Science Publications: A Brief Time Line

Science Publications: A Brief Time Line
A FEW CITES TO THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT COVERUP OF KINSEYS CHILD SEX CRIMES AND SEXUALITY FRAUDS FROM 1948 to TODAY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 16, 1977 MARCH 11, 1981 JUNE, 1981 NOVEMBER 9, 1981 JUNE 7, 1985 DECEMBER 6, 1990 MARCH 2, 1991 MAY 27, 1991 JUNE 2, 1991 JANUARY 20, 1992 APRIL 17, 1992 SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 OCTOBER 16, 1995 OCTOBER 30, 1995 DECEMBER 7, 1995 DECEMBER 8, 1995 DECEMBER 19, 1997 DECEMBER, 2004 OCTOBER 8, 2010 MARCH 17, 2011 UK GUARDIAN: "TABOO OR NOT..." WORLD SEXOLOGY CONGRESS DR. GEBHARD TELLS DR. REISMAN THEIR PEDOPHILES HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BENT UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA: OUR RESEARCHERS EXPOSE KINSEY THE HASTINGS CENTER TELLS REISMANNO BASIS FOR CONCERNS FREE PRESS WILL PUBLISH KINSEY BOOKTHEN CENSORS PUBLICATION GEBHARD WARNS REINISCHBEWARE LEST REISMAN FIND OUT UK MEDICAL JOURNAL THE LANCET CONDEMNS KINSEY CRIMES MEMO: REISMAN TO CRAIN ON LEGAL EFFORTS/ACTIONS MEMO: SCIENCE MAG. CENSORS KINSEY EXPOSE THE SCIENTIST PRINTS THE LONE US SCIENCE ARTICLE SCIENCE MAG LAUDS KINSEY INSTITUTES DR. REINISCH THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR: TABLE 34 COULD BECOME A MAJOR TALKING POINT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN REISMAN TELLS SCIENCE MAG. EDITOR, ELLIS RUBINSTEIN, KINSEY CRIMES CONFIRMED BY KINSEY INSTITUTE DIRECTOR RUBINSTEIN REFUSES TO REPORT THE KINSEY MATTERS H.R.2749 FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF KINSEY THE CHILD PROTECTION AND ETHICS IN EDUCATION ACT OF 1995, IS SPIKED REISMAN WRITES RUBINSTEIN RE: H.R. 2749 BUT SCIENCE MAG. CENSORSHIP CONTINUES SCIENCE MAG. SLAMS JAMES JONES' KINSEY BOOK AS MEANSPIRITED LAST OFFICIAL RECORD OF FEDERAL TAX FUNDS TO THE KINSEY INSTITUTE SCIENCE MAG. EXPOSES FOREIGN EXPERIMENTS, STILL CENSORS KINSEY EXPERIMENTS ON INFANTS AND CHILDREN REISMAN WRITES CURRENT SCIENCE MAG. ED IN CHIEF, BRUCE ELBERTS TO END CENSORSHIP
2012 - Rev. 1.1
Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. drjudit hre isman .com
1 of 31
SEPTEMBER 16, 1977 - UK GUARDIAN: "TABOO OR NOT" WORLD SEXOLOGY CONGRESS
2012 - Rev. 1.1
2 of 31
MARCH 11, 1981 - DR. GEBHARD TELLS DR. REISMAN THEIR PEDOPHILES HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BENT
2012 - Rev. 1.1
3 of 31
JUNE, 1981 - University Of Haifa Researchers Train Guns On Dr. Alfred Kinseys Sex Research.
2012 - Rev. 1.1
4 of 31
NOVEMBER 9, 1981 Reisman appeals to the Hastings Center "A non partisan research institution dedicated to bioethics and the public interest since 1969" to investigate the Kinsey data. Hastings refuses to consider the Kinsey crimes.
