Alfred Kinsey: “These people often have a revolutionary approach to sex, they are interested in psychology and they are able to bring new practices and methods into it.” (Uranus in Scorpio). I’m not going to do Kinsey’s natal chart, but I leave that there to once again demonstrate that astrology works—and, further, in a cry that may become my “Carthago delenda est” to remind you that astrological eugenics is the future and will be the salvation of mankind (it’s the only way out of our fallen state).
So Kinsey said that 37% of American men (possibly red-blooded) have had a homosexual experience, then there were 10% who were homosexual for three years or under, and then there were 4% who were homosexual throughout their lives. This is what really caused controversy in the Kinsey Report. For a long time, conservatives, of the wholesome “Christian family values” variety, have tried to disprove Kinsey’s findings by disputing his statistics and samples. The problem is that his assistant corrected his ropey statistics in the 1970s—and the results came back the same (about 36.7% had a homosexual experience).
The contention was that Kinsey used samples from prisons, from the kind of people who hang out in Times Square (the Beats, in fact—Herbert Huncke and the like), and from unsavoury types in general—and this distorted his figures (turning tricks with his figures). But it wasn’t the case, he corrected for all that or kept the data from those groups segregated (although it is true that Kinsey had a particular interest in sex perversions and went out of his way to find these groups).
To me, these attacks seem foolish—but perhaps it’s because we live in a scientific society, in the reign of quantity, so the inclination is to “attack the data”. Yet here’s another point: what does “experience” mean? Well, in my mind a homosexual experience would be: a. same-sex anal sex; b. oral sex with a member of the same sex; c. to kiss the same sex and experience sexual arousal while you do so. What does Kinsey mean by “experience”—well, according to the “Kinsey scale” (of sexuality), if you look at a man and think “he’s handsome” and you’re a man that is a “homosexual experience”.
Case closed—because if you look at the statue of David and think “looks handsome” you’re “doing the gay”, as far as Kinsey is concerned. To me, this is just ridiculous—you can look at a man and understand he’s beautiful or handsome without any sexual arousal. If you look at a man and think he’s handsome and you get an erection—okay, homosexual experience it is. Yet the criteria Kinsey uses is so loose that almost anything can be a homosexual experience.
It relates to the fact Kinsey hated the word “love”—he wanted sex to be a purely biological event. Kinsey hated French because the language had no word for “sex” or “fuck”—rather the French words are faire l’amour (to make love) and faire la cour à (to court, to woo). Well, French is the language of lurv, if not Louvre, after all. The French also have baiser (which means “to kiss” but is taken as “to fuck”) and also rapports sexuels (sexual relations)—but the latter is technical, and the former is again metaphorical or euphemistic; indeed, ordinary language French lacks what Kinsey wanted—a prosaic term for sex.
Kinsey hated the word “love” because he took an entirely non-metaphysical view as regards sexuality—he started his life in the study of gall wasps and he applied the same insectoid approach to sexual relations. This explains why, on his scale, “to admire the statue of David” or to say “he is a handsome man” makes you a raging queer.
It’s because there’s no metaphysical aspect to Kinsey, there’s no idea that you can appreciate aesthetic beauty in either sex without there being an erotic element to the appreciation. In short, there’s nothing Platonic in Kinsey—hence anodyne emotions or observations are always interpreted as sexual. And that’s the flaw in his research, not the statistics.
He was a tendentious researcher in a controversial area, anyway—I mean people reliably lie about two things, sex and money (well, I don’t—but it can cause controversy, believe me), and so it’s very difficult to find the truth on a sex survey.
Kinsey was himself homosexual. He was described as “bisexual”, but ask any gay man if there’s any such thing and they’ll laugh at you—it’s well known among homosexuals that “bi” is just a polite transition phase so as not to upset your mum too much (it gets dropped eventually). Hence Kinsey was just a standard homosexual of his era, who happened to have a family (as was usual for homosexuals then)—in other words, he had an axe to grind.
And grind it he did. You have to remember that his research was all surveys—the people who took the surveys had to be trained, trained to elicit sensitive information, and they were trained in particular ways. The result is that you can get pretty much what you want from these things.
The British sex researcher Gorer, writing in the 1970s, found that 46% of British men were virgins at marriage and 88% of British women—Britain was a chaste society, he concluded. As for homosexuality, he found one 38-year-old welder who replied, “Yes, that’s my business.” So the effective rate for homosexuality in Britain, circa 1971, was 0%.
Kinsey was right about some points—he managed to disprove much Freudian cant, to demolish what was yet another Jewish religion, like Marxism and Christianity, with empirical investigation. However, his overall approach was completely biased—like a lot of homosexuals, he was convinced that all men are secretly homosexual if they can be prised free from “the cunts”. But he was wrong, and it’s his whole anti-metaphysical approach that’s wrong, not his execution of the scientific method.