Printer Friendly

Kinsey: Let's Talk About Sex.


Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg

Hollywood is again seeking to defend the indefensible. The release of Kinsey: Let's Talk About Sex, is another indication how out of touch Hollywood is from mainstream culture. It also demonstrates how willing Hollywood is to use its power and influence to promote radical and deviant agendas.

The film, starring Liam Neeson, and directed by a homosexual activist, is basically an attempted justification of Alfred Kinsey in particular and of the sexual revolution in general. It seeks to sanitise a man and a revolution that have caused such general damage.

Kinsey of course is the notorious American sexologist (1894-1956), whose agenda was to bring the public to the view that any and every sort of sexuality is permissible. He sought to convince us that there is no norm when it comes to human sexuality, and that we should embrace any sexual expression whatsoever.

Here are some of his theses:

* All orgasms are "outlets" and are equally valid--whether between husband and wife, boy and dog, man and man or adult and child--for in sexual expression, normal is individually determined.

* The more "outlets," the healthier the person--and beginning as early as possible is better than waiting.

* Human beings are naturally bisexual. Religious bigotry and prejudice force people into chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy.

* There is no medical or other reason for adult-child sex or incest to be forbidden.

People like Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame have helped to carry out this agenda. And today we see the result of this social and sexual revolution: increasing numbers of broken families, increasing marriage disintegration, a tsunami of pornography, including child pornography, an epidemic of promiscuity and of sexually transmitted diseases, escalating abortion rates, a crisis in teenage pregnancies, an increase of rape and sexual assault, and a culture that increasingly believes that hedonism is the highest good, and that self control is to be rejected.

The '60s sexual revolution was the bitter fruit of the agenda being promoted by Kinsey. But the film, instead of questioning his research and giving it a critical examination, seeks to turn this committed atheist and social revolutionary into a person to be admired and followed.

In fact, most people do not know that Kinsey collected data from imprisoned sex offenders, criminals, pedophiles and prostitutes. He took this obviously skewed data and tried to make the result appear to be normal and mainstream.

Many of the damaging effects of the sexual revolution are based on Kinsey's flawed conclusions, such as that children are sexual from birth, that sexual promiscuity is the norm, and that ten per cent of the population is homosexual.

Unfortunately, the homosexual revolution owes much to Kinsey. As one reviewer in a homosexual paper puts it, "For the queer community in particular, Kinsey is a must-see film. Without this man, it is seriously likely that the developing acceptance of gays and lesbians by society would not be anywhere near as progressed as it is today" (M.C.V., 14 January 2005, page 8).

Thus a whole range of sexual activity that was formerly subject to general disapproval has become normalised through Kinsey. But it is not only the fruit of his research that was dangerous; so too was the research itself. We know that Kinsey and his associates used children ranging in age from five months to fourteen years in his sex experiments. For example, in Table 34 of his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), Kinsey sought to show that the youngest of children could be sexually active. He said that even "the youngest males, as young as five months in age, are capable of such repeated reactions [orgasms]".

In that Table, it was indicated that four-year-old boys, for example, were sexually stimulated for twenty-four uninterrupted hours. A five-month baby is said to have produced three orgasms in an unspecified amount of time. An eleven-month baby is reported to have had fourteen orgasms in 38 minutes.

Kinsey's book also examined some of the infants' reactions to such "experimentation". These ranged from "extreme tension with violent convulsion ... gasping, eyes staring ... mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding ... whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching ... groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries ... more or less frenzied movements ... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of colour, and sometimes fainting ... of subject." These reactions, recorded with cold, clinical precision, are in fact nothing other than descriptions of criminal child abuse.

Indeed, Kinsey's study of the reactions concludes by noting that the subjects "will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive definite pleasure from the situation" further showing that what was involved was child sexual abuse of the worst kind.

And as one paediatrician noted, "these children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly".

In this context it was particularly unfortunate that Hollywood should produce this hagiography on Kinsey. There are pervasive problems with child pornography already, and this film will simply compound the problem.

Thus, the film suppresses many pertinent details about Kinsey. For example, decades ago Kinsey renamed paedophilia as "cross-generational sexual contact". And as mentioned already, Kinsey was quite happy to use paedophiles in his research on human sexuality. While the film suppresses these facts, for many of us such revelations are nothing new. The dubious science of Kinsey had been well documented in Judith Reisman's book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Huntington House, 1990).

Unfortunately this film is Hollywood and the media elite at their worst. What it seeks to do is to defend Kinsey and his associates, while glossing over both the fact that actual child abuse occurred and also the various important defects in Kinsey's methodology.

It is one thing to give a reasoned defence of Kinsey, difficult though that may be. But for this film to ignore the serious charges being brought against Kinsey, especially the Table 34 material, is both offensive and frightening. A society that has become so desensitised that it can turn perversions into entertainment material is a society that has lost its way.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Council for the National Interest
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Muehlenberg, Bill
Publication:National Observer - Australia and World Affairs
Article Type:Movie Review
Date:Sep 22, 2005
Previous Article:Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
Next Article:Mafia influence and the Whitlam government.

Related Articles
Promoting Kinsey, censoring grandma.
Bill & Al's excellent adventure: out Oscar winner Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters) talks about taking on Alfred Kinsey, bisexual icon of the sexual...
Alexan-dreck: Oliver Stone's Alexander may be bi-inclusive, but it's still a staggering disaster.
The joy of sexology: does it matter that Alfred Kinsey enjoyed his work more than he let on?
Sex and the Kinsey guy: while sexual fluidity may attract talented actors like Kinsey's Peter Sarsgaard, it seems to frighten away audiences--and...
Peter Shalit.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters