Liam Neeson in "Kinsey" (Courtesy Fox Searchlight)
Posted on 11/12/2004 2:28:30 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Fox Searchlight's first-run feature film on the controversial "father of the sexual revolution" opens in select "blue state" theaters today to the protests of traditional-family defenders who regard the late Indiana University professor Alfred Kinsey as a fradulent scientist who, more than anyone else, bears responsibility for bringing acceptance of promiscuity into the mainstream.
|
|
On the latter point, the star of "Kinsey: Let's Talk about Sex" agrees.
"Kinsey did release the genie from the bottle -- and you can't put the genie back in the bottle," Liam Neeson told Variety magazine.
The film debuts today on five screens in New York and Los Angeles, then widens to 15 cities on 35 screens next week, with a goal of 500 screens by Christmas.
The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University plans a special screening of the film Saturday, hosted by writer and director Bill Condon and co-star Laura Linney.
Critics are focused primarily on Kinsey's promotion of early childhood sexual activity, based on his solicitation of data from known pedophiles who conducted "experiments" on children.
Michael Craven, vice president for religious and cultural affairs for the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, points out Kinsey interpreted infant responses to sexual abuse to be indicative of "sexual satisfaction."
"Kinsey's impact on our culture has been nothing short of devastating and there has been little opportunity to challenge his ideas in the marketplace of ideas until now," said Craven. "Moviegoers and movie critics need to know the truth about the man and his so-called science."
A group called Catholic Outreach last week released "The Kinsey Corruption: An Exposé on the Most Influential 'Scientist' of Our Time," a 96-page book based on 20 years of research from leading Kinsey critic Dr. Judith Reisman.
Catholic Outreach says that the film leaves out critical facts about Kinsey's real life and portrays him as a sexual liberator and visionary who helped free popular culture from its repressed sexuality.
"The truth is that Alfred Kinsey was instrumental in bringing about the widespread acceptance of perversity and immorality that exists today," the group said.
Condon, who won an Oscar for "Gods and Monsters" in 1998, insisted, however, protesters were "confusing discussion with endorsement."
"Kinsey was a very complex man, in some ways damaged beyond repair," he told the BBC. "He affected everybody's life, and I hope the film gets a little breathing room for people to see it and think about it for themselves."
Robert Knight, director of Christian Women for America's Culture & Family Institute, says the film "paints Kinsey as a flawed but sincere cultural hero."
"It ignores the massive fraud, Kinsey's sadomasochistic practices, and barely touches on his use of data on children in sex experiments," Knight said.
"Alfred Kinsey encouraged pedophiles to molest children, all in the name of science,” Knight charged. "Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist."
Knight believes it's no exaggeration to say Kinsey was "the godfather of the homosexual activist movement, the campaign to mainstream pornography, and even the campaign to strike down abortion laws."
"He was a sexual revolutionary masquerading as an objective scientist," Knight said.
A pro-chastity youth organization, Generation Life, plans to protest the film at cinemas with the message that Kinsey's "pseudo-scientific defense of sexual perversions" should not be celebrated.
Morality in Media president Robert Peters, who reviewed the film at a private screening in New York City last week, called it "an effort to rehabilitate a 'father' of the hellish sexual revolution who has been discredited because of his debauched lifestyle and the misinformation he spread about sex."
"In Kinsey’s mind, religion and morality were the hated enemies that stand in the way of sexual freedom," Peters said. "Kinsey's father is the predominant religious figure in the film, and with the exception of one scene, he is stereotypically portrayed as overly strict, mean spirited and anti-sex."
Peters points out Kinsey saw man as merely and animal with a high degree of intelligence, noting that amid the credits at the end of the film, "we are treated to scene after scene of animals having sex."
"In Kinsey’s mind, apparently no sex was abnormal; and among the types of sex that Kinsey is shown engaging in or endorsing in the film are adultery, bisexuality, homosexuality, group sex, pornography, sadomasochism, and swinging," he said. "The impression is also conveyed in the film that sexual deviations of all kinds -- but especially homosexuality -- are widespread."
The film gives the impression Kinsey's data came from a cross section of Americans, leaving out the fact that much of it came from skewed populations that included prisoners and pedophiles, Peters says.
"Kinsey isn’t portrayed as without fault, but he is portrayed as someone who exerted a positive, rather than negative, influence on society. No mention is made in the film of the grievous harms that flowed from the sexual revolution Kinsey helped bring about."
Among the ultimate results of Kinsey's work, Peters says, are unwed teen pregnancies, abortions and single parent families; an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS; proliferation and 'mainstreaming' of softcore and hardcore pornography; marriages prevented, marriages damaged and marriages broken; and sexual abuse of children, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape
Researcher Reisman, author of "Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences," recently was prevented from seeing two private screenings of "Kinsey."
She has been critical of the film during its entire production process, warning Neeson and others more than one year ago that they are party to a whitewash of a man who has done incalculable damage to American society by providing "scientific" rationale for softening laws that protect women and children from molesters and giving institutional sanction to a libertine sexual morality that has ruined millions of lives.
