Posted on 11/21/2004 7:23:56 AM PST by Clive
So Hollywood has at last produced a film on Alfred C. Kinsey, whom many view as the father of the Sexual Revolution, the man whose "scientific pursuit of truth" resulted in "shattering revelations" of the secret kinky sex lives being led by you, me and all us North Americans.
This, anyway, is the way the film Kinsey is touted in an adulatory preview spread across nearly one and a half pages of the Globe and Mail, our national newspaper with the corporate mission of rescuing Canada from the Christian religion.
The Irish actor Liam Neeson plays the title role.
Since he, Kinsey, the Globe and the author of the article all share the same distaste for the religious, no stone was left unthrown in the preview.
"It may seem like an odd time to release a film like Kinsey," says the previewer, "given America's socially conservative retrenchment as evidenced by the election of George W. Bush and the country's recent rejection of gay marriage."
Given also that (a) the movie was made before the election, (b) a great phalanx of Hollywood luminaries publicly castigated Bush, and (c) sexual libertinism has been the Hollywood way of life ever since there's been a Hollywood, what's so odd about it?
This championing of the religiously skeptical has a long history in Hollywood.
I remember a production called Inherit the Wind, a film based on the trial of an earnest young science teacher named John Scopes, who dared to teach evolution in defiance of a Tennessee law.
The movie shows how a mob of Tennessee ignoramuses persecuted the poor teacher, how he defiantly stood for the truth, how Bible-believing William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic presidential candidate, joined in the persecution, how hero-attorney Clarence Darrow made a fool out of Bryan, defeated the rubes and vindicated the teacher's "scientific pursuit of truth."
The facts of the case, somewhat at odds with this, are detailed by law professor Philip Johnson in his remarkable book, Darwin on Trial.
Scopes was not a teacher, but an ex-substitute teacher in Dayton, Tenn.
He had never taught evolution to anybody.
He had never been mobbed by anybody.
He was persuaded by local boosters to fake a one-time evolutionary presentation to a contrived class in order to create a test case that would put Dayton, Tenn. on the map.
Bryan was inveigled into it by Darrow, who said he would testify himself on behalf of evolution if Bryan would take the stand against it.
Bryan did, Darrow made a fool of him, then entered a plea of guilty on behalf of Scopes so that Darrow didn't have to testify. Scopes was fined $100.
The Tennessee law prohibiting evolution had been signed by the governor only on the strict provision that it would never be enforced against any teacher.
Bryan himself believed in a six-day creation, but only in the sense that each "day" in the Genesis account actually stood for a geological epoch.
He opposed evolution because he feared it would lead to a "master race" political creed that could wreak ruin on the world.
Less than 20 years later, with the Nazi regime in Germany, Bryan would prove absolutely right.
Thus Hollywood's version of the Scopes case was in fact legendary and we can expect its take on Kinsey will be the same.
Will it disclose, for instance, that Kinsey was not a psychologist, nor a medical doctor, but an entomologist; he studied bugs.
That is, he had no professional background to study sex.
Another prof at the University of Chicago recalls Kinsey's memo, recruiting students to participate in his sex survey.
He passed the memo to his own students, and later asked how many of them had agreed to do this. He found that none had.
So he wondered whose sexual conduct Kinsey had actually surveyed.
He discovered that Kinsey's subjects consisted almost entirely of prison inmates, prostitutes and homosexuals.
No one else would talk to him.
Based on these "findings" he portrayed the sexual lives of the average citizen.
And we, jackasses that we were, believed him.
There is in fact a movie in Kinsey, a movie about human gullibility.
But Hollywood won't make it, and if anybody does, it won't get one line in the Globe and Mail.
-
More bumping...
And we, jackasses that we were, believed him.
Nope.
At the age of 17, in "Health" class, after being fed the umpteenth bizarro statistic (over many years) from "The Kinsey Survey" (I think it involved incest)I saw the same stunned expression on the face of EVERY SINGLE KID IN THE ROOM and I knew that The Kinsey Survey was UTTER CRAP!
That was 1975.
Now, times me by tens of millions of reasonable Americans and the idea that "we all believed it" falls apart.
The Kinsey Report was the source for the 'data' that 10% of American males were homosexual. It was repeated as gospel truth ad nauseum by the gay and liberal lobby for about 50 years although anyone could look around and see the figure was too high.
It wasn't until the next great survey by the CDC in 2002 that the figure was reduced to 1-2%.
The reason Kinsey was off--his survey pool consisted of prison inmates--some percentage of whom were incarcerated for homosexual acts. DUH!
Back in the day (1970s) there were three sexually trasmitted diseases that we worried aboutt; gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes. Fast forward 30 years and we have about that many, 30, STDs. As someone who works in the medical field, I see on a daily basis the results of sexual promiscuity and believe me it aint' pretty. And please don't tell me about "education". We are educated up to our eyebrows, but education without self control is useless.
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.