The “Trojan Couch”

Page

15 demonstrating multiple orgasms in children and infants as young as six months old. The question as to how this “data” was obtained has been a subject of intense secrecy. Nonetheless: Muir: “So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?” Gebhard: “Ah, they do if we tell them we’re interested in it!” Muir: “And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to….” Gebhard: “So, second hand or stopwatch . OK, well, that’s, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many.” Muir: “These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal.” Gebhard: “Oh yes.” Kinsey’s Colleague: John DeCecco John De Cecco, who teaches at San Francisco State University, is Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, whose articles are often referenced in these briefs as though it were a dispassionately scientific journal with reasonable standards of peer -review. It is tendentious, politicized, and self- referential. But, more importantly, De Cecco is a board member of Paedika: The Journal of Paedophilia. In a “Statement of Purpose” published in the journal’s first issue, the editors wrote: The starting point of Paedika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles. … we understand [paedophilia] to be consensual intergenerational sexual relationships …Through publication of scholarly studies, thoroughly documented and carefully reasoned, we intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been , and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience. De Cecco also was editor of Journal of Homosexuality’s special 1990 issue devoted to the “debate” over the relationship of homosexuality and pedophilia. This “debate” foc uses on two major questions: First, are male homosexuality and paedophilia intrinsically related phenomena, albeit in any given individual they may be differentiated in varying measure, or are they essentially unrelated, even though it is clear that they o verlap to a degree that cannot be coincidental? Second, as a matter independent of the first question, is it wise for “the movement” to acknowledge the relationship or overlap between pedophilia and homosexuality, and to seek rights for pedophiles (based o n “orientation”) similar to those that have been won for homosexuals, or would it be damaging to the gay rights movement to do so, even if it is ultimately the proper thing to do? Returning to Romer On its own, of course, the Kinsey associates’ support of sexual deviance is not evidence of the falsity of their research on homosexuality. Yet the fact that they are activists, promoting such causes as pedophilia and incest, at least undermines their independence and credibility, weakening the basis for their inclusion in the Romer brief. Rather than scientists seeking truth, the evidence suggests they are partisans of pedophilia, incest, and the undermining of sexual norms. As I have tried to show, moreover, the authors of the Romer brief, in addition to relying on dubious sources of credibility, tried to support their brief with references that contradicted the very claims the brief sought to make. Mixed in with these references are references — though no direct quotations—to high quality modern research that co ntradicts the factual claims they are supposed to support. There are other notable discrepancies in the brief relating to its use and misuse of the Laumann data. For example, the authors cite Laumann directly (a rare instance) in footnote 31