As WorldNetDaily reported in February 2003, Condon was upset by a campaign by Reisman and radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger to expose Kinsey as a "man who produced and directed the rape and torture of hundreds of infants and children."
Reisman believes the film is part of a media blitz backed by the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey Institute and others that seeks to rehabilitate Kinsey as some of the explosive revelations about him gradually surface in the mainstream media.
I have "Kinsey - Crimes and Consequences" on my bookshelf, a textbook example of a pseudoscientist whose life's work was meant to justify his own perverse lifestyle. It is amazing that so many people ate up his books back in the fifties and sixties. I have little difficulty believing that the money for this came from certain interested parties.
"Gods and Monsters"? I think Condons agenda is pretty obvious.
Harry Knowles' reviews from aintitcoolnews.com already say that this film has footage of a penis touching a vagina in an R rated film (all ages with adult supervision).
After seeing Kill Bill get an R (with only minor edits and black & white editing of a bloodbath scene), the MPAA seems to be pushing the barriers again.
Same here. The man was a monster and his own research notes prove it easily.
I spent years investigating pedophiles. They look upon Kinsey is their god.
Perverts defending (and denying) child molestation in the IMDB forum:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362269/board/nest/13014211
There has been clear-headed scientific debunking of Kinsey over the years. He massively faked his results, with only one example being the grotesque over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.
Oversampled statistic (from prisoners) much as Zogby and the MSM did this year in election polls.
I don't deny what you're saying about Kinsey, but it would be false to deny that sexual arousal/stimulation is part of even a child's experience, and this is WITHOUT perversion or corruption due to outside forces.
I'm sure any number of people on this site could give examples from their life of kids they've seen(or were) that somehow were sexual, even if it was a very innocent and experimental act--and NEVER with adults.
That is not to justify or defend Kinsey's research or conclusions, merely to point out that children are not sexual tabula rasa who activate at puberty. This is well-known, I would hope, by now.
Kinsey faked this and many other studies.
I think people are objecting to the idea of doing "experiments" to "prove" that notion.
{{{{insert retching sounds}}}}}......ping
And that is objectionable.
I just wanted to dispell the notion that many have, as an overreaction to discovery of this fact(for instance, kids playing "doctor" or the like) may lead to psychological problems down the road.
But yes, relying on "experiments" by pedophiles would be reprehensible. I just hope that this is fact and is well-documented by someone who isn't merely motivated to discredit Kinsey and his 'impact' on society. Truth always, even above politics or your beliefs.
Nonsense, this is a reality across cultural and temporal boundaries.
And as an aside, a child could easily walk in on their parents doing the "do" and "ape" that behavior and never see "pop culture."
You are making something quite innocent(in the minds of the children) into something sinister. Even my girlfriend knew of a girl who was less than 2 years old that incessantly touched herself. It's not from any "pop culture" but from some rudimentary sexuality or physical sensation.
And it doesn't mean that EVERY child experiences or knows of these things at that age or before puberty. But if some do, it need not be anything sinister or for you to overreact to.
I came up in an age long before heavy sexuality on TV or in movies and somehow experimented as a child in a basic sense.
I grew up to be fine and adults were never a factor in any of this.
You want a sexualized youth and you reject my own, empirical eyewitness evidence. Fine. The modern world is yours.
For parents who want to avoid the damage you deny - but that is very real, shoot your TV and homeschool your children. Choose their friends carefully. Trust no one. Pray often.
baby, bathwater, what's the diff?
According to the Kinsey report
ev'ry average man you know
much prefers to play his favorite sport
when the temperature is low
but when the thermometer goes way up
and the weather is sizzling hot
Mister Adam for his madam is not
cause it's too too
it's too darn hot, it's too darn hot
It's too too too too darn hot
UH goofball, how could a child of less than 2 who watches Barney and the like be "sexualized" by pop culture?
Who wants a "sexualized youth?"
I'm not talking about 6 year olds wearing thongs or acting like Britney Spears, genius. I'm talking about much more primal and normal human sexuality that is present even at an early age.
You have empirical eyewitness evidence? Uh, what do you call my own personal experience and eyewitness evidence?
You're the kind who is not interested in truth and you'll invent your opponent's position because even a small concession to reality, one which you fear for irrational reasons, is too much to bear.
I never justified or defended Kinsey, his experiments, or the sexualization of our youth. I merely stated the facts and tried to inject some balance before the wingnuts like you joined in with your truth-deficient hysteria.
Your name calling simply confirms your (lack of) position. You deny the impact society and culture have on sexualizing youth. I know of my own experience that it has a huge impact. I've seen youth raised in the modern culture engaging in sex acts at an age that is shocking. I've also seen my own children and others raised in familes that reject and restrict 'pop culture' and have NOT seen such acts.
As I said, you are welcome to your views and the modern world. I reject them. And I laugh at your silly name calling.
Do tell, are you a teacher?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.