Have any of you actually seen this movie or bothered to log onto the Kinsey website? Clearly most of you critics needed to be in one of his classes or read his book.

Before you see a controversial film it pays to know the facts and understand any controversy so that you can judge by yourself - unless you want to be left to the mercy of the film-maker's propaganda.

Film-makers, on average, have lower morals than the rest of the community. They have a tendency to not let facts get in the way of a good story. Hollywood and the media love to rewrite history in their own image - which is ever sinking to lower morals - and they can't keep away from knocking the church & Christians. Methinks the laddies & ladies protest too much. E.g. fiction about the church opposing Galileo's ideas, Columbus opposed by Flat-Earthers, the Wilberforce-T.Huxley debate, or the play/film Inherit the Wind, it pays to know the documented facts so you can recognise when the facts have been ignored or fabricated to make the story say what the editor/producer wants it to say.

As I've documented above, the evidence is overwhelming that marriage outperforms all other forms of personal relationships (whether we look at health, wealth, sexual enjoyment, etc or what's best for kids and road safety). Now the manufacturer says sex is only good for us within marriage and, surprise surprise, that's what the evidence shows. But some poeple don't want to be confronted by the manufacturer let alone by supporting evidence (facts) - they want A.Huxley's 'vincible ignorance' and his free sex, free of guilt and the church's guidance/interferrence.

Well there's no such thing as a free lunch or free sex - it has a cost.

So why even bother to see propaganda and line the pockets of the promoters.

Incidentally, Hollywood doesn't seem to get the message that their morals are out of step with most people as shown by movies with a good moral message often being more profitable than their immoral blockbusters.

I have actually seen the film and find that the diatribe by Bill bares litte resemblance to the actual film content.

far from encouraging sex crimes I would say that the scene where clyde walks out of the room and kinsey is appalled at the behaviour highlight that this behaviuor is not acceptable to broader society.

What Kinsey does is record an oral history - In my view it is not the degree of social engineering that is suggested by Bill.

To equate bisexuality to sex crimes is typical of fundamentalist christians who perhaps are in denial of their own "true" sexuality.

I think there was a lot of merit in the film with regards to the harm done to the sexual welfare of people as a result of the moralistic christian fundamanetalists.

Grace Pettigrew has posted some rather twisted facts about Judith Reisman claiming that she has been discredited. This is not true.

See http://www.drjudithreisman.org/lawsuits.htm

Brief History Of Legal Actions Threatened By And Filed Against The Kinsey Institute Related To Kinsey’s Fraudulent Research

May 1983: Kinsey-co author, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy refuses to debate Dr. Reisman on CNN TV “Crossfire” and instead threatens to sue Dr. Reisman should she discusses Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). On Crossfire Dr. Reisman describes her findings of child sex atrocities conducted for Kinsey’s studies. She is not sued.

May 25, 1983 :
News columnist Patrick Buchanan reports Dr. Reisman’s child sex abuse charges in the press.

The Kinsey Institute threatens Buchanan with a libel lawsuit. Buchanan responds with “Buchanan v Kinsey Round 2,” documenting all of Reisman’s charges. He is not sued.

June 2, 1983 : A Kinsey Institute press release defames Dr. Reisman and denies all charges of crimes against children committed under cover of science and the protection of Indiana University .

February 2, 1984 : Press reports appear nationwide in concert with Playboy and similar materials, protesting a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention grant to Dr. Reisman to examine child pornography and to revisit the Kinsey research. In 1993 Dr. Reisman finds evidence of The Kinsey Institute’s secret role in discrediting this research.

February 1984: Dr. Reisman is called before American University ’s Institutional Review Board several times. The board forbids her to study Kinsey’s data. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secret role in censoring this research.

April 1984: Dr. Reisman is called to testify for the first of three congressional hearings to challenge the Department of Justice award for this research. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secretly involved in these Congressional efforts to stop the investigations.

1985: Dr. Reisman completes her study, "Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler," over significant obstacles. The research is successfully used at the US Supreme Court level as well as in lower courts.

1990: Kinsey Institute Director, June Reinisch threatens to sue a radio station should Dr. Reisman be interviewed about her recent 1990 book, Kinsey, Sex & Fraud. The radio station drops Dr. Reisman’s planned interview.

1990 Dr. Reisman discovers that The Kinsey Institute is secretly circulating “confidential” defamatory materials about her, worldwide. The cover page of the 89 page tome states these “confidential” materials “are not to be attributed to the Kinsey Institute”.

