Kinsey: Who is the Real Fraud?

Jonathan Rowe on Jul 27th 2005

Check out this post by our own Ed Brayton about Judith Reisman and her latest hair-brained idea.

Reisman, if you do not know, is probably the most vocal critic of Alfred Kinsey. It’s a mantra among many religious conservatives that Kinsey’s studies are flawed, if not complete junk. I’m completely open minded to fair criticisms of Kinsey (for instance, I don’t think that a full 10% of society are gay; though I’m not sure if Kinsey claimed that either).

But when you look at most (nearly all?) criticisms of Kinsey from social and religious conservatives, they inevitably seem to rely on Reisman’s work as a primary source. The problem is that her work is inherently incredible. She’s a complete wacko and a crank. Whatever the problems with Kinsey’s work, I guarantee you the problems with her work are far worse. Criticizing Kinsey by relying on Reisman’s work…it reminds me of what Jesus said about being concerned with the mote in your neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log in your own.

So how bad is Reisman’s work? Check out this link that Aaron left in the comments section at Dispatches.

Filed in The Basement, The Boudoir

3 Responses to “Kinsey: Who is the Real Fraud?”

  1. # Positive Liberty » Blog Archive » Article on Paul Cameron:on 31 Jul 2005 at 1:14 pm

    [...] It boggles the mind. Cite Kinsey and many religious conservatives will shriek about the problems with his work, but then they will suggest replacing Kinsey’s work with the “research” of Paul Cameron and Judith Reisman. As I have said, this reminds me of what Jesus said about being concerned with the mote in your neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log in your own! [...]

  2. # Joshon 27 May 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Bloomington, IN: History professor James Jones is not welcome at the Kinsey Institute. Its director, John Bancroft said that “it’s fair to say that we’re pretty annoyed with Jones” because Jones’ biography revealed that Kinsey had had gay affairs with students and “blurred the perception of Kinsey as an impartial scientist.” (Washington Blade, 3/14/03)

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=88

  3. # Jason Kuznickion 28 May 2007 at 7:09 am

    Oh look, a link from the Family Research Institute. Why, they’re a true bastion of scientific objectivity.

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

    At the very worst this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Trackback URI |