you're reading...

Red Alert! HPB embraces and publishes Kinseyan’s fraud science

(Straight to Petition)

It has come to my notice that the Health Promotion Board has published a series of Q&A on the topic of homosexuality and titled it, “FAQs on Sexuality” on their website. Coming from an agency like HPB, many are going to assume that it will be a reliable source of truths and facts.

Unfortunately, HPB has not managed to provide strong, factually verifiable scientific information about homosexuality. Much of the information they are providing are “made-up”, non-clinical hypothesises, attempted explanations presented as facts and science – these misinformation are easily found on the internet, yet they are mostly based on theories that have been invented or very much influenced by the most dubious, most untrustworthy of characters, i.e. Alfred Kinsey.

Right from their first question, you could see Kinseyan theories’ influence in the answers. In fact, a direct reference was made on the Kinsey’s scale with a link to the infamous Kinsey Institute’s website (bold emphasis mine):

“What is homosexuality / bisexuality?

Homosexuality is the emotional, romantic and sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. ‘Gay’ is commonly used to describe men who are attracted to men, and ‘lesbian’ for women who are attracted to women. Bisexuality is the attraction to both sexes.

Many people think that homosexuality and heterosexuality are on opposite ends of the sexuality spectrum, with bisexuality in the middle. In reality, human sexuality is much more complex. For example, some guys might consider themselves as heterosexual but have homosexual attraction towards men. And bisexuals might fi­nd themselves attracted to guys and girls at different times. For more information, check out the Kinsey Scale1.

1The Kinsey Scale was fi­rst published in 1948 in Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male by Alfred Kinsey to defi­ne human sexuality. It uses “0” as exclusively heterosexual to “6” as exclusively homosexual and “1” to “5” as varying response of bisexual.

The Kinsey Scale is to be used with discretion. Most sexologists will explain that Kinsey Scale only covers sexual orientations but not biological sex and gender identities which are two other important aspects in human sexuality. The Kinsey scale also does not provide enough information as sexual orientations may evolve for some people through their lifetime.”

At first, I thought there was a glimmer of hope when they wrote that the Kinsey Scale is to be used with discretion. However, the proceeding explanation of why that advice was given is disappointing. Discretion for the Kinsey Scale is advised to highlight that sexual orientation is different from biological sex and gender identity – if you are scratching your head and wondering how does this even affect the common reader and why do they even bother to go into such details about an inconsequential information, I think you are in good company – with me at least. Maybe that detail there could present an image of some sort of expertise on the subject; or that at least they have put in a great deal of effort to do their research homework, wouldn’t it? Whatever the case, it is a common point that comes across on websites like Wikipedia if you would just google on “Kinsey Scale”.

Wiki - Kinsey ScaleSo, what exactly is wrong with Kinsey that I would advise such caution against him and any of his theories or theories that have possibly been influenced by him? Well, Alfred Kinsey has been discovered to be an unprincipled, underhanded, unscrupulous scientist who resorted to disreputable acts of deceit and indirect child sexual abuse so as to develop fraud statistics to influence the conservative American society of his day; to perhaps embrace the sexual proclivities that he secretly possessed.

He was a sadomasochist with a history of abusing his own sexual organs in bizarre and brutal ways. As Jones, Kinsey’s key biographer, tells it:

“On one occasion when his inner demons plunged him to new depths of despair, Kinsey climbed into a bathtub, unfolded the blade of his pocketknife, and circumcised himself without the benefit of anesthesia.”

Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, who published another Kinsey biography, said the scientist’s gruesome self-circumcision was part of his ongoing exploration of the relationship between pain and sexual pleasure.

Dr. Judith Reisman, consultant to three U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, world-renowned expert and scholar sought worldwide to lecture, testify and counsel regarding fraudulent sex science, in fact, suggests that Kinsey’s injuries sustained during his masochistic activities — problems such as “orchitis,” a swelling of the male genitalia — contributed significantly to his untimely death from a heart attack in 1956.

