The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

More on Sex and ‘Science’

Posted on | July 14, 2010 | 24 Comments

Judith Reisman is about to publish Sexual Sabotage, her latest and most comprehensive book on Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent research, which came to mind when I saw this Time magazine article:

Women ages 27 through 45 report not only having more sexual fantasies (and more intense sexual fantasies) than women ages 18 through 26 but also having more sex, period. And they are more willing than younger women to have casual sex, even one-night stands. In other words, despite the girls-gone-wild image of promiscuous college women, it is women in their middle years who are America’s most sexually industrious. . . .
[University of Texas psychology professor David] Buss and his students say evolution has encouraged women to be more sexually active as their fertility begins to decline and as menopause approaches. . . .
To test this theory, Buss and his students asked 827 women to complete questionnaires about their sexual habits.

Three words: Self-reported data. And two more words: Volunteer bias.

These were the basic errors of Kinsey’s research: Assuming that people can be relied on to accurately report their own sexual activities, and further assuming that there is no significant difference between people who agree to participate in such a survey and people who refuse to participate.

Inevitably, then, such a research methodology produces unverified data from a sample that is not random and cannot be presumed to be representative of the general population.

Of course, as Reisman has documented, Kinsey’s work went beyond these mere methodological errors into outright abuse (including coercive interrogation of students) and fraud. Kinsey included data survey derived from prisoners, among them sex offenders and prostitutes, that was included in a study purporting to present “normal” sexual behavior. Furthermore, as Reisman points out, the overwhelming majority of Kinsey’s male surveys were conducted among civilians during World War II, at a time when most healthy young men were serving in the military, so that the sample could not possibly have been representative.

What’s interesting is that Kinsey’s basic statistical errors (though not his more egregiously fraudulent methods) were identified and reported in leading social-science journals shortly after after publication of his reports — and no one in the major media seemed to care.

As Reisman has also documented, Kinsey’s work was promoted by a carefully orchestrated publicity campaign — a campaign funded, as was his “research,” by David Rockefeller’s foundations. Major media (notably including Time magazine) eagerly cooperated in this publicity effort, and Kinsey’s scientific critics were almost entirely ignored.  Reisman has persistently led the effort to expose Kinsey’s fraud, but she has similarly been ignored by most journalists, who seem unwilling to reevaluate the methods and motives of Kinseyan sexual research.

So while I’m perfectly willing to believe that women in their 40s are super-hot — hey, my wife is 46 — I am skeptical of the basic validity of the University of Texas research cited by Time. I’m especially skeptical of the claim that such data can be usefully employed as a basis for Darwinian theorizing about women’s sexual nature, ignoring every other possible influence on the reported findings and asserting that one has scientifically isolated an evolutionary genetic factor.

Needless to say, Andrew Sullivan’s colleague Chris Bodener is enthusiastically credulous. Some people would swallow a porcupine if you told them it was “science.”

To what purpose will this sort of science be employed, if not as a sort of “Darwin made me do it” excuse? How many would-be Mary Kay LeTourneaus and  Debra LaFaves will now claim that they are genetically programmed to jump the bones of jailbait boys? Are we prepared for genuinely degenerate consquences?

A Waterford mother will spend at least nine years in prison for having sex with the 14-year-old son she gave up for adoption when he was a few days old.
Aimee L. Sword, 36, apologized for her actions at her sentencing Monday in Oakland County Circuit Court, said her attorney Mitchell Ribitwer. . . .
“When she saw this boy, something just touched off in her — and it wasn’t a mother-son relationship, it was a boyfriend girlfriend relationship,” said Ribitwer, who added that Sword said she was sexually and physically abused as a child. . . .

If God doesn’t destroy America, Sodom and Gomorrah deserve an apology.

Category: Science, Sex

Comments

24 Responses to “More on Sex and ‘Science’”

  1. republicanmother
    July 14th, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

    I was going to mention Kinsey in the comments of your last sex/science post, but so glad you fleshed it out here.
    I’m currently doing a little personal research on the Rockefellers and their foundation’s grants to “studies” such as these. I’m finding that when you trace these foundation’s grants they go support bogus research that undermines- well, everything Americans hold dear whether it be family, sovereignty, property rights, etc.

    The Reece Committee of 1953 was established to investigate this phenomenon of tax-exempt foundations influencing legislation. The commission faced a lot of opposition by certain Democrats.

    A comprehensive article on Reece committee:
    http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/reece_committee.htm

    I’m thinking a lot of what is wrong with our country was artificially planned and created.

  2. republicanmother
    July 14th, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

    I was going to mention Kinsey in the comments of your last sex/science post, but so glad you fleshed it out here.
    I’m currently doing a little personal research on the Rockefellers and their foundation’s grants to “studies” such as these. I’m finding that when you trace these foundation’s grants they go support bogus research that undermines- well, everything Americans hold dear whether it be family, sovereignty, property rights, etc.

    The Reece Committee of 1953 was established to investigate this phenomenon of tax-exempt foundations influencing legislation. The commission faced a lot of opposition by certain Democrats.

