Kinsey

[Irvine511]

just saw the movie recently -- very good. i also understand there's a major effort to both discredit Kinsey, and to protest the movie. i know little about this -- how do we feel about the Professor?

 

[Scarletwine]

I have not seen the movie, but Phyllis Schafly is portraying him as the inventor of pedophilia.

From what I know about his research, I think he did the world a needed service.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Although WorldNetDaily (??) is relatively biased towards the right they do offer an interesting critique of his character (the pedophilia issue being a huge problem to his legacy if it's true).

 

[Anthony]

I think that he provided for many a reality check in an era when it quite obviously needed one. I wouldn't proclaim the man a visionary or anything like that, but I think he did more good than bad.

Also, looks like a great movie. Did you enjoy it, Irvine?

Ant.

 

[Irvine511]

very good movie. i love Liam Neeson and Peter Saarsgard, as well as Laura Linney. recommended.

i was also pleased to see the movie get an R rating, and not an NC-17. i'm always amazed at how violence goes unnoticed by the MPAA, but the mere site of genitalia or frank discussions on sex tend to send those people into an NC-17 tizzy (where graphic violence in films like "Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down" are somehow less disturbing than a penis ... both great films, however).

biopics are very hard to do, how do you condense the life of a complicated individual into 2+ hours? the film isn't perfect, and suffers from the traditional problems of biopics -- putting in a too-easy psychological sketch of a character motivation based upon a single dinner conversation; interesting threads are left unresolved -- but totally worth my $9.

 

[drhark]

Seems to me this guy used bad science to bolster his theories. He did have big balls to be in that field at that particular time, so I'd call him a pioneer, but that doesn't mean he's right or that his research did any good to society. One could make the case he did more harm than good. Still, I'd leave the biography to A & E channel. Same goes for Howard Hughes. All Hollywood can do is sugar coat it and make it something it wasn't in order to sell tickets.

 

[Do Miss America]

... but that doesn't mean he's right or that his research did any good to society. One could make the case he did more harm than good. Still, I'd leave the biography to A & E channel. Same goes for Howard Hughes. All Hollywood can do is sugar coat it and make it something it wasn't in order to sell tickets.

Do you have any information on this, I admit I know very little about him?

 

[Irvine511]

Do you have any information on this, I admit I know very little about him?

i'm quite willing to bet that drhark hasn't seen the movie, nor knows very much about kinsey, so i doubt there's much information they could point to.

SPOILER ALERT!!!! SOME MOVIE DETAILS GIVEN AWAY!!!

the movie points to his clinical approach to sex -- at one point, Saarsgard's character says, "to you, it's all friction" -- at the expense of the emotional to be a flaw, also the wife-swapping activity of his researchers has explicitly negative results. but the movie does admire Kinsey, for two reasons:

1. we now know more about sex, and speak more freely about sex, and understand that it's an entirely natural part of biology

2. "variety is the only constant" is pretty much the theme of the movie, which points to a greater acceptance of different forms and expressions of sexuality. yes, there's no question homosexuality falls under this, and i suppose if you feel that there's only one way to be sexual -- that there is no hetero or homosexuality, there's just sexualitly and all variations are deviations -- then you won't find much to admire about Kinsey, the man or the movie.

anticipating the inevitable (and hugely insulting) questions that arise whenever discussions about the natrualness of homosexuality occur, the movie doesn't have much to say about beastiality other than that it occurs, but there is an interview with a pedophile where Kinsey remains detached and clinical but his interviewing partner stands up in disgust and walks out of the interview. from this, we can take a pretty clear message that the movie does not endorse this particular variant of sexuality, the film in fact condemns it (because we know there is a victim, an innocent pre-sexual child). i think it's logical to posit that Kinsey, ever the scientist, would do his best to refrain from judgement for the sake of knoweldge, but the film does judge the pedophile rather harshly, though not hysterically.

it's a very mature film, in all aspects of the word.

 

[Scarletwine]

Although WorldNetDaily (??) is relatively biased towards the right they do offer an interesting critique of his character (the pedophilia issue being a huge problem to his legacy if it's true).

He wasn't into pedophilia in anyway. He just noted that children were also sexual creature, ie. masturbation at young ages. She blames him for speaking about children as sexual beings at all. IMO that has nothing to do with abuse.

 

[drhark]

no, I haven't seen the movie but I know a bit about Kinsey. As I said before, I wouldn't use a Hollywood movie as a reference for someone's life and work.

 

[meegannie]

I haven't seen the movie, but I studied Kinsey as a postgraduate and think his research methods were seriously flawed. The Masters and Johnson is probably more accurate.

 

[meegannie]

He wasn't into pedophilia in anyway. He just noted that children were also sexual creature, ie. masturbation at young ages. She blames him for speaking about children as sexual beings at all. IMO that has nothing to do with abuse.

Kinsey did, however, say that the reason molestation and incest result in emotional trauma is the reaction of the child's parents and law enforcement, not the act of sex itself, which the child would otherwise enjoy. He also had a large collection of child pornography (among other kinds that he participated in and urged his colleagues and students to participate in).