2012 - Rev. 1.1
5 of 31
2012 - Rev. 1.1
6 of 31
JUNE 7, 1985 - FREE PRESS PUBLISHER ERWIN GLIKES TELLS REISMAN HE WILL PUBLISH HER KINSEY EXPOSE. HAS LAURA, HARVARD PSYCHOLOGY EDITOR REVIEW REISMANS CHAPTERS. SHE SAYS NO, CANNOT BE TRUE, THEN YES, ITS TRUE, PUBLISH
2012 - Rev. 1.1
7 of 31
LAURA SUGGESTS REVISIONSSHE THINKS ITS OK TO USE PEDOPHILES IF IT ISNT ENCOURAGING FURTHER COMMISSIONS ASKS ARE THESE RELIABLE
2012 - Rev. 1.1
8 of 31
GLIKES TELLS REISMAN HE CANNOT PUBLISH. THE AMERICAN PUBLISHERS ASSOC. MET AND WARNED NOTHING SHE WRITES CAN BE PUBLISHED
2012 - Rev. 1.1
9 of 31
GLIKES SAYS NO MAJOR PUBLISHER WILL PUBLISH ANYTHING SHE WRITESTHEY DISTRIBUTED A BROCHURE SAYING HER WORK IS A THREAT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, TO FREE SPEECH. SO REISMAN IS CENSORED AND THE KINSEY CRIMES, SEXOLOGY IN CLASSROOM AND COURTROOM CONTINUE
2012 - Rev. 1.1
Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. drjud ithr eisma n.com
10 of 31
DECEMBER 6, 1990 - DR GEBHARD WARNS KINSEY INST. DIRECTOR DR JUNE REINISCH AND INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT DR GROSLOUIS, THAT REISMAN IS RIGHT, TAKE CARE LEST IT COMES TO REISMANS ATTENTION
2012 - Rev. 1.1
11 of 31
MARCH 2, 1991 - THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL THE LANCET EDITORIALIZES THAT REISMAN ET ALL DEMOLISH THE KINSEY REPORTS, CITES THE CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND SAYS THE KINSEY TEAM HAS MUCH TO EXPLAIN
2012 - Rev. 1.1
12 of 31
MAY 27, 1991 - MEMO FROM REISMAN TO LARRY CRAIN, RUTHERFORD LAWYER ON EFFORTS TO GET COVERAGE IN AN AMERICAN PUBLICATION OF KINSEYS SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND SEX FRAUDS ON SOCIETY AND THE STATE
2012 - Rev. 1.1
13 of 31
JUNE 2, 1991 - MEMO FROM REISMAN TO LARRY CRAIN, RUTHERFORD LAWYER ON EFFORTS TO GET COVERAGE IN AN AMERICAN PUBLICATION OF KINSEYS SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND SEX FRAUDS ON SOCIETY AND THE STATE
2012 - Rev. 1.1
14 of 31
JANUARY 20, 1992 - THE SCIENTIST: THE ONLY AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION THAT ALLOWED MENTION OF KINSEYS CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND OUR BOOK DOCUMENTING THESE CRIMES AND SCIENCE FRAUD
2012 - Rev. 1.1
15 of 31
APRIL 17, 1992 - SCIENCE MAGAZINE LAUDS KINSEY INSTITUTES DR. REINISCH
2012 - Rev. 1.1
16 of 31
SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 - THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR: TABLE 34 COULD BECOME A MAJOR TALKING POINT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
2012 - Rev. 1.1
17 of 31
OCTOBER 16, 1995 - REISMAN WRITES SCIENCE MAG. CHIEF ED, ELLIS RUBINSTEIN THAT KINSEY CHARGES ARE CONFIRMED BY KINSEY INSTITUTE DIRECTOR
2012 - Rev. 1.1
18 of 31
OCTOBER 30, 1995 - RUBINSTEIN REFUSES TO COVER THE KINSEY MATTERS AS NOT THE KIND OF NEWS STORY OUR READERS EXPECT... IF SHE HAS OTHER INFORMATION SCIENCE WILL RECONSIDER. EVEN THE LANCET EDITORIAL DID NOT REOPEN SCIENCES CENSORSHIP OF THE KINSEY FINDINGS.
