National Observer Home > No. 64 - Autumn 2005 > Book Reviews
Kinsey: Let's Talk About Sex Movie
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.
Bill Muehlenberg
National Observer No. 64 - Autumn 2005
