“The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: It’s a girl.”
By Alex P. Vidal
NEW YORK CITY — I became interested on Dr. Alfred Charles Kinsey and Dr. S.I. McMillen after reading McMillen’s book which he wrote “as a result of a thousand sighs for the many people who left my office without receiving adequate help.”
Kinsey was already dead for seven years when S.I. McMillen’s book, None Of These Diseases, was published in 1963; thus, he was not around to defend himself when McMillen devoted chapter 7 to crush and expose Kinsey’s numerous “faults” in the Kinsey Reports, two books on human sexual behavior: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).
McMillen, a graduate of University of Pennsylvania Medical School and the London School of Tropical Medicine, pointed out: “I have written the prescription that I would have given these patients if only I had the time. I hasten to add the counsel is not original with me. When God led the Israelites out of afflicted Egypt, He promised them thay if they would obey His statutes, He would put ‘none of these diseases’ upon them.”
McMillen recalled the story of the pied piper of Hamelin who enticed the younger set to follow the enchanting, irresistible music of his flute. He led the children into a cave in a mountain, and they were never seen again.
Each generation produces a swarm of pied pipers, he proceeded. In the middle of this century one of them swung down the main streets of America, playing the catchy tune of “sex freedom.” He sprightly, jazzy jingles promised emancipation from the “traditions” and “horrible confinement of religious inhibitions.” There were many who left their homes and loved ones to race down the street after this alluring music. The piper had neither flute nor the waving hips of a rock-and-roll singer. He was a zoologist who gathered certain statistics on the theme of sex, and he shook them and beat upon them like a tambourine.
First, let us look at the statistics he gathered. He and his associates had interviewed 5,940 women, questioning them about the intimate details of their past and present sexual lives. From these reports, our piper figured the percentages of the women engaged in this and that sexual perversion, the percentages of those who had had premarital experiences, and the percentages of those who were guilty of extramarital affairs. From these percentages he drew certain conclusions.
Authorities and specialists have taken exception to this report and to the conclusions that Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey made. In the first place, Kinsey interviewed only one out of every fourteen thousan women in the country. Second, these women were certainly not typical of the average American woman, because in this abnormal sampling the ratio of single women to married women was three times greater than that found in the country at large, and the ratio of college women to noncollege women was ten times greater. Third, the only women in the group were women who had volunteered to lay bare the details of their intimate sexual lives. Such women are rare in more ways than one. Women who would volunteer to reveal sexual secrets would be women who had, probably as a result of their sexual experiences, lost an inborn female reticence. Many of these women stated that they enjoyed being bitten during the sex act, and that trait certainly marks them as being abnormal. It is a neurotic mind that can translate pain into pleasure.
Kinsey’s sampling was loaded with typical and masochistic women. It was the sexual image of this group of women–who were strangely devoid of the natural inhibitions of women–that was superimposed on all other women.
There are number of other faults in the Kinsey report. First, it is inferred that if the “average woman” is engaged in an act, then that act is advisable. There is a gulf as wide as the Grand Canyon between that which is advisable and that which is average. The average Hindu drinks filthy water on his pilgrimages, but it is certainly not advisable, since the Hindus die of cholera by the thousands. The faulty implication in the Kinsey report is that it is advisable for women to adjust to that which is average, even to a badly distorted average.
Second, having classified a woman and a hog in the same zoological category, Kinsey could see no reason a woman’s sexual life should not be patterned after that of a hog. A hog has no horrible inhibitions about sex; why should a woman?
Many people thought the reasoning seemed plausible, smacking as it did of science. After all, they asked themselves, had not “certain skilled psychiatrists” told Kinsey that restraints were bad for the mind? Now, if men and women mingled freely in the pen of promiscuity, the ultimate in living could be achieved. There would be no restraints and no frustrations. Here at last was the panacea that could cure all their longings. People could disregard the Biblical warnings against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions. They could follow the piper of promiscuity into a Utopia where nary a restriction would be placed on sexual impulses, however wild and bizarre they might be.
This zoologist deplored the fact that the “oudated laws” of the moral code were a great hindrance to the operation of his ideas. But modern pipers feel that these laws will soon be changed. Until they are, they suggest that their followers seek “to avoid open conflict with the law.” I suppose rape of little girls and defenseless women should not be attempted if there were the probability of conflict with the law.
It is not a little strange that a zoologist, a specialist in animals, should set himself up as an authority on the sex life of women? Dealing with the purely animal aspects of the matter, he fails completely to realize the deeply human relationships involved.
What do medical specialists think about putting women and hogs in the same sexual category? Two specialists, a gynecologist and a psychiatrist, resented this bull-in-the-china-shop intrusion so strongly that they wrote a book to refute Kinsey’s erroneous statements.
Kinsey assured his followers that the spread of venereal diseases through premarital intercourse is “a relatively unimportant matter today.” This salesman of promiscuity is at variance with the U.S. Public Health Service which recently reported: “We estimate the reservoir of untreated syphilitics today at 1,200,000 cases and that the true annual incidence is 60,000 cases.” It has been further estimated that the annual number of new cases of gonorhea in this country is 1,000,000 cases.”
Kinsey is far removed from the best medical opinions when he makes repeated inferences that girls who engage in premarital petting have more successful marriages than those who do not. Medical specialists, who deal with people rather than animals, refute his deduction: Such advice is scientifically wrong. There is no premium for premarital petting to orgasm. There are no penalties for not indulging in this manner. Experience proves that neurotic girls are the most persistent petters and that emotionally healthy girls usually reject sex without love. Successful marriage and sexual adjustment are based more on gradually established confidence, liking and mutual respect than on any premarital trial and error sexual process.
The real enemies of man’s sexual happiness are those who would entice him away from his home, his family, and the Biblical standards. Few people have ever stopped to realize that the blessings of sex and civilization that we enjoy exist because a large proportion of people take heed of the words of Jesus: “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”
People who take this Scriptural standard as their model will save themselves from many diseases and a thousand heartaches.