2012 - Rev. 1.1
19 of 31
OCTOBER 30, 1995 - FAX FROM SCIENCE TO REISMAN (page 1 of 2)
2012 - Rev. 1.1
20 of 31
DECEMBER 7, 1995 - H.R.2749 Title: To determine if Alfred Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and/or "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing.
Fearing an investigation, Indiana University said they were closing the Kinsey Institute in 1995. Rockefeller and Ford Foundations stepped in to fund a PR campaign for the Kinsey Institute, including a Fox Spotlight Kinsey feature film. These original 52 legislators called for a full scale, congressional Kinsey investigation.
Sponsor: Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-9] (introduced 12/7/1995) Cosponsors (51) COSPONSORS(51), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sponsor, Steve Stockman, (TX-9) (they threw millions into defeating him)
Rep Barr, Bob [GA-7] - 12/7/1995 Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] -12/7/1995 Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-7] - 4/22/1996 Rep Bono, Sonny [CA-44] -12/7/1995 (Deceased but wife allegedly champions his causes) Rep Bryant, Ed [TN-7] - 12/7/1995 Rep Chenoweth, Helen [ID-1] - 12/7/1995 Rep Coburn, Tom A. [OK-2] -12/7/1995 Rep Cooley, Wes [OR-2] - 12/7/1995 Rep Cremeans, Frank A. [OH-6] -12/7/1995 Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] -12/7/1995 Rep DeLay, Tom [TX-22] - 12/7/1995 Rep Dickey, Jay [AR-4] - 12/7/1995 Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-46] -12/7/1995 Rep Dreier, David [CA-28] -12/7/1995 Rep Emerson, Bill [MO-8] - 5/16/1996 Rep Ensign, John [NV-1] - 12/7/1995 Rep Graham, Lindsey [SC-3] -12/7/1995 Rep Hancock, Mel [MO-7] -12/7/1995 Rep Hastert, J. Dennis [IL-14] -6/4/1996 Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] -5/10/1996 Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-6] -12/7/1995 Rep Hilleary, Van [TN-4] - 12/7/1995 Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] -12/7/1995 Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] -12/7/1995 Rep Hutchinson, Tim [AR-3] -12/7/1995 Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 12/21/1995 Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] -12/7/1995 Rep Largent, Steve [OK-1] -12/7/1995 Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-19] Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 12/7/1995 Rep Livingston, Bob [LA-1] -12/7/1995 Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] -5/6/1996 Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] -12/7/1995 Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] -4/22/1996 Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] -5/23/1996 Rep Packard, Ron [CA-48] -12/7/1995 Rep Parker, Mike [MS-4] - 12/7/1995 Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] -12/7/1995 Rep Riggs, Frank [CA-1] - 12/7/1995 Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] -12/7/1995 Rep Salmon, Matt [AZ-1] - 12/7/1995 Rep Shuster, Bud [PA-9] - 5/23/1996 Rep Skeen, Joe [NM-2] - 9/5/1996 Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] -12/7/1995 Rep Smith, Linda [WA-3] - 12/7/1995 Rep Smith, Nick [MI-7] - 12/7/1995 Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-4] 12/7/1995
2012 - Rev. 1.1
21 of 31

Rep Stump, Bob [AZ-3] - 5/6/1996 Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] -12/7/1995 Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] -12/7/1995 Rep Young, Don [AK] - 12/7/1995 H.R.2749 Title: To determine if Alfred Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and/or "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing. Sponsor: Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-9] (introduced 12/7/1995) Cosponsors (51) Latest Major Action: 12/22/1995 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families. Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments SUMMARY AS OF: 12/7/1995--Introduced. Child Protection and Ethics I Education Act of 1995 - Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study to determine whether programs, lectures, texts, or other pedagogical materials involving sexuality used by agencies, universities, or elementary and secondary schools (institutions) that receive Federal funds for educational purposes significantly or particularly rely on the scholarship of, directly or indirectly consisting of, or based on the studies entitled "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" authored by Alfred Kinsey and his team of researchers, published in 1948 and 1953 (Kinsey reports). Authorizes the General Accounting Office to evaluate whether the contents of the Kinsey reports are erroneous, wrongfully obtained by reason of fraud or criminal wrongdoing (i.e., systematic sexual abuse of children), or both. Directs: (1) the Comptroller General to complete such study and report to the Congress by May 1, 1996; and (2) the Secretary of Education, if the Comptroller General's determination is in the affirmative, to ensure that for FY 1997 and subsequent fiscal years no Federal funds are provided to any persons or institutions for any educational purpose which instruct in Kinsey's work, derivative Kinseyan scholars, or scholarship without indicating the unethical and tainted nature of the Kinsey report. Directs the chief executive officer of the State involved to certify to the Secretary which such agencies or school programs cite such materials. MAJOR ACTIONS: ***NONE*** ALL ACTIONS: 12/7/1995: Referred to the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. 