Our laws and customs are so far removed from the actual conduct of human animals that few will allow their full sexual history to be known to the court or even to their neighbors and best friends; and those who expect to discover their sexual history should ensure that this record never becomes known among the individuals with whom they are related.
In the study, each subject was willing to contribute his sexual history because he was assured by a surveyor at the beginning of a trusted friend or interview. Particular attention should be paid here to the confidentiality of records, which is only useful if the intention of such assurances is honest and in no cases is broken in the course of implementation.
If there is a failure in the process of secrecy, then others, once they know, will refuse to contribute their own sexual history. In this study, the level of care for secrecy can be said to be beyond any other plan for human material.
1. All data is recorded with a password
In order to keep secrets in this study, we developed the use of passwords, in which all data is recorded. At any stage of data analysis, passwords are not translated into words. Every interviewer memorizes the password, and there is no key to open the password. Only six people who actually get the history know part of the password, and only four people have access to the full password when writing this book. No one else in our lab who helps do the technical work knows the password.
Some of the regular tables of non-sexual items are made by technical assistants; but the actual processing of all the data, including Horeneska's punches and the manipulation of them in IBM statisticians, is carried out by people who have access to sexual history. In this nine-year investigation, no one else has ever been involved in useful information about the history of a particular individual.
2. Do not publish any sexual history that might identify the person being interviewed
To a large extent, the analysis of the material consists of supplementary data, totals of specific activities carried out, making age tables, making tables of frequencies, totaling other data, and determining the correlations of facts and factors; as taxonomists, we are interested in the behavior of an entire part of the population; what is not expected is that we will encounter the question of whether the particular history of a particular individual is published publicly. Here we should make assurances that the sexual history of any individual case shall not be made public when it may be identifiable as the history of an individual. We can explain the safety of this method of publishing, even to uneducated and intellectually inferior individuals, and convince them that they can contribute their sexual history very safely.
The individual history of this project is only discussed among our colleagues on the investigation team. They even talk about the situation with their professional friends outside the team. In public speeches or group conversations, we never use specific histories, although some examples are synthesized from real cases. Even geographically, the activities of such distant individuals seem unrecognizable, and we will not talk about them; for some people travel around the country, and perhaps the interviewer meets some people who know the subject of the investigation in that distant town.
3. The interviewee shall not give his or her sexual history to any individual or institution without authorization
We are under pressure from many people who are eager to learn specific information about contributors to history. Husbands and wives often want to know about their spouse's data, and in many cases such information helps to build better marriage regulation; but if we give such information, other husbands and wives may be reluctant to give their sexual history. Parents ask us about their children; partners in common sexual activities often want to exchange them for giving their sexual history while getting the secret records they need. We disappoint many people who do not have access to information, and at the same time their evaluation of the confidentiality of records is bound to increase, and are therefore willing to contribute their own sexual history and get their friends interested in the program.
In criminal and other coercive institutions, we adhere to an unchanging rule: the detainee cannot pass on his secrets to the authorities of that institution without his or her authorization. Only if these institutions accept our conditions will we go there to investigate. No administration is asking us to break that rule. In some cases, we feel that it would be more beneficial to a detainee if he lets the authorities know more about his history, so we suggest that the object do so; if he agrees, we help him to make such contacts, but only if he does so voluntarily.
Legally, no one is authorized to keep any information secret. But here's the practice: the court generally recognizes that a priest or doctor has the right to keep the secrets they receive when they carry out their professional duties, but there is no statute law establishing such a right. If we are brought before a court, we hope that such precedents will be extended to scientists who investigate human sexuality.
If tribunals at all levels refuse to recognize such a privilege, there will be no merit other than to undermine the integrity of our records and suffer the consequences of such disregard by the Tribunal. If law enforcement officials, jurists, and people interested in social problems want science to help understand such difficult problems, they must admit that a scientist has the right to keep his records absolutely secret; for without this he cannot persuade people to contribute their history to such research.
[This article is excerpted from the book "Kinsey Academic Self-Description" (compiled by Huang Zhongjing et al., Tianjin People's Publishing House, 2016 edition)]
Kinsey: What is the difference between married and single men when it comes to heterosexual sexual activity?