisting that only sexual “outlets” matter.nBy this method of scientistic ad hocnassertion, one outlet of animalism isnequal to Romeo’s night of bliss withnJuliet—one equals one, right? Whatncould be more scientific? This “scientific”ndefinition is the foundation ofnKinsey’s interview methods and statistics.nReisman and Eichel correctly notenthat “proof” by ad hoc assertion is verynstrange, but they proceed to overdo itnby implying that Kinsey’s strange ideanof “sexual outlets” has greatly affectednlater studies and the development ofnsex education. It has not. I know of nonone who now takes this idea seriously,nand only we few with a historicalninterest in these curiosities even remembernit.nnnHaving begun with these scholarlynwarm-ups, the authors get to the heartnof their work. Their “Dedication” anticipatesnthe shocking charge of criminality:n”To the several hundred childrennwho suffered inhumanely in thenillegal sex experiments that constitutenthe basis for a significant portion of Dr.nAlfred Kinsey’s book Sexual Behaviornin the Human Male.” What the authorsncharge is that someone was reportednby Kinsey et alia to have madensystematic, timed, and logged sexualnexperiments on children down to thenage of two months and to have provednin this way that even babies havenorgasms.nI had no memory of Kinsey sayingnanything about child orgasm, nor didnany of the several social scientists Inasked about it. But Reisman and Eichelnare right. Pages 175 to 182 oi SexualnBehavior in the Human Male, entitledn”Pre-Adolescent Orgasm,” presentsndetailed, numerical, tabular informationnabout sex experiments performednby some unnamed “trained observers”non at least 317 boys aged from twonmonths to fifteen years. Kinsey reportednthat these observations show thatninfants from five months on can havenorgasms. Indeed, he solemnly reportednthat one infant sex athlete had 14norgasms in 38 minutes, almost onenevery two minutes; and another sexualnOlympian of four years had 26 orgasmsnin 24 hours.nEven after I checked to make surenKinsey actually said those things, I hadna suspicion the authors must havenstretched a point by implying thatnKinsey, his colleagues, or peoplentrained by them (or someone) actuallynperformed these sexual experiments.nBut a preliminary textual analysis leadsnme to conclude that they wrote in goodnfaith. On page 181 Kinsey et alia notenthat T.V. Moore had observed in 1943nthat he could find no single instance innwhich Freudians said they had directlynobserved infant sexual behavior of thensort they believed exists. Kinsey apparentlynsaw this as a crucial question innthe study of sexuality in general, so henset about getting such “records fromntrained observers.” Kinsey says,n”Complying with the scientifically fairndemand for records from trained observers,nand answering Moore’s furtherndemand that ‘writers . . . test theirntheories … by empirical study andn