Oh my! If you find this mind blowing, I wouldn’t blame you. After all, Kinsey is considered by many to be the scientist who had gathered the most extensive data ever on sexual behaviours of not just men and women, but even young children! In fact, he claims to have based his statistics on apparently “scientifically irrefutable” evidence collated from thousands of anonymous interviews. Only then, this data has not been publicly scrutinized or questioned, until decades later, when Dr Judith challenged his dubious statistical findings (and hypothesises) which include (bracketed emphasis mine):

  • 10% of the population are homosexual for at least three years of their lives (you see this false claim continues to be perpetuated today, don’t you?)
  • 37% of men had at least one homosexual experience (really?)
  • 50% of married men engaged in adultery and 69% of all men visited prostitutes (even if it is so in America today, it definitely is not in 1948)
  • 95% men engaged in deviant sexual behaviour which potentially make them sexual criminals at that time – Kinsey states that the only difference between the average man and a sex offender is that the latter got caught
  • Rape is one of the most “forgettable” crimes against women. Kinsey compared negative reactions by young girls to sexual relations imposed by older men with “children’s dislike for spiders” (!!!???)
  • Children are sexual from birth; youngsters as young as few months have the capacity for a healthy sexual life. (!!!!!??????)

In fact, Kinsey has an infamous table 34, which literally detailed the children whom Kinsey had worked with – their ability to experience “healthy”, “enjoyable”, multiple orgasms; published on page 180 of his 1948 book, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male. It is shocking as you scroll down the list to see how Kinsey was able to detail things like how a 5month old baby was able to enjoy 3 orgasms, and how a 4 year old was able to enjoy 26 orgasms in the span of 24 hours!!!!!

Kinsey's Table 34 - Children's OrgasmsMoreover, Kinsey, on page 161 of his book, describes how he was able to judge that the child was indeed having an orgasm. This was what he wrote about their responses which he called “orgasms”:

“involves still more violent convulsions of the whole body … heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)…. Some males experience excruciating pain and may scream. The males in the present group … will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax.”

If you are shocked, good for you. You have yet to be fully influenced by Kinseyan’s libertinism theories. Warning: This and other like ideas are being spread in the world and inching into each of our minds today, including that of our children. Homosexuality promoters and paedophiles love to quote Kinsey, his statistics and his conclusions. And the idea that Kinsey is a great scientist is still being perpetuated today, no thanks to the “be politically correct” climate, Kinseyan influenced websites, the lack of discerning voices, and the fact that most sexologists (yes, exactly those relied upon by HPB), graduated from institutes founded on Kinsey’s libertinism and funded by Kinsey’s affiliates e.g. Hugh Hefner. Or the fact that director Bill Condon of Hollywood’s 2004 movie “Kinsey” deliberately ignored his criminal nature but portrayed him in a very likable light. I can imagine how many would have bought into Hollywood’s entertainment-oriented portrayal as realistic, accurate and factual.

Fact is, Kinsey’s works and findings have since been declared to be fraudulent:

  1. British documentary “Kinsey’s Paedophiles” depicted Kinsey’s co-workers confessing that Kinsey and company solicited, enthusiastically  supported and collaborated with criminal pedophiles.
  2. Kinsey’s co-author, Paul Gebhard, as former director of the Kinsey Institute, confesses their crime: “It was illegal and we knew it was illegal, but it’s very important to study childhood sexuality…”
  3. Gebhard also confirmed in a 1992 phone interview that several pedophiles timed what they called “child orgasms” with stop watches “at our suggestion.”
  4. Kinsey himself attributed the criminal data on the 317 children to at least 9 men on page 177 of his book: “…data on pre-adolescent climax come from the histories of adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys… 9 of our adult male subjects… observed such orgasm.”
  5. One of these “researchers” was the notorious pedophile “Mr. X,” later understood to be “Rex King.” King had had sex with over 800 children,.. and animals.” In a letter on Nov. 24, 1944, Kinsey told King to keep these child “orgasms” coming, and “I rejoice at everything you send, for I am then assured that much more of your material is saved for scientific publication.”
  6. Another of these “researchers” was German pedophile, Fritz von Balluseck, who in 1957, was convicted of the sexual murder of a 10 year old and of abusing children between 9 and 14 years old over a period of 30 years. During Balluseck’s trial, the authorities found letters from Kinsey thanking Balluseck for his reports on child rape, encouraging him to continue his “research” and warning him to “watch out” and avoid being caught by the law.
  7. British Medical Journal, the Lancet, wrote that Kinsey “questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior.”
  8. The 1999 Intercollegiate Review ranked Kinsey’s book as the “third worst book of the century..”
  9. Human Events listed Kinsey’s Human Male book as “the fourth most harmful book of the19th and 20th centuries
  10. In April 2004, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization of 2,400 state legislators, issued a “State Factor” report titled: “Restoring Legal Protections for Women and Children: A Historical Analysis of The States’ Criminal Codes.” The No. 1 focus of this in-depth report was the fraudulent “junk science” of Alfred Kinsey.