12/22/1995: Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families. TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill) SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED: Child Protection and Ethics I Education Act of 1995 OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED: To determine if Alfred Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and/or "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing. COMMITTEE(S): Committee/Subcommittee: Activity: House Economic and Educational Opportunities Referral, In Committee Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families Referral RELATED BILL DETAILS: ***NONE*** AMENDMENT(S)
2012 - Rev. 1.1
22 of 31
DECEMBER 8, 1995 - REISMAN WRITES RUBINSTEIN RE: H.R. 2749 BUT SCIENCE MAG. CENSORSHIP CONTINUES
2012 - Rev. 1.1
23 of 31
DECEMBER 19, 1997 - SCIENCE MAG. REVIEWS/SLAMS JAMES JONES' KINSEY BOOK AS MEAN-SPIRITED
Catalyst for a Cultural Dialogue

Kenneth Lewes reviews Alfred C. Kinsey. A Public/Private Life. by James H. Jones, Norton, New York, 1997. xx, 937 pp., + plates. ISBN 0-393-04086-0. Science 19 December 1997: Vol. 278 no. 5346 pp. 2068-2069 DOI: 10.1126/science.278.5346.2068 View online version here. The English poet John Donne died in 1631. There is a portrait of him in old age in his death shroud, features gaunt and cadaverous, eyes shrunken. He is meditating on death, judgment, and his past sins. This portrait contrasts with an earlier one of him as Elizabethan lover, stylishly dressed in black with fine lace at his sleeves and open collar, sly, sensuous, and ironic, fingers long and insinuating. He seems to be thinking not about death, but about love, sex, and poetry. Donne is the author of some of the best erotic and religious poetry in English. It is impossible to know how the tension between the erotic and the religious contributed to his poetic achievement, but we do know that his last years were racked by remorse and fear of eternal damnation, which he felt was due largely to his sinful past. Donne is not the only major literary figure who tormented himself. Tolstoy made himself and his family miserable because of an unresolvable conflict between his wish to enjoy sexual pleasure and his conviction that such a wish was depraved. A description of Gogol's deathbed repudiation of his homosexual past would make most readers sick at heart. Again, we cannot say whether the work these men produced was made possible by such agonizing conflict or was stunted and maimed by it. Would Anna Karenina have been even greater had Tolstoy not struggled against his own sexual nature, or would it never have been written? Would there have been other works we can only guess at? We do, however, glimpse the enormous grief, guilt, and suffering that these men imposed on themselves. Therapists know that such suffering is not confined to the great and famous. In my own clinical experience, I recall the middle-aged man who blamed his son's Down syndrome on a single marital infidelity; the fundamentalist woman who avoided sexual contact with her husband after he confessed to having masturbated while stationed on a nuclear submarine before they were married; the homosexual Catholic priest who was driving himself crazy with loneliness because he believed that God wished him to abstain from the sexual activity he craved his whole life. One can deplore the breakdown of morality in the modern worldthe disintegration of the family, the trivialization of human intimacy, the loss of traditionbut unless one claims to know for a fact what God or Nature wishes people to do with their lives, one must, I think, applaud relieving the torment that people impose on themselves for not living up to an unrealistic code of sexual behavior. [continues on next page]
2012 - Rev. 1.1
24 of 31
The shift in sensibility that allowed people to value their own sexual nature was a long and complex social process, but one of its crucial phases was made possible by Alfred Kinsey and his research into the sexual behavior of American men and women. His two major publications, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and the companion volume about women in 1953, were enormously influential in initiating and informing a debate about what is natural and desirable in sexual behavior. Kinsey claimed to show that, even in a period of great social conformity, American men and women conducted their sexual lives in defiance of traditional norms: Rates of marital infidelity were higher than anyone thought; almost all boys masturbated during adolescence; most women achieved orgasm through clitoral rather than vaginal stimulation; more than one-third of American