Alfred Kinsey: The "Rest" of the Story
I am receiving some exciting messages around my excitement and praise for this Liam Neeson portrayal of Alfred Kinsey that has just been released by Fox Searchlight pictures. And I find it quite exciting, because the passion and the subject matter are entirely apropos for these current days in U.S. politics and our relationship to the world. There are many who do not agree with me, as I am admiring Dr. Kinsey, and they waste no time entering "evidence" to discredit his value to society.
I am including some links on this page, dealing with some of that controversy, particularly dealing with his statistics about childhood sexuality, and the methods by which he obtained the data to support it. Those issues, along with his propensity to collect rare and exotic sexual art and memorabilia, were the primary vanguard that was first launched against the Kinsey Reports, by those who seemed deeply invested in shutting him up.
If we use Reconnections Teachings to moderate this controversy, we can catch a glimpse of our Collective Psyche, as it bobs and weaves--trying to determine how much (or how little) information we wish to process about this (forever hot) topic of human sexuality. We are clearly SPLIT, are we not? Some of us cry out for more knowledge and more freedom in these areas, while others are aghast at how much "obscenity" is being allowed to RUIN our minds and hearts already. It's clearly a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.
And what happens when those two forces collide? Well.....allowing for the fact that BOTH FORCES are maintained at an EQUAL POWER, and neither of them pulls out of the "chicken race" we are putting them in, the only result of such a collision would be a MERGE of vast and incalculable value.
THE "REST" OF THE STORY
There have been plenty who hurry to send me information which they call "the rest of the story" about Dr. Kinsey. They feel that, if I were better "informed" about this man (his fraudulent, lusty, irresponsible ways), I would be less likely to admire him, or be inspired by his work and methods. But really, the only "information" any of us require, when we are having a spiritual experience, is the information that is before us at the time. Every person is multidimensional. That includes Alfred Kinsey, Jesus, Buddha, and yes....even George W. Bush. We all have a "light" side, and we all have a "dark" side. And the determinant of which side is which would exist within the eye of the beholder.
When I saw this movie, I saw the Kinsey that I needed to see for this time in my life. Conversely, the people who fear or disregard Kinsey and his work are seeing the Kinsey they need to see as well. I hope that point is very clear. The Recons have taught us that "there is no such thing as disagreement in the Multiverse. There is only a limitless spectrum of alternative viewpoints of the same one theme."
Those who rely on "evidence" to determine what they believe about something or someone are basing their lives on old paradigm programming. Don't we realize that each universe that honors a particular view of something already comes equipped with all the "evidence" necessary to fully establish and "prove" that "fact," for those who care to go there? The primary question is: (to paraphrase Microsoft) "Where do you want to go today?" After that, all the evidence you need will be provided.
In 1995, I had several links which described the work of Judith A. Reisman, and the Controversy around Table 34 of Kinsey's book. Those links are no longer active. But here is a response from the Kinsey Institute on the charges:
I have already stated that the "Sexual Freedom" Movement of the 60's, supposedly inspired (in full or in part) by The Kinsey Reports, was fun--but incomplete and somewhat pointless. It was an "Undress Rehearsal" for a transformative process that was born somewhat out of season. That certainly doesn't mean that it didn't have purpose, because it did. It just means that we have *yet to discover* the full meaning of Dr. Kinsey's ground-breaking work, as we brush aside the brashness of "free love," and move forward into the new dawn of Universal Oneness.
THOSE WHO FIGHT THE TIDE
I find it interesting when a group of people begins to fight against a Movement of Energy on the planet. We don't define ourselves in 3D by the things we like or embrace. Rather, we define ourselves by those things we fight against.
The 3D Plane of Existence is ALL ABOUT the idea of fighting against that which you feel is NOT you. For more info on this, you may want to review the Reconnections Transmission on "How Universes Are Formed."
Philosopher Arnold Schopenhauer is credited with one of the coolest sayings around. He said: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." What we focus upon intensely (as we would in a fight), we eventually become. Or, more likely, we were always that, but weren't wise enough or big enough to admit it.
At the root of that insight is the fact that we are--each of us---ALL OF IT, and we always were. We just become lost, and fragmented in our awareness. We are LOST, but not really. We simply wander off, have ourselves a limitation experience, and then we find our path HOME......even as humanity is doing today.
A woman once wrote me, and told me she fervently disagreed with what I had to say about something. She then went on to tell me all the reasons I should change my mind about that topic. I thanked her, and reminded her that, if she truly had no use for or involvement with what I was saying, she didn't have to fight me on it (or even convert me). All she had to do was pass it on by. She reveled in this, and thanked me profusely--which was kind of new for me. Most folks just stick to their guns on their issues, and that's the end of that.
Fighting the tide on the true knowledge of Sexuality has some deeper implications, which are brewing nicely inside the "kettle" of a Reconnections Transmission that is underway. And so, this is all I will say about this for awhile. But there is much more to be said.
RATIONALIZING YOUR URGES
One online reviewer of the Kinsey Movie had some interesting words to add. He was quoting Mrs. Kinsey (Laura Linney), in a scene from the movie where Alfred is confessing to her a homosexual affair with Clyde Martin, one of his fellow researchers. As Alfred is speaking to her about his urges, and his need to be honest with himself (and her) about what he was feeling, and his calling as a scientist, she bursts out with: "Stop using science to justify what you have done!"
The reviewer went on to make his case for a belief that Kinsey's true motives, and the motives of his collegues, was the satisfaction of prurient desires at the expense of scientific donors.