It is extremely disappointing that HPB would actually use Kinsey’s fraud data and ideas as a standard and even quote them as a source of scientific reference. With this as their starting note, you can imagine how the rest of the answers would be filled with biased, one-sided data.

If this is the way MOH or the medical health care industry is going, Singaporeans will sooner or later buy into HPB’s Kinseyan theories. Forget about debating 377A objectively or the fact that sodomy is still illegal here under the law. We would have a whole new generation in no time. I can imagine one day in the not too far future, children would come home from school and say things like, “my male teacher is touching the boys in the class as a form of sexual affection – most of us thought that’s really some cool experimentation learning. In fact, why didn’t he touch me?” Not possible? The bearing set by the health care industry is generally accepted as the unquestionable scientific standard – and it will flow into the rest of the government, school standards, household beliefs, cultural norms. This is why what HPB has done is thoroughly unacceptable. It is a low blow and it cannot be simply unquestioned or passed by agreeably.

I also imagine when Kinsey, the great “zoologist turned sex scientist” presented his shocking statistics to an unprepared, trusting American public in 1948; just as shockingly – no one questioned the dubious statistics! By the time Dr Judith came in, America’s sexual revolution is already in full swing. Kinsey’s libertinism worldview has deeply and irreversibly impacted every sector of the society including law, psychiatry, medicine, education, “sexology”, social science etc. This same history is threatening to repeat itself in Singapore now. How will Singapore’s learned adults, trusted educators, concerned parents and esteemed children – the future of Singapore, respond? Will we… will we… repeat America’s mistake?

Homosexuality is a sensitive topic and the only way to constructively move the homosexuality debate forward is by verifiable truth based on science. For a public service provider like HPB to decide to provide a FAQ, yet only present unverifiable, pro-homosexuality, one-sided answers to the questions they post, is not just an irresponsible act, but also a misuse of their public service position, platform and a blatant betrayal of public trust.


If you like to join me in petitioning MOH and Minister Gan Kim Yong to do a thorough, non-biased, objective review of the HPB webpage, do sign your name on this private (your names and particulars will not be publicly shown online – you do not have to bother checking the “Signature Display” box to appear anonymous thoroughly understand the sensitivity involved) petition. The only particulars you need to provide is your name, email address and postal code. Our particulars may be presented at an appropriate time fully decided by this author, to Minister Gan Kim Yong, if no action is taken by HPB, MOH or the Minister himself. 


Petition Preamble:

I find the Sexuality FAQ presented on Health Promotion Board’s website – http://www.hpb.gov.sg/HOPPortal/health-article/HPB056342 – questionable and objectionable. It has an implicit pro-homosexuality stance which we believe is detrimental to our society. Health Promotion Board is a trusted public service provider and for them to present unverifiable, pro-homosexuality, one-sided answers to the questions they post is not just an irresponsible act, but also a misuse of their public service position, platform and a blatant betrayal of public trust. We note that even the High Court has upheld 377A as constitutional for a second time (http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/high-court-again-upholds-law-against-sex-between-gays) and the Judge had said that the issue of whether homosexuals are born or made is “at least arguable and debatable”. We regret to read of HPB’s committed stand with statements like “sexual orientation has no bearing on mental health or emotional stability.” We understand that homosexuality is a sensitive, complicated subject so scientifically verifiable facts and statistics must be sought to move the debate forward constructively. Following public moods, popular trends or making unsubstantiated statements will not help to bring clarity on the issue at all, nullifying the very purpose of the FAQ itself.


We urge Minister Gan Kim Yong to conduct a thorough, non-biased, comprehensive review of the website’s information as it dangerously promotes homosexuality. The elected government of Singapore owns us citizens the responsibility to do a thorough comprehensive research before they should take such a committed stand as taken by the Health Promotion Board.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: