Látex 0.04 %p sólidos
III.II - Síntesis de los Látex por Proceso Semicontinuo
III.III.II - Diámetro de Partícula y Potencial
III.III.II.I – Efecto del Electrólito en los Látex Funcionalizados
Predictably, criticism of the Male volume surfaced from many quarters soon after publication. Kinsey and his staff largely dismissed the detractors. Pomeroy placed the “unfair and jealous” critics in five categories: “(1) Moralists; (2) Attention Seekers; (3) Conservatives; (4) Uninformed Perfectionists,”
and (5):
Finally, there were those who pointed to the real mistakes we had made, but sometimes did not allow for the fact that the Male volume was really a progress report. Even where the statistics erred the conclusions we drew from them were correct.104 [Emphasis added.]
Pomeroy insinuated that those who disagreed with Kinsey in any way had dark, sexual secrets.
Pomeroy projected onto any Kinsey opponents the Kinsey team’s own clinically defined sexual psy-chopathology. The opponents were now the sexual psychopaths:
“I think we are objective and fair when we say that the animus of the whole review is jealousy and a considerable prudery.” Kinsey remained convinced that Terman [a well-known psychologist and early friend] had betrayed him, through jealousy and a basic prudery. Gorer [a well-known sociologist and not a friend] was either incapable of un-derstanding the differences between proportionate and stratified sampling, or else he had ulterior motives.105
It is likely that Kinsey welcomed the opportunity to defend attacks on the mechanics of his meth-odology to academicians and the public. This deflected attention from other, more controversial, aspects of the study, not the least of which was his potentially volatile child “orgasm” data. Kinsey wrote to a close friend,
You ask about the percentage of our histories who were sex offenders and other low characters. I will tell you as a good friend exactly why we did not publish the exact figures of the constitution of our population. We anticipated that there would be a good many people like Terman, who would have their own ideas as to the exact percentage of barbers and college professors of one rank and another who should be included. We anticipated that we would spend the rest of our lives arguing exactly who should be accepted as a normal individual, and who should be ruled out as a low character. Psychologists of Terman’s generation [suggest] we confine ourselves to a good, normal, middle-class group.106
Again, had the public known that Kinsey, his team and his male population were sexually aberrant, the popular use of their data to change American law, education, culture, and public policy would likely have come to the proverbial screeching halt. As Jones noted during the 1998 Yorkshire documentary,
The Kinsey myth... the official version that Kinsey was prevailed upon by students to offer a sex education class [was] part of a larger [mythology] of the disinterested sci-entist, the person with no ax to grind, no vested interest, no desire to influence policy one way or the other, a kind of simple 19th century empiricist who is just collect-ing, assemblcollect-ing, and presenting data, a Victorian metric minded, morally neutral, totally dispassionate investigator who simply sees a hole in the literature... to just serve his students and science.107
Kinsey’s self-serving “low-class” population could hardly have been selected by chance. He knew that scientific privilege would not allow him to commit crimes or protect others who had done so.
I know perfectly well that some people would suggest that all persons who have ever been convicted and done jail sentence [sic] should be ruled out. By the same
token, one would have to rule out anyone who ever will Kinsey in prison, while interviewing “typical”
subjects for his 1948 Male volume. This photo-graph was not widely distributed.
do a jail sentence. For our part we have felt that a man who has lived sixty or seventy or eighty years without going to jail and then is arrested on a drunk charge after his wife has divorced him, or some other similar thing, is a normal individual, the same as a thirty year old who has not lived long enough to prove that he will never be caught by the law.108
Kinsey was understandably anxious to downplay the extent to which his “research” had been based on the experiences of deviants, prisoners, homosexuals in bars and baths, and child molesters. Much of Kinsey’s animosity was directed at critics within the scientific community.
Scientists, he claimed,
have proved as likely as anyone else to become emotionally disturbed at the very notion of research in the area of human sexual behavior in facing facts ...with anything like objectiv-ity. A prominent scientist, a leader in science at a great university, and ultimately an im-portant figure in scientific political organization in the national capital, began his review of our first volume by saying: “I do not like Kinsey, I do not like the Kinsey project, I do not like anything about the Kinsey study of sexual behavior.”109
The persons who have been most vociferous, both verbally and in their writing against our undertaking [ellipses in original] would include some who honestly believe that ignorance is safer than knowledge in this, and presumably many other areas. But the prime objectors have been persons who are most disturbed in their own sexual lives. This we know specifically because we have case histories on some of these individuals.110 [Emphasis added.]
