I think I'm the only one here who has seen the film and Kinsey is not portrayed as an angel by any means. The child molestor he interviews is portrayed exactly as such...a very loathsome character who repels Kinsey's assistant into leaving the room. Kinsey remains and interviews him through gritted teeth 'in the interest of science'.
Yes, and then he went out "in the interest of science" and portrayed these victimized children as sexual beings who really did like what was being done to them. 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 enjoying it.
No Kinsey, no NAMBLA. How badly would the movie have to portray the father of the effort to legalize child molestation before it would be too harsh? If you've seen the movie, you've probably seen the ads and trailers. Do any of them present him as the sort of man who thinks a little kid crying as she is violated is just expressing her sexuality? Or is it all a big joke, like the bit in the TV ads where he asks the couple what their most common position is and the wife says, "There's more than one?"
Har-dee-har-har. I'm sure the movie is a laugh-riot.
Since you have seen the film, would you recommend that a FReeper see this film? Why or why not?