Posted on 12/02/2004 11:39:14 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
“Never make judgments.” That’s what scientist Alfred Kinsey tells his research assistant very early in the new film about his life. Kinsey, as you know, was all about nonjudgmentalism. Throughout his career researching the sexual habits of Americans, his goal was to free society from the constraints of what the movie calls “morality disguised as fact.” And like its subject, the film attempts to be nonjudgmental—or, at least, that’s the ploy.
Three scenes exemplify the supposed nonjudgmentalism. In the first, Kinsey tells his wife, nicknamed “Mac,” that he’s had sex with one of his male researchers. Though she’s devastated, he explains that it’s only “social restraints” that prevent people from acting on their attractions. She retorts that maybe social restraints are necessary to keep people from getting hurt. It’s a moment of rare honesty and insight—which doesn’t last long. The next thing we know, Kinsey is giving the same researcher permission to have sex with Mac, and this, apparently, makes everything okay.
In the second scene, Kinsey and a colleague interview a man, Kenneth Braun, who has had sex with an astonishing number of partners of various genders, ages, and species. When he starts to discuss his pedophilic experiences, Kinsey’s fellow researcher storms out. Braun says that he thought Kinsey’s researchers would be impartial, to which Kinsey enigmatically replies, “Sometimes it’s difficult.” But he adds that “no one should ever be hurt” by sex, leading Braun to call him a “square.”
In the third scene, Kinsey is so distraught over a loss of research funding that he ends up in the bathroom mutilating himself. When Mac discovers him, he shows her letters from people who have written to beg him for help and laments that now he can’t help them. For such a hard-boiled movie, the scene is surprisingly maudlin. And its message is clear: Kinsey is a martyr to the cause of truth and compassion.
Now the facts: Kinsey, as his biographers report, had been mutilating himself for years as a result of a sexual appetite so voracious and uncontrollable that it led him into ever more bizarre practices.
And the real Kinsey didn’t seem to care who got hurt by his own activities or those of others. The prototype for Braun was a pedophile named Rex King, one of several pedophiles whose “research” Kinsey used. Kinsey’s defenders rationalize that just because Kinsey used such data, it does not mean he condoned the activity. None of them that I know of have ever explained why Kinsey wrote to King, “I congratulate you on the research spirit which has led you to collect data over these many years.”
From this repulsive data was born the pervasive myth that children are sexual beings from infancy. (It’s worth noting, as well, that Kinsey’s research methods were flawed in many other ways, another fact that his supporters gloss over as much as possible.)
This is the man that Hollywood has chosen to honor? And make no mistake, the film honors Kinsey. Now, I doubt many of you will be seeing the film—good. But your neighbors and friends are seeing it and are discussing it. And you need to help set them straight. Kinsey does not deserve to be anyone’s hero.
Exactly. Do you remember how the left in this country, led by the likes of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, referred to Ho Chi Minh?
Suppression of information regarding Stalin's barbarism was due in large part to the American media. It was their way of thumbing their collective noses at the 'better dead than red' mentality which they saw as frightening and destructive.
I've only heard bit and pieces about this movie, but just reading the article made me ill. I'm no prude, but I had no idea that Kinsey was such a sick ____.
That said, look for this film to sweep the Oscars.
Why am I suddenly thinking of "pillars of salt?"
Good pickup!
Complications from a pelvic infection which may have begun as a site infection from one of his genital self-mutilation sessions.
EEEEWWWWWWHHHHHH. Maybe I shouldn't have asked.
Since you have seen the film, would you recommend that a FReeper see this film? Why or why not?
Well on strictly aesthetic terms, it's a straightforward docudrama with little narrative tension. The sexual talk is completely non-titilating by design. The movie ends before he dies so the Sexual Revolution issue isn't dealt with but the point of view is that he helped homosexuals feel less like outsiders. However if you're framing the issue as 'the better Kinsey comes off/ the worse the movie is' then I guess he and his work are shown as being important and valuable.
And I would say its hard to argue with the idea that sex is an object worthy of scientific study. But the man's interview with the pedophile is shown with all the disgust it merits and his own sexual problems (the aforementioned mutilation) are also shown (very discretely). It's not the whitewash some here fear but not the complete debunking job many would have liked. At its core its not all that diffrent from those old Hollywood biopics about crusaders triumphing over the masses not understanding them they used to make about people like Florenz Ziegfield and Louis Pasteur. Hope that helped!
Let me repeat/elaborate on something I said in post 54.
Kinsey went out "in the interest of science" and portrayed raped children as sexual beings who really did like what was being done to them. In the words of many a rapist, Kinsey was just saying that "deep down they wanted it." (After all, if they didn't, what were they doing in that part of town wearing those revealing Dr. Dentons?) In fact, he portrayed these children (in some cases infants) as being just as enthusiastic about sex as any pair of newlyweds. He even went so far as to advance the theory that children who suffer psychological problems after being molested are really suffering trauma from their parents being horrified at the abuse. One of the footnotes to the infamous "Table 34" describes how children being sexually manipulated by child molesters would frequently cry and resist, but then explains that didn't really mean that they were non-sexual, or even not really enjoying it.