Once again, as noted earlier, there was the veiled threat that he could, and perhaps would, reveal such information should a critic go too far.
There were so few scholarly critics of Kinsey at the time that when one raised his head (as did Gorer and Terman), this raised questions about the critic's own sexual life, whether justified or not.
Christenson quotes Kinsey, hinting at the “strain” of protecting the critic’s sex history:
We have guaranteed to keep confidence on each individual history which we have taken in this study, but it must be admitted that it has imposed a terrific strain upon us at times to know the sexual history of some of the persons who have been the bitterest opponents of our sex research, as they would be of any other sex research.111
Such was the mindset of the man widely credited with triggering a destructive “sexual revolution”
that has radically altered our nation’s morals, culture, and politics.
CHAPTER 2 NOTES
1. Jack Douglas, The Family in America, The Rockford Institute, Mount Morris, Illinois, May 1987, pp. 1-8.
2. James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, A Public/Private Life, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997, p. 390.
3. June Reinisch, The Kinsey Institute New Report On Sex: What You Must Know To Be Sexually Literate, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1991, Introduction, p. xvi.
4. Reinisch, p. xvi.
5. Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey and The Institute for Sex Research, Harper & Row, New York, 1972, p. 53.
6. Gerald Jonas, The Circuit Riders, W. W. Norton, New York, p. 135.
7. James H. Jones, The Origins of the Institute for Sex Research, UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973, pp. 96-99.
8. Jones, p. 98.
9. Pomeroy, p. 48.
10. Jones, p. 103, f. 43.
11. Jones, pp. 391-93.
12. James Jones, The New Yorker, “Annals of Sexology, Dr. Yes”, August 25 & September 1, 1997, pp. 103-104.
13. Pomeroy, p. 322.
14. George Platt Lynes, Photographs from the Kinsey Institute, Little, Brown and Company, Inc., Boston. 1993.
15. T. Jeal, Baden-Powell, Pimleco, London, 1995.
16. Pomeroy, p. 64.
25. Jones, p. 741 and Christenson pp. 154, 156 and 215.
26. San Francisco Examiner, February 25, 1931, p. 1.
27. Erwin Haeberle, The Birth of Sexology: A Brief History in Documents, Science and Research, Berlin, 1983, p. 25. The citation for this publication states: “Research for this project has been supported by The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduc-tion, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.”
28. Christopher Isherwood, Christopher and His Kind: 1929-1939, Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, New York, 1976.
29. Isherwood, pp. 17-19.
30. Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, Founder’s Publishers: Keizer, Oregon, 1995, p. 13.
See also Blueher in Richard Mills, The German Youth Movement, in Winston Leyland, Ed., Gay Roots: Twenty Years of Gay Sunshine:
An Anthology of Gay History, Sex, Politics, and Culture, Gay Sunshine Press: San Francisco, 1989.
31. Havelock Ellis was an early British sexologist whose own sexual life was seriously disordered. The tone of Kinsey’s books is akin to that of Ellis’ Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Parts I and II, first published in English in 1905 and republished often thereafter. Kinsey’s contempt for Ellis, according to Pomeroy, stemmed mainly from the latter’s timidity and the tendency to craft his sexual theory largely from correspondence (Pomeroy, p. 69). Ellis, whose use of mescaline (a hallucinogenic) may have contributed to his dysfunctions, argued for euthanasia. According to biographer Arthur Calder-Marshall in The Sage of Sex (Putnam’s, New York, 1959, (pp. 275, 88)), Ellis believed that all sexual conduct is normal if it does not result in physical harm, engaged in urinary “sex” acts, married a lesbian, and was one of Margaret Sanger’s lovers.
32. Douglas, p. 2.
33. Cornelia V. Christenson, Kinsey: A Biography, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1971, p. 97.
34. Warren Weaver to CIB, Subject: Kinsey, May 7, 1951, p. 7, The Rockefeller Archive Center.
35. Pomeroy, p. 156-157.
36. Christenson, pp. 96-97.
37. Christenson, p. 98.
38. Pomeroy, pp. 42-43.
39. Christenson, pp. 99, 100.
40. Jones, The Origins of the Institute for Sex Research, p. 106, f 70.
41. Jones, Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, pp. 514-515.
42. Jones, The Origins of the Institute for Sex Research, p. 109, f. 107.
43. Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, W. B. Saunders Co., 1948, Philadelphia, p. 10.
