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.
Explain to me how a child playing with herself and learning that it's not appropriate in public is "sexual abuse" and rationalizing it?
Oh wait, it isn't.
Sexual acts? I guess it depends on how you define it. I only refer to the capability for rudimentary sexual sensation, not to "oral sex" or other acts. I don't look at the capability as being "sexualized" only the acts, but if you catch your kid doing something that troubles you, it would be helpful if the reaction was proportional.
But you did mention seeing someone else do something of the sort. Well, surely there are many kids who've walked in on their parents, if only once. Even if they were never exposed before, certainly that could impact them. Then all that protection and sheltering would be for naught. Seems pretty fragile to me if all it takes is seeing something at a young age.
Perhaps the earlier poster was correct in that I chose the wrong thread. I kind of assumed people agreed on Kinsey so I wanted to have a more spirited conversation rather than an amen chorus. I apologize if anyone felt my remarks were not thread-appropriate. I really didn't mean for it to be "all about me" or for people to misinterpret what I meant.
Another article about this foul movie glorifying a sick monster:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1278761/posts?page=3
I'm referring to kids who have been sexualized by exposure (generally repeated exposure) to sexually explicit stuff - TV, movies, or live people. Most of us on this thread I'm sure would not do that to kids - but there are, unfortunately, animal-like people who care nothing for their children's real well being. Or even think it's a good idea to "show" them how it's done, or include them.
It's a very unfortunate fact that many kids have their innocence ripped away from them at a young age, and Kinsey is their god, whether they know of him and his crimes or not.
Go back to NAMBLA, you pervert.
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.