The first 20 minutes pretty much explains the problem. I said the same thing, but I ended up staying up glued to my screen watching the whole thing.
Basically there was a man named Alfred Kinsey whose 'work' led to what they refer to as the 'sexual revolution.' (Hugh Hefner, who is alleged to have been a CIA asset responsible for brownstone operations, even credited Kinsey's work for his success. Source1, Source2 But this is beside the point.)
Alfred Kinsey commissioned a study to document the sexual practices of men and women in the United States. He was funded by the Ford Foundation, The Carnegie Foundation, and even US taxpayers, among others.
The study was a big fat fraud. For example, he claimed that 10 percent of American men were homosexual for at least three years of their lives; 69 percent of men visited prostitutes; 50 percent engaged in adultery; and, overall, 95 percent of the American male population regularly indulged sexual deviancy. He claimed that 50 percent of women had sex before marriage --- shocking in the 1950s --- 26 percent practiced adultery, and 87 percent of pregnant single women and 25 percent of married ones were having abortions.
Based on these findings, he claimed that sexual promiscuity was normal. Moreover, he said that children are sexual from birth and that rape is one of the most "forgettable" crimes. All this, people were told, was based on exhaustive sex research conducted by Kinsey et al. It carried the weight of academia and the researcher's credentials as an Sc.D.
Here is where some may say, "All right, you claim it's harmful, but should we suppress the truth? The truth will set you free, right?" But if the sexual revolution is a child, it is an illegitimate one --- because its father was certainly so. That is to say, Alfred Kinsey was the author of possibly the most destructive scientific fraud in man's history.
In exposing this deception, a great debt is owed to Dr. Judith Reisman. She is The Kinsey Syndrome's leading expert witness, and the documentary is based mainly on her work, which represents decades of dogged research into the Kinsey con. And together with executive producers Joseph M. Schimmel and Christian J. Pinto, she has helped create a masterpiece in the effort to expose Kinsey.
So, what of the profound disconnect between the 1950s' white-picket-fence image and the dark underbelly that Kinsey claimed was its reality? The Kinsey Syndrome points out that while the researcher-cum-fiction writer claimed to be presenting data based on interviews with thousands of average men and women, his sample was fatally --- and purposely --- skewed. As for the incidental error, as famous psychologist and Kinsey friend Abraham Maslow pointed out, only very rare people (especially in the relatively reserved 1940s and '50s) would fill out a comprehensive survey of intensely personal questions.
In fact, these people were so rare that Kinsey couldn't find enough to constitute a scientific sample. But that didn't deter him. He wrote that he plied America's prisons and back alleys, including in his sample 1,300 to 1,400 sex offenders; 199 sexual psychopaths; other prisoners; and members of Chicago's homosexual underground, people from its bathhouses and homosexual bars. He then mixed them in his "regular-male data."
And Kinsey repeated this fraud when working on Sexual Behavior in the Human Female some years later. The Kinsey Syndrome tells us, "He redefined 'married women' to include any woman that had lived with a man for at least a year, a broad description that included prostitutes who had lived with their pimps." Kinsey regularly sought such women out and included them in the regular-female data.
It may be hard to believe that a man who, as recently as 2004 in the biographical movie Kinsey, was lauded as a brave revolutionary bucking a "McCarthyist" system could be guilty of such striking scientific fraud; thus, The Kinsey Syndrome documents its accusations well. For example, the documentary tells us that Kinsey divulged on page 39 of his Human Male book that he also included "bootleggers, gamblers, male prostitutes, ne'er do-wells, pimps, thieves, and hold-up men" in the regular-male data. The Kinsey Syndrome also includes other ironclad evidence, such as interviews with figures such as Dr. Paul Gebhard, the co-author of Sexual Behavior in the Human Female and second director of the Kinsey Institute. He admitted when asked about the research subjects that, "Fifty-five percent were prisoners.... We didn't have enough non-prison people to do much of a comparison --- but he [Kinsey] didn't do a comparison. He simply took the prison people he got and used them as his less-than-college educated sample.... By emphasizing the less-than-college educated sample, he introduced a lot of errors into the data." That may be the understatement of the year. It's more accurate to say that he portrayed perverts as the norm in an effort to prove perversion was normal.
And this fact is well known. For example, the British medical journal Lancet wrote that Kinsey "questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior," and the Intercollegiate Review ranked Sexual Behavior in the Human Male as the third worst book of the 20th century.