Skip to comments.Kinsey & Ebert, At the Movies
Posted on 11/26/2004 12:26:19 PM PST by McCormick Reaper
IL MEDIA UNSPUN: Kinsey & Ebert, At the Movies
Friday, November 19, 2004
By Arlen Williams, media critic (firstname.lastname@example.org)
OPINION -- A movie is now being shown that promotes one of the most evil and destructive figures in the 20th Century. The setting: not Berlin, nor Moscow, nor Peking . . . but Bloomington, Indiana.
People of informed conscience are exposing this film and its subject for what they are. Roger Ebert doesn't like that.
The film is about Alfred Kinsey, Ph.D., Professor at Indiana University, Darwinist zoologist, sex researcher, sex research defrauder, sexual anti-moralist, sexual abuse enabler, personally sexual pervert, and pseudo-scientific high priest of the Sexual Revolution.
What a Hoosier, eh?
In his 11/14 Sun-Times column, "Sex and the Scientist," Roger Ebert does what a defender of the Sexual Revolution does and what myriads in the media are doing right now, concerning this movie.
In fact, his is a classic example of post-Kinseyan, freedom-from-morality apologia.
Ebert claims that Kinsey "never advocated anything and specialized in research that simply attempted to discover what people actually do in their sex lives." Tactic to note: deny true motives in the false name of the noble quest for scientific truth.
According to Ebert, "Kinsey found that most people masturbated, that a third of men reported at least one homosexual experience, and that oral sex and extramarital sex were commonplace."
Actually Kinsey "found" much more than that. For one thing, Kinsey found an overwhelmingly skewed set of subjects for this research in the populations of prisons --not to mention the manipulation of those willing in the mid 20th Century to sit down and answer hundreds of questions about their sexual experiences.
He even sought out many prostitutes and sex offenders to lump into his research, while secretly trashing three quarters of his data. Hardly a control sample.
But control was a problem for Dr. Kinsey. While he was very controlling of his methods and student researchers, he did not exhibit much control of his own sexuality. His death in 1956 is attributed to "orchitis," which flowery word refers to a testicular infection that according to noted Kinsey debunker, Judith Reisman, Ph.D., "followed years of sadistic, orgiastic 'self-abuse.'"
The real story on Kinsey may be found in numerous places. I am drawing from the 11/12 WorldNetDaily column, "Selling sex in the U.S.A." by editor David Kupelian and his citation of the findings of Dr. Reisman. I suggest the very informative albeit tortuous read.
Torture. That gets to another point.
Ebert's defense of the Hoosier prof failed to mention the heart-rending evil Kinsey's "research" included. It wasn't just about answering the questions, "What do you do when you're alone?" and "What do you mean by 'kiss?'"
Kinsey's "Table 34" features exacting data on the sexual abuse of children -- down to age five months.
"Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal 'child sexuality.'"
Explaining further, Kupelian relates:
For example, "Table 34" on page 180 of Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" claims to be a "scientific" record of "multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males." Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for "orgasm" by Kinsey's "technically trained" aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 "orgasms."
No, Ebert somehow overlooks the facts, purporting instead that the key issues were about such things as whether or not to try positions besides "missionary."
Another exemplary tactic used by Ebert is the characterizing of Kinsey and all the Son of Kinsey chips off the ol' monster out there as heroes of freedom, besieged by "the forces of prudery."
That's you and me -- if you believe sex is about marriage/family.
You see, when one is defending the harmful practices of sin, against those who uphold the way life may be enjoyed from beginning through end, he must portray the wholesome as the ones aberrant.
At the feet of Alfred the Hoosier we may lay tens of millions of abortions, a culture of porn, NAMBLA's organized pedophilia, the media's "homosexual chic" cause, and countless, endemic cases of spiritual, relational, and psychological harm.
Celebrate the movie promoting America's own 20th Century mega-villian!
Roger's thumb is up...
© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this commentary? Write a letter to the editor at email@example.com, and include your name and town.
I'm sure the lawsuit by the Greek Lawyers for Truth, so to speak, is getting buzz. But in Europe, does a homosexual tag hurt or help boxoffice? "That is the question." Probably helps in Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels....
What did Margaret fudge?
This alternative weekly newspaper had a review for Kinsey and said that it was "non-judgemental", yet it sounds like much is done to demonize anyone who would speak of morals.
He lives under the thumb of a proselytizing pop (John Lithgow), who believes everything made by man leads to sin -- especially the zipper, which provides "speedy access to moral oblivion." Kinsey's father, we discover later, has his understandable reasons for believing sex a deviant's pastime; Condon, as tolerant and compassionate as his subject, is not beyond trying to understand how a man becomes a monster.
Among his students is Clara "Mac" McMillen (Laura Linney), who fancies the professor but believes him "too churchy." Theirs is a cool courtship that culminates in wedding-night lovemaking more akin to wrestling than sex. Watching the pain on her face, and the humiliation on his, is almost too much to bear, but Condon doesn't pull back or grimace or, yes, even judge.
The writer claims that the Kinsey's had awkward sex when they both lost virginity on their wedding night. "Certainly" wouldn't have had anything to do with Alfred's preference of male sexual encounters, now would it?
He does count Summer Lovers (with its menage a tois) as one of his 10 guilty pleasures and I think that he has confessed to not being above giving a movie a positive review if he has a crush on one of the actresses.
The "Report" came out in times where few would dispute it due to the stigma of the subject itself.
Actually orchitis refers to inflamation or swelling of the testicals. It does not have to be associated with an infection. Sometimes one can get it as a result of a hernia or forms of cancer. One of the most common infection that causes orchitis is mump and is very uncommon in adult males. If he had an infection it would be nice to know what it was. Men do not usually die of orchitis alone.
I saw this movie at an advanced screening... by Fox Films. I wonder what Rupert has to say?
Talk about perverse. This guy is still regarded as a "pioneer" in the study of human sexuality. He was a pedophile, and a sexual sadist as well.
Yep. IIRC it was called "Quills" and Ebert loved it.
I haven't read an Ebert review for years (I don't go to movies anymore anyway), but when I did go, I found Ebert to be a perfect reverse barometer. If he hated something, I usually liked it and vice versa. It seemed Ebert especially loves that pseudo-arty European "cine" trash. I watched a few promoted as wonderful by Roger the Snob and duly regretted it.
Her "Coming to age in Samoa" was taken as a Holy scripture by agents of change. It is a gross scientiffic fraud, fiction presented antropological facts
A person could usually pick the movies that Ebert would like, before he even said a word.
Probably, "Give me even more money."