AS THE REAL BIOLOGIST RICHARD LEWONTIN pointed out, the alleged scientific study of human sexuality is faced with an insurmountable hurdle, it is totally dependent on the self-reporting of human behavior and, worse, human mental states by the entirely unreliable and only possible source for that information, the person who is telling on their own self.
And about an area of human behavior and thought that is rife with both deception of others and about their own lives. And that's not to start in on the motivation of the deputed scientists in their collection, analysis, quantification of and reporting on their supposed findings, or rather sifted through entirely unreliable self-reports in which literally not a single one of their myriads of data is of reliable veracity.
There remains, however, one realm of self-report that seems utterly resistant to external verification. Given the social circumstances of sexual activity there seems no way to find out what people do “in the bedroom” except to ask them. But the answers they give cannot be put to the test of incredulity. Surely we believe that there is no sexual fantasy so outrageous and bizarre, no life of profligacy so exhausting, that it has not been realized by someone, somewhere, perhaps even by a reader of the New York Review’s personals. But if by someone, then why not by 17.4 percent of white males with two years of education beyond high school and with an annual income of $43,217? What behavior that is credible in individuals becomes incredible in the mass? The problem is to turn biography into science. If research produced by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), the organization that epitomizes modern objective statistical social science, designed and analyzed by two distinguished service professors and a past president of the International Academy of Sex Research, carried out by a full time project manager in charge of 220 interviewers, and resulting in a book of 718 pages, including 178 tables, 34 graphs, and 635 references, does not crack the problem of knowledge from self-report, then not just “sexology,” but all of scientific sociology, is in deep trouble.
"Sexology" as science* could serve as the primary evidence in the decadence of science starting in the last half of the 19th century as all manner of junk that shared the same defects and I would controversially note that that includes the alleged scientific status of literally everything claimed about how species evolved apart from the far more reliable claim that species did, in fact, evolve from other species. Though I would say that sociology, among the most dubious of all of the so-called sciences, predates Darwinism as science.**
The bottle blond bimbo Megyn Kelly trying to soft-peddle the pedophile rape of Donald Trump by claiming that his pimp and pimpess weren't pedophiles but were devotees of "ephebophilia" which is a word, like "antisemitism" which was invented by dirty old men who lusted after teenagers to bathe their perversion in the conventionally sanctifying aroma of science, as I indicated last weekend, I think that was in no way different from the activity of those who founded NAMBLA and such academically ordained promotions of pedophile rape as Paidika was.***
The fact is that in 2025 the Republican Party plays exactly the same role that NAMBLA and its associated promoters of the extreme reduction of or elimination of age of consent laws, the better to facilitate the rape of children by the class of men who like to rape children (and women, don't forget that Ghiz Maxwell sexually used the girls she lured into their power) especially the privileged, the white, the rich and so powerful, etc. Only it's likely the entire membership or associated perverts of NAMBLA are far, far fewer than even those in the sex club that Trump frequented. I think the Epstein-Maxwell sex circle may be one of the largest in the Western world, though it's probably far smaller than the ones that operate elsewhere such as the sex tourism industry of Thailand. That's what the likes of Kelly and Jesse Watters are trying to peddle to those who are suckers for the patina applied as "science" and the ideological belief that "nature" - so called - sanctifies everything no matter how clearly perverted it is.
The superstition that "sexology" from which such terminology as Megums peddled last week come is actually scientific is, in fact, dangerous because so many in the media, in politics, in that intellectually deficient but enormously powerful profession, "the law" are such total suckers for such stuff. As an LGBTQ+ person, such stuff is entirely unreliable as a basis for our freedom, it is far more reliably founded in the egalitarian exercise of rights in which that exercise is always limited by the rights of those our lives impinge on, which is not a scientific concept but one of revealed morality. If gay liberation had developed only as another of the many non-egalitarian-libertarian assertions of liberty, I wouldn't have seen that as any kind of progress from what always was. With few exceptions those who were privileged were always able to have sex with whoever they wanted, as long as they weren't members of a privileged class. The Epstein-Maxwell rape ring got away with it for a long time, when it was discovered the legal system under the Bush regime let Epstein off on most of it and the thugish lawyers who were in on that deal prospered from it. Many privileged gay men got away with leading elaborate and, at that time, entirely illegal sex lives, Roy Cohn did even as he served as the lawyer for the Archdiocese of New York, then led by the notorious and rumored gay sex predator and opponent of LGBTQ+ rights Francis Cardinal Spelman (AKA "Fanny") and his successors. And all of that was an open secret.
* I'll remind you that I've stopped with the dishonest convention that there is "real science" and "pseudo-science" the later violating the supposed ideal standards of "real science" because that's not what the word "science" as used in real life means. Science is whatever the gatekeepers of science let in, no matter whether or not it practices the defined methods of science or, as in the case of every one of the social sciences and even many of those regions of science firmly embedded in the "harder sciences" these days much of science as so accepted doesn't begin to fulfill those requirements. I think the theory of natural selection was something of a watershed which permitted everything from ideologically, economically self-interested conjecture get directly into the university based-scientific publication literature and liturgy of science though there was much allowed in even before then. As Marilynne Robinson said, if religion is saddled with bad religion then science should not be allowed to variably and self-interestedly escape the consequences of bad science.
** I think that sociology was an obvious creation of the ideology of materialism which was allowed to become academically respectable (though it has never been truly intellectually respectable) through that ideological license. I suspect it was the first camel of social and behavioral science to get its nose under the tent, though economics may precede it in terms of chronology.
** That is what "Darwinism" came to mean after 1860 when it referred to the theory of natural selection. Before then it referred to the theory of Charles' grandfather Erasmus Darwin though I'm unaware of that ever having been taken as more than an abstract idea that had no actual status as science, though I might be wrong about that. The consequences of his grandson's theory and its ideological-class-based insertion in the heart of biological sciences hadn't yet achieved its fuller effects. Though much of the success of it was based on the desire among those who wanted to study the fact of evolution to pretend that they could find a force in nature that drove evolution. The fact is that apart from the clearly founded belief that species evolve from earlier species, there is no real way to scientifically study that as a unified phenomenon or, really, even in the case of any naturally evolved species. The physical evidence is simply too sparse and incomplete to do that. Which may make biologists frustrated and angry but it doesn't require anyone who is honest to lie about that.
*** The denials of several of the academics that their "Journal of Pedophilia" was unrelated to the legalization of and promotion of pedophile rape are about as convincing as the claims of Trump that he wanted to get to the bottom of the Epstein pedophile rape circle he was a member of.
Note: For some reason Blogger has put a new button next to the scroll bar that will perform the entirely unwelcomed act of it automatically inserting Google search links in my writing. If I hit it by accident and it fills one of my pieces with such junk, I'll try to remove all of them so the links I mean to put there will be the only ones.
Also note that blogger has been screwing with the text size and formatting in ways I can't figure out. I really don't want to go wading through the html to try to figure out how to fix that these days. Sorry for the eccentric appearance of the text.