    A comprehensive article on Reece committee:
    http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/reece_committee.htm

    I’m thinking a lot of what is wrong with our country was artificially planned and created.

  3. Cindy
    July 14th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

    Well, I like that phrase “sexually industrious”. Um, no. These women are sexually destructive. Industrious is a healthy sex life that, you know, *produces* something. Like babies and strong marriages. But what do I know? I wouldn’t be caught dead answering one of these questionnaires, so people like me don’t really even exist.

  4. Cindy
    July 14th, 2010 @ 1:30 pm

    Well, I like that phrase “sexually industrious”. Um, no. These women are sexually destructive. Industrious is a healthy sex life that, you know, *produces* something. Like babies and strong marriages. But what do I know? I wouldn’t be caught dead answering one of these questionnaires, so people like me don’t really even exist.

  5. Robert Stacy McCain
    July 14th, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

    The Reece Committee of 1953 was established to investigate this phenomenon of tax-exempt foundations influencing legislation. The commission faced a lot of opposition by certain Democrats.

    And certain Republicans, too. Carroll Reece’s inquiry was shut down by the same establishment forces that destroyed Joe McCarthy. Very few people realize the extent to which the big foundations were the driving financial force of 20th-century liberalism.

    One of the reasons the John Birch Society and other opponents of liberalism resorted to conspiracy theories was that they could find no other way to explain the seemingly unanimous “consensus” of the elites in government, journalism and academia. But when you examine the grant-making practices of the major foundations from the 1920s onward — what they funded and what they didn’t fund — you see how that elite consensus was created. A relatively small number of like-minded individuals in key positions at these foundations were able to manipulate many others who weren’t conscious that they were being manipulated.

    The fact that Alger Hiss, after leaving the State Department, became president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is highly significant in this regard.

  6. Robert Stacy McCain
    July 14th, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

    The Reece Committee of 1953 was established to investigate this phenomenon of tax-exempt foundations influencing legislation. The commission faced a lot of opposition by certain Democrats.

    And certain Republicans, too. Carroll Reece’s inquiry was shut down by the same establishment forces that destroyed Joe McCarthy. Very few people realize the extent to which the big foundations were the driving financial force of 20th-century liberalism.

    One of the reasons the John Birch Society and other opponents of liberalism resorted to conspiracy theories was that they could find no other way to explain the seemingly unanimous “consensus” of the elites in government, journalism and academia. But when you examine the grant-making practices of the major foundations from the 1920s onward — what they funded and what they didn’t fund — you see how that elite consensus was created. A relatively small number of like-minded individuals in key positions at these foundations were able to manipulate many others who weren’t conscious that they were being manipulated.

    The fact that Alger Hiss, after leaving the State Department, became president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is highly significant in this regard.

  7. Andrew Sullivan
    July 14th, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

    Kinsey’s studies were done to help him out of that restrictive closet he was in. He needed a study to show that being attracted to the same sex is a good thing. Which of course it is!

    Now we just need a little weed, wine and mood music.

  8. Andrew Sullivan
    July 14th, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

    Kinsey’s studies were done to help him out of that restrictive closet he was in. He needed a study to show that being attracted to the same sex is a good thing. Which of course it is!

    Now we just need a little weed, wine and mood music.

  9. Andrew Sullivan
    July 14th, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

    Sassy Gay Friend meets The Giving Tree.

    I could be Levi’s sassy gay friend, but he blew it. Big time. And not in a good way.

  10. Andrew Sullivan
    July 14th, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

    Sassy Gay Friend meets The Giving Tree.

    I could be Levi’s sassy gay friend, but he blew it. Big time. And not in a good way.

  11. republicanmother
    July 14th, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

    Alger Hiss was also a charter member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group which nearly presidential candidate with the exception of Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan belonged to. George W officially doesn’t belong, but his dad did.

    I’m working on a project to trace the grants back on some of these issues. If for no other reason, to help me cope with all these shenanigans.

  12. republicanmother
    July 14th, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

    Alger Hiss was also a charter member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group which nearly presidential candidate with the exception of Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan belonged to. George W officially doesn’t belong, but his dad did.

    I’m working on a project to trace the grants back on some of these issues. If for no other reason, to help me cope with all these shenanigans.

  13. Bob Belvedere
    July 14th, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

    Your point Stacy is spot-on.

    What those people were like-minded about was the type of Progressivism that infected the elites of the first half of the 20th Century. This included the belief in the sterilization of those with low IQ’s [not simply the retarded], and eugenics. When these beliefs started to become unpopular, these folks went silent, and many retreated to the foundations where they funded nihilistic perverts like Kinsley.

    [Alger Hiss committed straight-out treason, but also moral treason.]

  14. Bob Belvedere
    July 14th, 2010 @ 4:46 pm

    Your point Stacy is spot-on.

    What those people were like-minded about was the type of Progressivism that infected the elites of the first half of the 20th Century. This included the belief in the sterilization of those with low IQ’s [not simply the retarded], and eugenics. When these beliefs started to become unpopular, these folks went silent, and many retreated to the foundations where they funded nihilistic perverts like Kinsley.

    [Alger Hiss committed straight-out treason, but also moral treason.]

