1 Of course, Kinsey being dead puts him at something of a disadvantage when replying to critics. It is clear from reading her book (the things I do for work) that Reisman's problem is with sex research, period, full stop. One just shouldn't do it. From a New Yorker article: “One doesn’t measure American sexual habits,” (Reisman) said. “That’s not a science.” So, I think we can conclude that her problem isn't so much Kinsey as anyone talking about sex. She also makes some astonishing claims, such as that gays were not persecuted in Nazi Germany (based on the fact that Ernst Rolm was gay). She states, categorically, that gays recruit with the tenacity of the Marine Corps. She repeats charges that Kinsey asked for pedophiles to molest children, a charge that has never been substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. And as far as Kinsey somehow enabling pedophilia, I would be curious to see if any child molester in the history of the United States has successfully avoided prosecution based on a defense with roots in the Kinsey Report. Kinsey's research is a legitimate subject of criticism, as any scientific research is. But given the rather scattershot nature of the criticisms, it appears that the real issue here is a desire to put the sexual genie back in the bottle, rather than any of Kinsey's conclusions per se. Sorry, but time only flows one direction.

2 Interesting. I'll have to read some of the back-and-forth before I can reach a fully formed conclusion. But if we do throw any of his research out, we'll still have to keep the Kinsey scale.