5 Bewertungen
Viewers who did not live in the 1940s and early 1950s will be taken in by this very shallow treatment of a complex subject - sex. The movie has a definite agenda and it is not about Dr. Kinsey and it distorts much to make its agenda.
One would believe from watching this flick that Kinsey was the pioneer of the sexual revolution in this country. He was not. He rode the wave and exploited it. World War II was something of a coming out party. Many men learned much about sex during the War. Then under the GI Bill they went to college and that resulted in a much more sophisticated and liberal America. Early in 1947, a movie was shown all over the country. It was called "Mom and Dad". It was about the problems of teenagers having sex and the possibility of getting VD. The photographs were very graphic and nothing like this had ever been shown in theaters before. The showings were restricted to persons 16 years and older and patrons could buy two pamphlets, one about males and one about females. They were probably the first sex manuals ever widely distributed in the US. While very rudimentary, they gave many people an idea what sex was all about.
That was several years before Kinsey but at that time it was recognized that there was a lot of ignorance about sex, although the ignorance was not as deep as depicted in the movie. For example, the movie implies most people were ignorant of oral copulation. However, it was practiced much more extensively than shown in the movie but because it was considered "dirty" people normally did not discuss it, although it was often the topic of conversation among lower class men, such as eating "hair pie".
The movie overemphasizes the teaching of abstinence. While the clergy and military chaplains preached abstinence, it was not taught in health education classes nor in VD programs in the military. All servicemen were taught to use condoms and condoms were commonly used as a birth control measure. Most teenagers knew to use condoms to protect against pregnancy.
While Kinsey shocked many people with his books, particularly prudes, many were not surprised. He just confirmed what many already knew. But he made mistakes. He overestimated the number of men that had engaged in homosexual sex. At that time, many considered masturbation and mutual masturbation as homosexual practices and if there were people who if asked if they had engaged in a homosexual act, would answer in the affirmative when in fact they had never engaged in oral or anal sex. This was brought out in later studies, however, because it didn't fit the message of this movie, this mistake was not brought out in the movie. Further, while some of subjects had engaged in one homosexual act, more out of curiosity than anything, afterwards they felt it was repulsive and never again engaged in a homosexual act, but Kinsey never brought this out.
The movie blatantly states that Kinsey himself engaged in homosexual sex but that has never been verified. Some consider it just another effort by gays to make him one of their own just as they have attempted to do with Abe Lincoln.
A problem with the movie was that it sensationalized sex by showing pictures of sexual weirdos. It only detracted from the movie and made Kinsey look like a jerk.
His research while flawed, was done in a scientific manner. A true scientist but he lacked the ability to see beyond the data. He came to the conclusion that any sexual conduct was natural and therefore acceptable. He was advocating free sex. But he was an entomologist, not a sociologist. He was incapable of seeing what the impact of his thinking would be on society and he lacked an understanding of how all the sexual mores had been developed and why.
Surprisingly he did not understand the role of sex in a complex society. As an etymologist he should have understood how sex is regulated in the insect world. Examples are the ant and bee societies where sex is very restricted in the common good.
The problem Kinsey and many other free thinkers have is that they believed that the mores against free sex were based on religion. In fact it is not the case. The mores against adultery, sodomy, and homosexuality actually were the result of pragmatism developed from thousands of years of wisdom and they are evidence of a highly developed society. Our ancestors learned early on that diseases were sexually transmitted. They learned that sex outside of marriage created severe family and social problems so their societies developed rules against sex outside of marriage including homosexuality. At the time the religious leaders were also the leaders of society and by making such conduct sins, they became enfolded in religion. But any pragmatist can see the value of such mores in societies.
Extra-marital sex still remains the principle source of venereal diseases and of broken marriages as well as the source of many children born out of wedlock who don't have a family. The sexual revolution, which Kinsey helped promote, has resulted in serious problems for society as a whole. Prior to the Viet Nam War, sexually transmitted diseases were limited to three easily treatable diseases and they were not that prevalent. Today, as a result of free sex and a drug culture that resulted from the sexual revolution, the number of venereal diseases had more than doubled and they are either ultimately fatal or difficult to treat because they have become resistant to antibiotics.
If Kinsey had dwelt on how to improve sexual relations in marriage, he would have accomplished much but by reducing the human race down to a basic sexual animal he helped destroy thousands of years of accumulated wisdom and unfortunately, the movie fails to bring out the evil he caused.
One would believe from watching this flick that Kinsey was the pioneer of the sexual revolution in this country. He was not. He rode the wave and exploited it. World War II was something of a coming out party. Many men learned much about sex during the War. Then under the GI Bill they went to college and that resulted in a much more sophisticated and liberal America. Early in 1947, a movie was shown all over the country. It was called "Mom and Dad". It was about the problems of teenagers having sex and the possibility of getting VD. The photographs were very graphic and nothing like this had ever been shown in theaters before. The showings were restricted to persons 16 years and older and patrons could buy two pamphlets, one about males and one about females. They were probably the first sex manuals ever widely distributed in the US. While very rudimentary, they gave many people an idea what sex was all about.