1990: A nonprofit law firm offers to represent Dr. Reisman pro bono for defamation against the Kinsey Institute and June Reinisch. Although her DOJ peers approved Reisman’s findings (the past president of The American Statistical Association concluded “This is a sound study”) the secret Kinsey Institute package mailed to numerous recipients injures Dr. Reisman by falsely claiming the DOJ research is not peer approved.

December 1990, Dr. Reisman appears and handily exposes Kinsey’s child abuse culpability on “Phil Donahue.” Later Dr. Reisman discovers Donahue was threatened with a lawsuit if Dr. Reisman appears on air. He is not sued.

1991: A lawsuit for defamation is filed by Dr. Reisman against The Kinsey Institute and its (then) Director, June Reinisch.

May 1993: In deposing June Reinisch at Indiana University , Dr. Reisman discovered handwritten file notes. One note said, “sue Am. University for sponsoring things she threatens to do.” Another note said “had lengthy conversation” … “Am. Univ. Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects.”

Dr. Reisman believes this “lengthy conversation” explains why the AU Institutional Review Board censored her legitimate study of Kinsey in her U.S. Justice Department research.

March 22, 1994 : Dr. Reisman’s pro-bono law firm said they could not financially continue the lawsuit. If plaintiff (Dr. Reisman) could pay $53,000 in court costs the judge ruled that this would allow her to file the same lawsuit later against the same defendants. Therefore, considering the non frivolous nature of her complaint, the judge would dismiss her case WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending its reopening.

Circa May 1994: Unable to obtain $53,000 to continue the case for a “without prejudice” decision, the judge dismissed the case “with prejudice” meaning Dr. Reisman could not sue for this collection of “confidential” papers, but could sue later on any other charge.

In sum, due to lack of money not lack of merit this defamation suit was dismissed

The judge did not absolve the Kinsey Institute or June Reinish of defamation.

This legal proceeding was not about the facts or fraud with respect to Kinsey’s research. The court NEVER ruled that Dr. Reisman’s defamation charges have no “merit.” The defamation case NEVER even addressed Kinsey’s crimes. [Note: It has been brought to our attention that The Kinsey Institute claims otherwise, and thus continues its history of trying to twist the facts. Just ask them for a complete copy of the law suit briefs, motions and rulings should you have any doubt.]

Dr. Judith Reisman has proven that the research conducted by A. Kinsey, his associates and collaborators was fraudulent and has invited and continues to invite the Kinsey Institute to debate her publicly about her research. The Kinsey Institute has never taken Dr. Reisman up on her offer, neither has the Kinsey Institute ever sued anyone who claimed that Kinsey’s research was fraudulent.

To date, the Kinsey Institute has failed to repudiate any of the facts Dr. Reisman has brought to light against the Kinsey research. Rather than admitting that Kinsey’s research had no scientific merit, the Kinsey Institute has engaged in secret cloak and dagger missions to destroy the reputation of those who seek to uncover the truth.

The Kinsey Institute until today continues to deny access to its files to any researcher critical of the “research” conducted by Alfred Kinsey.

AK

I enjoyed reading Bill's article. It helped to provide a balance to the film I saw last night on Australian TV. We all approach these questions from a personal perspective with our own values inextricably connected to the scientific, philosophical and religious views expressed. I wrote the follwoing prose-poem after watching the film trying, as I did, to connect my own experience and my values, as far back as the 1950s, to the issues involved.
____________________________________________
THE RISING ORB

In the last month of the Holy Year, October 1952 to October 1953, commemorating the centenary of the rise of the Orb of Bahá'u'lláh’s Revelation in the Siyah Chal, the first intimation of His glorious Mission, Dr. Alfred Kinsey published his Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female. 1953 was a remarkable year for both the Bahá'í community and the wider world. The Baha’is saw a sixty per cent increase in the number of sovereign states included within their pale. The double-helical structure of DNA was discovered and Josef Stalin died. And there was much more.-Ron Price with thanks to several sources one of which was SBS TV, “Alfred Kinsey,” 10:05-11:30 p.m., May 26th 2006.

I did not know any of this
back then when Miss Tcheta
was sending me out of the room
for talking and I was playing
third base in softball in the big
park down at the end of New Street.

I did not know any of this
orgasm business that Kinsey
was unfolding; I did not know
about origami or ornamental
lamps and I had no idea that
a revolution was beginning for
women and men--for I was only 9.
Indeed I came to believe that
a wonderful and thrilling motion
had appeared in the world
of existence and was permeating
everywhere--something we called
the inception of the Kingdom.1

1 Abdu’l-Baha in God Passes By, Shoghi Effendi, Wilmette, 1957, p.351.

Ron Price
May 27th 2006.