Since Kinsey is mentioned in the link cited, with his work concerning homosexuality and especially paedophilia taken as gospel often, I thought I might as well contribute this.
Many paedophiles will consistently use the Kinsey Reports as evidence for the universality of childhood sexuality, but his research seems quite flawed as to the samples used, not exactly randomly selected or by age, and the dubious methodology, that it would take a supreme optimist, or a paedophile, to see his work as being entirely without flaws. It is often the case that paedophiles will cite research studies as not being relevant because the data comes from either offender populations or might not be representative (Dr James Cantor's work springs to mind -
About Dr. James M. Cantor, psychologist and sex expert), but this is exactly what Kinsey did when obtaining some of his data. Some of the following might be concluded from Dr Sarah Goode’s second book,
Paedophiles in Society (2011) - recommended reading regarding paedophilia, as is her first book.
Kinsey seemed to have a view that fits well with many pedo-advocates - that children should be encouraged to have as early an acquaintance with their sexuality as possible hence his (and his team's) attitude, or lack of it, towards sexual abuse - all sex is good sex. He apparently never pushed the view that adult-child sexual contact could ever be harmful - another reason he is so in bed with paedophiles. This is hardly neutral or impartial science, since he seemed to already
have had an assumed position with regards to this issue. Apparently Kinsey thought that, in a more enlightened society, and no doubt helped along by an adult's manipulations, about half of children below about age four would experience orgasms. I doubt it. It might just sexualize them though. I’m sure most parents know this, but TV programmes such as
The Secret Life of Four, Five, Six-year-olds do tend to show how vulnerable children are at this age, and how little they actually know or can control. They really don’t need to be bothering with sexuality.
The Kinsey data for one aspect came from the reports of nine paedophiles apparently, or possibly just one man, or possibly from prison interviews, and perhaps from one convicted child sex abuser - but who knows, so how can it be trusted? Where was the science here? Of course, paedophiles are just as honest as everyone else, so just accept the evidence?
But anyone so described can hardly be called impartial or be disinterested with regards what occurred. The thought springs to mind that much of the data gathered is not useful when it appears (from his writing) that there might have been manipulation, coaching, or grooming in many cases involving very young children. How scientific is this - ignoring the abuse implications, as it would have been abuse just as it is now. He also seemed to have had little regard for the rights of the child as autonomous individuals, but those were different times. Many today still don't see children as having such inherent rights.
He also might have had a bias towards homosexuality, being bisexual himself, since the 10% figure for homosexuals in the population is possibly not accurate either, being much less, but probably higher than the number of paedophiles. If homosexuals did exist in such large numbers, then we would probably see much more evidence, which can be said possibly for paedophiles too. (Quite a few studies seem to imply that although the incidence of paedophilia in the adult population might be in the 1% to 2% region, many more (as much as 20% to 30% of adult males) do have sexual fantasies concerning very young children.) Being sexually aroused by certain stimuli does not necessarily equate to having a sexual attraction for the subject however, and certainly doesn’t indicate a sexual orientation. Concerning homosexual sexual orientation, I’m more inclined to believe the figure of 4% in the survey shown in the link, given that those younger will perhaps be unsure and still experimenting - and exclusivity being the appropriate measure.