That was several years before Kinsey but at that time it was recognized that there was a lot of ignorance about sex, although the ignorance was not as deep as depicted in the movie. For example, the movie implies most people were ignorant of oral copulation. However, it was practiced much more extensively than shown in the movie but because it was considered "dirty" people normally did not discuss it, although it was often the topic of conversation among lower class men, such as eating "hair pie".
The movie overemphasizes the teaching of abstinence. While the clergy and military chaplains preached abstinence, it was not taught in health education classes nor in VD programs in the military. All servicemen were taught to use condoms and condoms were commonly used as a birth control measure. Most teenagers knew to use condoms to protect against pregnancy.
While Kinsey shocked many people with his books, particularly prudes, many were not surprised. He just confirmed what many already knew. But he made mistakes. He overestimated the number of men that had engaged in homosexual sex. At that time, many considered masturbation and mutual masturbation as homosexual practices and if there were people who if asked if they had engaged in a homosexual act, would answer in the affirmative when in fact they had never engaged in oral or anal sex. This was brought out in later studies, however, because it didn't fit the message of this movie, this mistake was not brought out in the movie. Further, while some of subjects had engaged in one homosexual act, more out of curiosity than anything, afterwards they felt it was repulsive and never again engaged in a homosexual act, but Kinsey never brought this out.
The movie blatantly states that Kinsey himself engaged in homosexual sex but that has never been verified. Some consider it just another effort by gays to make him one of their own just as they have attempted to do with Abe Lincoln.
A problem with the movie was that it sensationalized sex by showing pictures of sexual weirdos. It only detracted from the movie and made Kinsey look like a jerk.
His research while flawed, was done in a scientific manner. A true scientist but he lacked the ability to see beyond the data. He came to the conclusion that any sexual conduct was natural and therefore acceptable. He was advocating free sex. But he was an entomologist, not a sociologist. He was incapable of seeing what the impact of his thinking would be on society and he lacked an understanding of how all the sexual mores had been developed and why.
Surprisingly he did not understand the role of sex in a complex society. As an etymologist he should have understood how sex is regulated in the insect world. Examples are the ant and bee societies where sex is very restricted in the common good.
The problem Kinsey and many other free thinkers have is that they believed that the mores against free sex were based on religion. In fact it is not the case. The mores against adultery, sodomy, and homosexuality actually were the result of pragmatism developed from thousands of years of wisdom and they are evidence of a highly developed society. Our ancestors learned early on that diseases were sexually transmitted. They learned that sex outside of marriage created severe family and social problems so their societies developed rules against sex outside of marriage including homosexuality. At the time the religious leaders were also the leaders of society and by making such conduct sins, they became enfolded in religion. But any pragmatist can see the value of such mores in societies.
Extra-marital sex still remains the principle source of venereal diseases and of broken marriages as well as the source of many children born out of wedlock who don't have a family. The sexual revolution, which Kinsey helped promote, has resulted in serious problems for society as a whole. Prior to the Viet Nam War, sexually transmitted diseases were limited to three easily treatable diseases and they were not that prevalent. Today, as a result of free sex and a drug culture that resulted from the sexual revolution, the number of venereal diseases had more than doubled and they are either ultimately fatal or difficult to treat because they have become resistant to antibiotics.
If Kinsey had dwelt on how to improve sexual relations in marriage, he would have accomplished much but by reducing the human race down to a basic sexual animal he helped destroy thousands of years of accumulated wisdom and unfortunately, the movie fails to bring out the evil he caused.
- jackjack-2
- 1. Jan. 2006
- Permalink
Liam Neeson does a convincing job portraying the sex-crazed maniac Alfred Kinsey. The movie is well directed and well written. The problem is, Alfred Kinsey was a pervert who was obsessed with sex, and pursued his desires in the name of science. The movie tries to make Kinsey seem like a real, legitimate, scientist. This veil can be easily seen through, and one can not help but wonder how much more twisted real man was than his on-screen counterpart. I was thoroughly disgusted by this movie, and feel it's "R" rating is a bit too light given the strong sexual material here. I give three stars for a well acted, well written movie, that tries to hard to make a legacy for one of the most famous perverts in American history.
- theberserker01-1
- 5. Jan. 2007
- Permalink
I think a lot of people are getting caught up in the subject matter and unwilling to look at the film objectively. The movie was OK, not great considering his last. Bill is a great filmmaker and I look forward to his next one, but this one "didn't do it for me".
I thought Liam's performance was more wooden then usual and Laura's not as good as usual. I still think Laura is one of the best actors out there, don't get me wrong, but she just didn't inspire this time around. It wasn't shot that great and the script lost its luster half way through.
I'd give it 2.5 out of 4.
I thought Liam's performance was more wooden then usual and Laura's not as good as usual. I still think Laura is one of the best actors out there, don't get me wrong, but she just didn't inspire this time around. It wasn't shot that great and the script lost its luster half way through.
I'd give it 2.5 out of 4.
- FilmSnobby
- 12. Dez. 2004
- Permalink