44. Jones, The Origins of the Institute for Sex Research, pp. 98-99.
45. Jones, p. 98.
46. Pomeroy, p. 58.
47. Pomeroy, p. 317.
48. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968, p. 389.
49. Sophie D. Aberle and George W. Corner, Twenty-Five Years of Sex Research, History of the National Research Council Committee for Research in Problems of Sex, 1922-1947, W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1953.
50. Aberle, p. 7
51. Aberle, pp. 4-7.
52. Male, p. 3.
53. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and their Influence, Covenant house Books, Sevierville, TN, 1958;1993, pp. 100-101.
54. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, A Public/Private Life, pp. 605-614, 669-684, 755.
55. Jones, p. 208.
56. Jones, p. 393.
57. Warren Weaver, Desk Diary, May 7, 1951, pp. 4-5, Rockefeller Archive Center.
58. Pomeroy, p. 101.
65. Indeed, IASHS students designed much of the sex education curricula for the nation as part of their training in human sexuality. See the IASHS curriculum schedule outlined in their annual brochures.
66. Pomeroy, pp. 9-10.
67. Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1953, p. 647
68. Pomeroy, pp. 236-237.
69. Pomeroy, p. 149.
70. Pomeroy, p. 235.
71. Pomeroy p. 235.
72. Pomeroy, p. 236.
73. George Mandler, Mind and Body, W.W. Norton, New York, 1984, p. 225.
74. Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, Sex, the Measure of All Things: A life of Alfred C. Kinsey, 1998, Chatto & Windus, London, p. 347.
75. Pomeroy, p. 106.
76. Pomeroy, p. 107.
77. Pomeroy, p. 461.
78. Mona Charen, “Unmasking Kinsey,” The Courier-Journal, October 20, 1997.
79. Pomeroy, pp. 107, 108.
85. Donald Porter Geddes, Ed., An Analysis of the Kinsey Reports, Mentor, New York, 1954, pp. 123-5.
86. Robert Cecil Johnson, Kinsey, Christianity, and Sex: A Critical Study of Reaction In American Christianity to the Kinsey Reports on Human Sexual Behavior, UMI Dissertations Services, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1973, pp. 12-13.
87. Author’s conversation with Wallis in Washington, D.C., September 1, 1997, following his review of the authors' methodology chapter addressing the male sample.
88. Paul Dilbert Brinkman, Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and the Press: Historical Case Study of the Relationship of the Mass Media and a Pioneer-ing Behavioral Scientist, UMI Dissertation Services, 1971. This laudatory Indiana University dissertation is similar to virtually all dissertations on Kinsey, with little or no critical evaluation. It is therefore important to compare what the author wrote to what he ignored; what he perceived to what he avoided. For example, Brinkman, when focusing on the mass media, overlooked Johnson's report regarding the placement of advertisements in major press avenues, and especially the claim that the media blitz began gearing-up three years prior to the instigation of Kinsey's research.
89. L. Allen, Editor, Harper's Magazine, February 2, 1946, Letter to George W. Gray, Rockefeller Archive Center, New York.
90. L. Allen, Editor, ibid.
91. Johnson, pp. 12-13.
92. Johnson, pp. 12-13.
93. Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research & Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, p. 29.
94. Simpson, pp. 20-22 and 29.
95. Simpson, pp. 22-23.
96. Simpson, pp. 28-30.
97. Johnathan Gathorne-Hardy, Alfred C. Kinsey: Sex the Measure of All Things, Chatto & Windus, London, 1998, p. 130.
98. Hardy, p. 144.
99. Hardy, pp. 130-131
100. Hardy, p. 330.
101. Hardy, p. 330.
102. Hardy, p. 341.
103. Hardy, p. 341
104. Pomeroy, p. 286.
105. Lewis Terman was a highly reputed Stanford psychologist and Geoffrey Gorer was a British cultural anthropologist.
106. Pomeroy, p. 286.
107. See other chapters in this book on prisoners and other "low" members of the sample.
108. Pomeroy, p. 292.
109. Pomeroy, p. 223
110. Pomeroy, p. 223
111. Christenson, p. 224.
KINSEY:
Crimes & Consequences
PART II: CRIMES
Publicity photo of Kinsey as scholar.