That's not a flaw. That's not "many flaws." That's pure, unadulterated evil. I think it's safe to say that if there was no child-rape data in Kinsey's "research," there would be no NAMBLA.
And you say this doesn't diminish his "accomplishments...in any way." It's not as bad as some talk show host getting a divorce, or Thomas Jefferson getting some non-white nookie. Your moral insight is truly outstanding.
Although I have read his research was flawed, I can't comment on its veracity because I am not a scientist.
You don't need to be a scientist. Unless one is dealing with very fine, highly technical points, the layman who has received a proper education can and should evaluate the research methods of scientists. If you can't figure out whether (to use a Kinsey example) a model of human sexual behavior based on interviews with homosexual prison inmates is likely to be accurate for the public at large, then you should stay out of adult conversations.
But at least he made a first effort into studying sex. He brought it out into the open.
You know, it's important to bring bike safety out into the open, too. Let me do a public service right now:
"Kids, when you're riding your bike at night, you don't really need to have your light on, and wearing dark clothes is a great idea. No need to look before crossing the street, either. They'll stop for you."
There. It wasn't even remotely accurate or helpful, but I "brought it out into the open." Where's my medal?
Thank God.
Um, three questions:
1. Do you realize you're thanking the Almighty for research based on child molestation?
2. How did Kinsey's research improve our society? (Note: "I'm much more likely to get nookie than prior generations" is not an acceptable answer.)
3. What other important social phenomena should we release false research on so we can get it "out in the open"?
I would never argue with that. I also wouldn't argue that hypothermia is something we should study. Mengele studied it by keeping Jews in freezing water until they died. In most cases of bad scientific research, the subject is just fine, but the research methods are what's evil.
At its core its not all that diffrent from those old Hollywood biopics about crusaders triumphing over the masses not understanding them they used to make about people like Florenz Ziegfield and Louis Pasteur.
That's what makes the movie so sick. Take Pasteur---here's a guy who said that we should try all these processes to make our lives better, and people said his vaccines would cause people to grow cowpox on their bodies and other hysterical pishposh. Kinsey's detractors say hysterical things like "Just because a lot of prison inmates are homosexual doesn't mean everybody is" and "Adults shouldn't rape children" but they're treated as fearful prudes and Dr. Kinsey is the wonderful hero...
Of course, you probably figured that out on your own, but these sorts of mistakes bug me when I'm the one who makes them.
Before you reply, I ought to toss in Santa Barbara (Michael Jackson)...
Yes, he is becoming "notorious". Use a dictionary ;-)
Kinsey is very typical in this regard. How many times has Rush (Mr. Family values) been divorced?
You don't actually listen to Rush very often, do you?
Family values are the least of his agenda--try reading his books.
Don't worry, a good public library ought to have them, so you don't have to worry about enriching him further with royalties. And since Republicans control the Executive Branch, even if they snoop on you re: The Patriot Act, they'll think you're one of the good guys for reading Limbaugh.
And he was addicted to what (Didn't he say all addicts are criminals who should be punished)?
Rush's addiction was the result of an addictive drug prescribed by a doctor for the relief of extreme pain. Have you ever had a disintegrating spinal disc?
Gingrich divorces a wife while she is dying of cancer?
Yes, and he did not call it Resarch, or glorify it.
FDR had how many mistresses?
He's a Democrat, hence not a proof of conservative hypocrisy.
How many slaves did Jefferson have sex with?
I still don't know for sure that he did. Liberals tend to lie about anyone or anything to justify their own behavior.
And this question is a non-sequitur, since the slaves were not infants.
Read any biography on anyone in this type of position (high-powered, striving for glory types), and, regardless of their part affiliation, you will see very flawed people.
What rule do YOU use to distinguish a "flaw" from a "crime"? Martha Stewart is a billionaire, why send her to prison for a measly $40,000 when she brought happiness to millions? Carrie Nation saved the nation from the ravages of "Demon Rum".
Does this diminish their accomplishments? Not in any way.
You are right, people's professional achievements are irrelevant to their personal life. But it cuts both ways--if (say) Martina Navratilova is still one of the all-time greats of tennis, despite being queer, OK. But then you can't turn around and use her tennis skill as an advertisement or endorsement of homosexuality. If the two are unrelated, they are unrelated--fame and credibility are not one-way mirrors, only operating in favor of licentiousness.
What part of "in spite of" vs. "Because of" don't you want to admit?
Kinsey supposedly sought fame BECAUSE OF hobnobbing with pedophiles, unprofessionally skewing his survey samples with sexual predators and perverts, and lying about the implications of his already flawed work.
Limbaugh, to quote your feeble attempted counter-example, would've been much happier to stay happily married and not need powerful painkillers...
Nice try, though.
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.