Fair enough. Whatever source I read (many years back) may have been mistaken, or willfully in error-- Kinsey seems to ruffle feathers even now for some people.

Since you're here and polite, it was also my understanding that his data has been more or less thrown out due to the discovery that at least some of it was fraudulent (and we don't know how much of it was), except where we can't ethically replicate it. (In which case it is cited but with a note about reliability.) Is this understanding also incorrect?

I suppose I also find it a bit unsavory because Kinsey was clearly an activist, and I find activism pushed under an ostensibly objective mantle (in his case, a scientific one) distasteful. That is, he was pushing his data with an underlying motive.

That's not to say I think fluid sexuality bad or wrong; I don't. Nor do I have an issue with either science or activism. But I dislike when people use the mantle of something like science as an activist without fully disclosing that is why they are doing it.