Does Cecil believe Kinsey's findings on race & penis size?

In this column, Cecil cites Dr. Kinsey, adding the caveat, “These figures must be regarded with caution. There were more than 2,500 white male respondents, but only 59 black males.” This has led to a rather silly debate in the Pit, with some of the Teeming Millions, [sub](Okay, a single Teeming Million,)[/sub] interpreting Cecil’s cite as a validation of Kinsey’s findings. Does Cecil really think that Kinsey’s results have any credibility at all, or was he, as I assumed, just bringing it up for chuckles?

I rarely visit this forum and I don’t believe I’ve ever posted here. Today I come in here ready to start my first very own CCC thread-- only to see Mr.Mudd has beaten me to the punch.
But I’m still going to post.

Masters and Johnson, writing decades later about their own research at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana U, published new figures on the sizes of men’s penises. Asked about just what was measured, from what point to what point, they refused to tell. They didn’t want men doing any silly comparisons between themselves and the average.

I’m not telling how big mine is. The last time those dimensions became public, grown men were weeping. Policemen were turning in their badges.

I’m not usually comfortable with macho posturing. It’s not every day, though, that a fella gets a chance to quote Jim Morrison.

–Nott, the sheepish

Silly questions deserve silly answers.