men had had a homosexual experience in their adult lives; and one out of six men considered themselves more homosexual than heterosexual. These findings shocked and outraged the religious, political, and psychiatric defenders of traditional morality. Others argued that, if this picture of American sexual behavior was even remotely true, then traditional morality was unreasonable, unnatural, and pernicious. Without Kinsey, it is hard to imagine either the women's movement or gay liberation. The controversy generated by Kinsey's two reports still rages, centering on two issues. The first is whether Kinsey's empirical data really do constitute an argument for the untrammeled expression of sexual drive or are only evidence for the breakdown of a traditional and salubrious moral discipline. The second is the claim that Kinsey's data are inaccurate, misleading, and mendacious. For example, a 1994 study by the University of Chicago that was based on different sampling techniques and ways of eliciting information found that the incidence of male homosexuality was only 2.8 percent, not the 16 to 18 percent that Kinsey reported. James H. Jones, professor of history at the University of Houston and author of Bad Blood, which exposed the racist scandal of the Tuskegee syphilis study, now joins the battle. His very long book attempts to provide an account of Kinsey's life and professional achievement. He claims to have spent more than 25 years researching and writing it, and the story he tells is really quite interesting. Kinsey was born in 1894 in central New Jersey to an intellectually and socially ambitious father, who imposed his values and religious convictions on his family. The future sex researcher at first conformed to his father's demands, chalking up a drearily impressive record in school, the Boy Scouts, and church and community service. By college, he found that he had other ambitions and talents and broke with his father, leaving to study biology at Bowdoin in Brunswick, Maine, where he supported himself by prodigious efforts. Impressing his teachers with his will and determination, he earned his doctorate at Harvard and began teaching at Indiana Universityat that time, something of a cultural and academic backwaterwhere he became the world's leading expert on the gall wasp. He became an atheist. He married an intelligent, enthusiastic, and supportive woman, who typed his papers, entertained his colleagues, defended him against all criticism, and called him Prok (for Professor K.). They had four children. Kinsey discovered his life's project as a result of a course that he taught about marriage and sexuality, and began a series of elaborate interviews with his students concerning their sexual histories. By the time of his death in 1956, the archives of the institute that he almost singlehandedly ran contained records of 18,000 such interviews, of which Kinsey himself had conducted 8000. These interviews formed the basis of his two famous reports. He also amassed a vast collection of anthropological and sociological material on sex. By the sheer expenditure of energy and the profound social effect of his work, Kinsey surely rates an honorable place in the history of American social thought. [continues on next page]
2012 - Rev. 1.1
25 of 31
But Jones has another story to tellan account of Kinsey's private sexual life. According to Jones, Kinsey from adolescence fought a losing battle to control his secret homosexuality and masochism. His extramarital sexual life ranged from mildly distasteful bunkhouse antics on field trips to gather gall wasps, through clandestine forays to homosexual centers of large cities, to self-tortureinvolving inserting objects up his urethra, self-circumcision without anesthesia, and suspending himself by his scrotum from the ceiling. All this, it appears, transpired with the knowledge of his wife, with whom he continued to maintain sexual relations, and that of his closest colleagues. No hint of personal scandal ever emerged, despite vindictive investigations by the FBI and other concerned individuals. The first question to ask is, Why should any of this interest us? Jones' answer is that it provided the motivation for Kinsey's work, informed his procedures, and distorted and slanted his results. According to Jones, Kinsey was driven to such prodigious feats of research both by his wish to overthrow the traditional morality of his domineering father and to justify his own sexual compulsions by showing that all people harbor similar perverted desires. By adducing such a motivation, Jones intends to provide a critique. Implicit in this viewpoint is a notion that the social scientist, like the historian, should pursue his or her research free of personal bias or tendentiousness. Such a view is nave and dangerous because it allows researchers to ignore their own biases. Jones has plenty of them himself, although it is sometimes difficult to know exactly what he is saying because of his clich writing. First, he seems, at times, to loathe Kinsey as a man and lets few of Kinsey's