  15. republicanmother
    July 14th, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

    Check out http://www.maafa21.com/ .
    There’s a great podcast interview there about the sterilization initiative of the Eugenics movement and the connection to Hitler.
    The elites of the first half of the 20th century were organized by these foundations, many of which were founded then. You also see that they had spin offs after WW2, which funded out-there stuff like Kinsley.

    “Plans are underway to replace community, family, and church with propaganda, education, and mass media….the State shakes loose from Church, reaches out to School…. People are only little plastic lumps of human dough.”

    –Edward A. Ross, Social Control

    University of Wisconsin sociologist

  16. republicanmother
    July 14th, 2010 @ 5:14 pm

    Check out http://www.maafa21.com/ .
    There’s a great podcast interview there about the sterilization initiative of the Eugenics movement and the connection to Hitler.
    The elites of the first half of the 20th century were organized by these foundations, many of which were founded then. You also see that they had spin offs after WW2, which funded out-there stuff like Kinsley.

    “Plans are underway to replace community, family, and church with propaganda, education, and mass media….the State shakes loose from Church, reaches out to School…. People are only little plastic lumps of human dough.”

    –Edward A. Ross, Social Control

    University of Wisconsin sociologist

  17. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 14th, 2010 @ 9:45 pm

    Not only do chaste women rarely complete these surveys (or sign up for them!), the surveys themselves can be horribly biased. There’s almost no room in them to articulate that you believe in waiting for marriage, that you voluntarily turn down sex, but no, you’re not frigid and don’t have issues.

    What I first read the conclusions of this study, I thought “Of course; women over the age of 26 are much, much more likely to be married”. Median age for first-time marriage is around 27 for women, so it makes perfect sense that older women would have more sex.

    Furthermore, let’s talk about 30-something and 40-something women who are single and sexually active: they are either self-aware in ways that 19-year-old girls aren’t (so having sex after a few dates, while still morally problematic, is not the epic disaster that it is at age 19), or can’t find anyone to marry because they act like whores.

    A far better idea would be to take a longitudinal study and examine the same women over time. My guess is that the ones having casual sex at age 20 are still having it at age 40 (in or outside of matrimony), and chaste college students tend to have more sex later, once they’ve found husbands.

  18. Roxeanne de Luca
    July 14th, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

    Not only do chaste women rarely complete these surveys (or sign up for them!), the surveys themselves can be horribly biased. There’s almost no room in them to articulate that you believe in waiting for marriage, that you voluntarily turn down sex, but no, you’re not frigid and don’t have issues.

    What I first read the conclusions of this study, I thought “Of course; women over the age of 26 are much, much more likely to be married”. Median age for first-time marriage is around 27 for women, so it makes perfect sense that older women would have more sex.

    Furthermore, let’s talk about 30-something and 40-something women who are single and sexually active: they are either self-aware in ways that 19-year-old girls aren’t (so having sex after a few dates, while still morally problematic, is not the epic disaster that it is at age 19), or can’t find anyone to marry because they act like whores.

    A far better idea would be to take a longitudinal study and examine the same women over time. My guess is that the ones having casual sex at age 20 are still having it at age 40 (in or outside of matrimony), and chaste college students tend to have more sex later, once they’ve found husbands.

  19. Mark In Irvine
    July 15th, 2010 @ 12:24 am

    This piece contains and makes so many generalizations, and yet it provides so little (no) verifiable support for any of them. Rather than complain about surveys that you contend are biased, why don’t you actually participate in them so that their results are more accurate? How do you expect to have accurate information about this subject if you are unwilling to contribute to their accuracy?

  20. Mark In Irvine
    July 14th, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

    This piece contains and makes so many generalizations, and yet it provides so little (no) verifiable support for any of them. Rather than complain about surveys that you contend are biased, why don’t you actually participate in them so that their results are more accurate? How do you expect to have accurate information about this subject if you are unwilling to contribute to their accuracy?

  21. Horatio
    July 15th, 2010 @ 12:29 am

    If God doesn’t destroy America, Sodom and Gomorrah deserve an apology.

    Dude – for what purpose to you think God raised up Obama?

  22. Horatio
    July 14th, 2010 @ 8:29 pm

    If God doesn’t destroy America, Sodom and Gomorrah deserve an apology.

    Dude – for what purpose to you think God raised up Obama?

  23. Alan K. Henderson
    July 15th, 2010 @ 9:58 am

    So, “Desperate Housewives” is really a documentary?

    But seriously folks…

    I read Reisman’s Kinsey, Sex and Fraud when it came out. It truly amazes me how Kinsey could get taken seriously by so many people, considering his claim that children can achieve orgasm as early as infancy. (See Male and Female Report chapters on childhood sexuality.)

  24. Alan K. Henderson
    July 15th, 2010 @ 5:58 am

    So, “Desperate Housewives” is really a documentary?

    But seriously folks…

    I read Reisman’s Kinsey, Sex and Fraud when it came out. It truly amazes me how Kinsey could get taken seriously by so many people, considering his claim that children can achieve orgasm as early as infancy. (See Male and Female Report chapters on childhood sexuality.)