Kinsey Con Job

Hollywood is at it again: seeking to defend the indefensible. The release of Kinsey: Let’s Talk About Sex, is another indication of just how out of touch Hollywood is from mainstream culture. It also demonstrates how willing it 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 a puff piece on Alfred Kinsey in particular and the sexual revolution in general. It seeks to sanitise a man and a revolution that have caused an enormous amount of damage.

Kinsey of course is the notorious American sexologist (1894-1956), whose agenda was to soften up 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 “findings”:

-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 of course helped to carry out this agenda. And today we see the result of this social and sexual revolution: broken families, marriage disintegration, a tsunami of pornography, including child pornography, an epidemic of promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases, skyrocketing abortion rates, a crisis in teenage pregnancies, an explosion of rape and sexual assault, and a culture that believes that hedonism is the highest good, and self control and restraint the greatest evil.

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, instead sugar coats the whole story, seeking to turn this committed atheist and social revolutionary into a saint.

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. But perversion masquerading as science is still perversion.

Many of the lies 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 10 percent of the population is homosexual. Indeed, 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’s seriously likely that the developing acceptance of gays and lesbians by society would not be anywhere near as progressed as it is today” (MCV, 14 January 2005, p. 8 ).

Thus a whole range of sexual activity that used to be frowned upon has become normalised because of Kinsey. But it is not only the fruits of his research that was dangerous; so too was the research itself. We know that Kinsey and his associates used children ranging from 5 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 5 months in age, are capable of such repeated reactions [orgasms]” In the table, four-year-old boys, for example, were sexually stimulated for 24 uninterrupted hours. A five month baby is said to have produced 3 orgasms in an unspecified amount of time.

An eleven month baby is reported to have had 14 orgasms in 38 minutes. The book also examines some of the 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 color, and sometimes fainting … of subject.” These reactions, recorded with cold, clinical precision, are nothing less than descriptions of criminal child abuse.

Remarkably, however, the study of the reactions concludes by noting that the subject “will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.” Does that sound like pleasure? It sounds like child sexual assault 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.” Thus it is amazing that Hollywood should come out with this hagiography on Kinsey.

We have such huge problems with child pornography right now, and our entertainment capital will simply compound the problem. Indeed, the film will cover up a lot of 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 will not mention these facts, for many of us, such revelations are nothing new. The dubious science of Dr Kinsey had been well documented in Judith Reisman’s book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Huntington House, 1990).

Thus this film is Hollywood and the media elite at their worst. What this film seeks to do is defend Kinsey and his associates, while glossing over the fact that actual child abuse may have occurred. Defenders of the film (and of the Kinsey experiments) accuse us of being panic-mongers. If concern about pedophilia is a sign of panic-mongering, perhaps we need more of it.

For the moment – until society becomes more “enlightened” – pedophilia is a criminal offence. It is one thing to give a general defence of Kinsey. 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 a pervert into entertainment material is a society that has lost its way.

[1063 words]

4 Replies to “Kinsey Con Job”

  1. Maybe Kinsey should have kept to studying insects. Apparently he had an intense fascination with the gall wasp. Seems to me he turned into one.

    Annette Nestor

  2. Thanks John. Yes it is. I have been referring to this article elsewhere of late, not because of the film, but because of the continued influence of him in the culture wars and sex wars.

  3. Bill. Kinsey Institute just celebrated their 70th anniversary. We researched their current status and mission. Overwhelming to see their global explosion through their “research” their exploitation of college campuses. As of last year they are now placed under the protection of Indiana University. They influence all education departments with their work. They support outside the college come from private donors like Hyatt owner (recently changed from James to Jenny) and gay co-owner of Dreamworks. We found out so much. So disturbing. They plan to reveal a Kinsey statue on campus for the 75th anniversary

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: