Well, that "everything you know is wrong" approach is pretty
broad. Essentially nothing in Kinsey's studies of sexual
behavior in human beings has ever been disproven because there
has never been a survey so large with such an accurate
instrument. If you send college kids around to knock on doors
with a twenty-question form, or call up people on the telephone
and ask them about their sex lives, you are going to get a lot
of doors slammed and phones hung up, but the responses you do
get will always be heavily biased toward what people think are
the conventional "right answers." You might as well ask
strangers "Do you cheat on your taxes and if so by how much?"
If you look at the survey instruments (i.e. the questionaires)
used by any study that supposely "disproves Kinsey," you will
see that they are grossly inadequate by comparison to Kinsey's.

There are some legitimate criticism of Kinsey, none of which
nearly so telling as this simple fact: Kinsey's study is now
nearly 60 years old - and those are sixty years in which
American society has changed in profound and fundamental ways.
Just to hit two points: 1) although America was a predominantly
urban nation by the time Kinsey did his survey, a large part of
the adult population had some rural background, and 2) Kinsey
could not find enough black respondents; America was still
highly segregated. You can make a lot of the cultural changes
since Kinsey did his work - the "sexual revolution" and all of
that - but that tends to distract from more fundamental social,
economic, and demographic changes.

Kinsey's idea of how to select a survey sample really lacked
statistical validity. Kinsey dispaired of obtaining really
random samples, so he opted to try to get 100% samples of the
groups he found to include in his survey. Kinsey's approach
makes a lot more sense for a pilot study, and really that is
what he was doing. He did not know what was out there, and
neither did anyone else. Kinsey's work did an excellent job of
determining what was out there when no one really knew. We
cannot be quite so confident that he did as good a job at find
how much was out there, although as I have pointed out, it is
still the best study that exists. The main reason, of course,
that it is still - after 60 years - the best work of its kind,
is that conservatives have always opposed funding for studies
with a similar depth.