quirks and opinionsfrom gardening and classical music to atheismpass without psychologizing them away. He sees almost all of Kinsey's work as a driven attempt to control others, to indulge his voyeuristic urges, to butch up his unsteady masculine persona, and to justify his sexual drives. Second, a pervasive intellectual conservatism runs throughout Jones' account, which prevents him from presenting, let alone evaluating, Kinsey's more radical views of religion, sex, female psychology, and adolescent behavior. Jones does not explain these issues carefully or provide a framework with which to evaluate them, but instead is often merely superior and snide. He himself articulates some rather parochial, almost homophobic, views. He assumes, for example, that Kinsey harbored deep doubts about his masculinity and felt enormous guilt about his homosexuality, simply assuming that these feelings are intrinsic parts of the homosexual condition, without reliable evidence. Indeed, he insists on calling Kinsey homosexual, despite his sustained marital sexual relations; he thus ignores Kinsey's own classification of the range of sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, but does not say why. And, on the last page of his book, Jones claims that AIDS might have been enough to restore [Kinsey's] faith in a mean-spirited, vengeful God, a statement so grotesque I cannot believe Jones means it. [continues on next page]
2012 - Rev. 1.1
26 of 31
As a biographical study, Jones' book seems to me a mean-spirited failure. As a treatment of the more important issues raised by Kinsey's work, it also has serious drawbacks. The book gives the initial impression of thoroughness. It includes dozens of quotations from course evaluations, peripheral background on minor participants, and a recurrent account of Kinsey's struggles with the Rockefeller Foundation. But Jones does not provide the background necessary to evaluate Kinsey's achievements. We never find out why Kinsey needed the financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation, since all the royalties from the two reports went back into the institute. In addition, Jones implies several times that Kinsey distorted his results and deceptively used inadequate sampling techniques. This is a serious charge, but Jones never treats it head on; instead, he merely impugns Kinsey's motives, never explaining why he rejected random sampling as inappropriate and adopted his own approach. He never discusses how Kinsey's data stand up to later research nor attempts to account for any differences. Certain background information also appears to be misleading. In his account of the psychoanalytic response to the two Kinsey reports, for example, he does not mention Edmund Bergler, who was the psychoanalytic expert on homosexuality and who led the attack. Finally, he does not help the reader to evaluate Kinsey's achievements as a whole, addressing the subjectperhaps the most important in the entire bookin a perfunctory two pages at the end. Although it is difficult to give the reader a sense of Jones' superior tone of distaste and unsupported innuendo, his careless use of sources should be noted. The details of Kinsey's own sexual behaviorthough tactless and mean-spiritedare necessary for Jones' argument. Nevertheless their validity relies on flimsy evidence, employing such locutions as he probably had tried, he probably wanted, it must have been, and it is hard not to believe. Although, in psychobiography, such procedures are unavoidable, what makes Jones' speculations suspect are, first of all, his deep lack of sympathy for Kinsey and, second, his reliance on a severely limited set of sources and his apparent attempt to conceal this limitation. Some of Jones' account of Kinsey's sexuality is pure speculation or based on gossip. Some seems to be footnoted, but the footnote may lead to a general article on married gays in the 1950s. But the most detailed and distasteful information seems to stem from two sources, whom Jones calls Anon A and Anon B and never identifies, except in the most general way as a great friend and admirer. Yet the information they offer is quite salacious and defamatory, so the reader needs to be told who these people are to evaluate their reliability. If one traces these sources in the footnotes, one sometimes finds a single quotation attributed to both Anon A and Anon B (for example, p. 603, note 6). Similarly, a Mr. Y also gave a detailed account (p. 603), but his words are attributed to Anon B in note 8. There is no entry in the index for either of these two friends, and, in the Note on Sources, we read that all this information was collected in only two interviews, that these sources remain completely anonymous, and that there is no indication that copies or notes of these interviews are on deposit. There are, of course, limitations in oral history, but these must be spelled out for the reader and for future scholars. The book as a whole, I'm sorry to saydespite occasional informative sectionsbrings honor neither to its subject nor to its author.
2012 - Rev. 1.1
27 of 31
DECEMBER, 2004 - THE LAST OFFICIAL RECORD OF FEDERAL TAX FUNDS GIVEN DIRECTLY TO THE KINSEY INSTITUTE
Source: Kinsey's Dirty Secrets, Stephen Adams, Citizen Magazine, December, 2004, p. 23, url: http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2004/12/kinseys_dirty_s.html
2012 - Rev. 1.1
28 of 31
OCTOBER 8, 2010 - SCIENCE MAGAZINE STILL CENSORS EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED ON AMERICAN INFANTS AND CHILDREN BY KINSEYS ACADEMIC PEDOPHILE LOBBY WHILE LAUDING WOMAN WHO EXPOSED AMERICAN EXPERIMENTS ON GUATEMALANS.
2012 - Rev. 1.1
29 of 31
MARCH 17, 2011 - REISMAN WRITES BRUCE ELBERTS ED IN CHIEF OF SCIENCE MAGAZINE TO FINALLY CORRECT THE RECORDSHE INCLUDES THE RUBENSTEIN CORRESPONDENCE, TABLE 34 AND NOW AWAITS THE EXPOSE
From: Judith Reisman [mailto:jareisman@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:34 PM To: 'npinol@aaas.org' Subject: The Science Kinsey Coverup
To Dr. Bruce Alberts, Ed. In Chief, American Association for the Advancement of Science Re: The need for Science Magazine to finally report the Kinsey fraud to your constituency From: Judith A. Reisman, PhD, drjudithreisman.com. Dear Dr. Alberts, Please note attachment one, a small collection of documents; the last being a review from the psychology editor of Free Press to its then publisher Irwin Glikes re: my proposed 1985 book revealing the child sex crimes committed by Dr Alfred Kinsey and his team at Indiana University. This first attachment includes some items addressing the decades of falsehoods used to censor me, to discredit my research findingsand the sad role of Science magazine in these abuses. Below this sample 1995 letter (left) to Dr. Rubinstein please find a copy of Kinseys Table 34 from his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), claiming scientific proof of infant and child orgasms. My books fully document the frauds and crimes and the fallout from these violations in education, law and general sexual disorder. Attachment two includes information on my new book, SEXUAL SABOTAGE and a list of legislators who had signed to investigate Kinseys crimes in 1995. I hope to hear from you ASAP to discuss this highly relevant issue, identifying the frauds committed and the political control of sex science history. Below is a copy of Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) page 180. Kinseys detailed definition of these experimental childrens alleged orgasms including fainting, screaming, hysterical weeping, etc., appears on Kinseys pages 160 and 161. The history of science must finally include Kinseys fraud and the effects of his sexual dogma, his sexual canon, alongside the Tuskegee, LSD and Willobrook School experiments. I have several documentaries on my website drjudithreisman.com. I hope you will restore my faith in science by calling 202 591 3292. I will gladly bring my latest book, SEXUAL SABOTAGE, ans meet with you at your convenience. Thank you, Judith Reisman, PhD
2012 - Rev. 1.1
30 of 31
1948 - KINSEYS TABLE 34--ROUND THE CLOCK EXPERIMENTS ON A FOUR YEAR OLD AND A 13 YEAR OLD , RAPE OF A 5 MONTH OLD DEFENDED BY INDIANA UNIVERSITY
Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) page 180
2012 - Rev. 1.1
31 of 31

Science Publications: A Brief Time Line

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Publications: A Brief Time Line

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Publications: A Brief Time Line

2012 - Rev. 1.1

Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. drjudit hre isman .com