He said: "Sure, Kinsey is not made to look perfect, but Hollywood heroes rarely are. He is made to look brave and noble, just blinded by his desires and ambition. What's wrong with that? Nothing (welcome to the human condition). And before I critique the movie, I want to state right here that I think sex is a terrific, glorious, fantastic thing with many ways, positions, tastes and expressions (of which I've tried more than a few). In one sense, we probably owe Kinsey something for the much freer exercise of sex today. However, having said that, I also have to ask 'but at what cost?"
The woman who sent along the article added: ".....The quote at the bottom of your message ("Everyone's sin is no one's sin. And everybody's crime is no crime at all.") seems to me a double edged sword as well, as "everybody's doing it" has been used as a justification for a lot of reprehensible behavior for millenia on this planet. I can see that, yes, Kinsey was trying to break through those ignorant preconceived notions, but hopefully in the end because they are incorrect, not because "everybody's doing it."
And this is, indeed, a fair assertion. However, the usage of the words "sin" and "crime" has a lot less to do with proper inner motivation than it has to do with public control of the actions of certain people so that other people can feel safe. Kinsey's usage of the above phrase was an expression of his outrage over the inequities and unfairness about how sexual offenders were prosecuted in the system. In that same interview he exclaimed: Sexual Involvement between adults and minors today is rampant. And the primary determinant of why some people are sitting in jail because of it, and others walk free has less to do with justice, and more to do with whether or not a person has enough money to buy himself the right lawyer."
If we do things just because "everybody's doing it," we have turned ourselves into sheeple. Nothing could be less true about Alfred Kinsey than that. He was more than willing to swim against the tide, if it meant getting him closer to his goal. And his goal, by the way, was getting at the true picture of what was going on with Sexuality in America. I am convinced of that. Yes, he may have had interests and agendas alongside that. But I get, from the energy I am encountering, and everything that Spirit has brought my way, that he was far more invested in showing people their options--what was available if they chose to participate--than he was telling people what to do, or what not to do. And he made it clear that he never wanted anyone hurt. His colleagues may have felt differently about that, and a few of them expressed that at times. But that's how it goes between leaders and their lieutenants.......in all fields of study.
Yes, indeed........Kinsey was used to swimming against the tide--which is why we have so much controversy. But, I dare say, that is also why our commentator friend (who reviewed the movie) can now say: "I want to state right here that I think sex is terrific, glorious, fantastic thing with many ways, positions, tastes and expressions." One might wonder: If Kinsey had never done his work, would this man feel as free about sex now as he seems to be? Only the Shadow knows..........
My thanks to those who write in. If you have more to say about this topic, please feel free to comment.
January 22, 2005
By Daniel Jacob.
Copyright, 2005, by Daniel Jacob. All Rights Reserved.
Q: Greetings, Daniel. After reading your article on the Kinsey movie, I thought you might want to be aware of "the rest of the story," as indicated in the movie review below I found on Yahoo movies.DJ: I appreciate the fact that both your interest and your passion was aroused. Thanks fortaking the time to share your thoughts. I am sure there are a whole spectrum of "rest of the story" renditions out there. The Web seemed to be buzzing with a new-found interest in Dr. Kinsey.Q: Additionally, the quote at the bottom of your message ("Everyone's sin is no one's sin. And everybody's crime is no crime at all.") seems to me a double edged sword as well, as "everybody's doing it" has been used as a justification for a lot of reprehensible behavior for millenia on this planet.DJ: The quote was presented as Dr. Kinsey's in the movie, spoken to a group of reporters in a fit of frustration about the double-standard that is applied in our legal system regarding the prosecution and sentencing of sexual offenders. He got beat up for using them, too, didn't he?The key words, in my mind, were "sin" and "crime." Whenever I see these words applied, they are almost always being spoken by one group of people who are concerned about controlling other people's actions. Whether a law is ordained at the Council of Nicea as "The Word of God," or adopted by some state legislature as "The Law of the Land," it still seems to dwell on controlling and limiting "them" so that they don't cause harm to "us."
Kinsey clearly stated that there were many more people having sexual contact with children than were sitting in jail for the crime. I believe he said something like: "There are people sitting in jail for these crimes primarily because they didn't have enough money to hire a good lawyer." Kinsey felt this was horribly unfair, particularly because he knew, statistically, how many families and communities engaged in sexuality with minors and got away scot-free. He refused to comment on the subject, morally or personally, because his primary focus was on getting the statistics right and getting out the word.Yes, Dr. Kinsey may have had other agendas, but that didn't stick out in my mind when I saw this movie. As you may realize from my writings, I am not so much concerned with what the "evidence" may prove about a person--one way or the other--as I am with what reflections come to me from the information I am given. In the Multiverse, we're ALL OF IT. As a Multiversal Being, I see Dr. Kinsey as ALL OF IT as well. He has dark and foreboding sides, and he has light and wonderful sides as well. So what? Everyone has that kind of diversity, whether he is willing to admit it or not.
Your mention of the phrase "everybody's doing it" deals with a person's inner motivation--the rationalizations he might use (or not use) as a reason to engage in or abstain from certain behaviors. And, as you say, the argument does have weight. That is why the application of words like "crime" and "sin" seemed to rile the good Doctor. He saw people pointing a finger and saying:I can see that, yes, Kinsey
> was trying to break through those ignorant preconceived notions, but hopefully in
> the end because they are incorrect, not because "everybody's doing it."
>
> I haven't seen the movie myself, and doubt that I will, although I know exactly what
> you're talking about regarding being almost dragged to a movie that your guidance
> knows you should see. That happened to me with "Schindler's List" and it was a
> powerfully transforming experience, and the same for "The Others," which opened the
> door to a whole new reality for me.
>
> Anyway, Daniel, thank you as always for sharing The Reconnections with us. There are
> so many times that their messages ring true for me in a way that isn't addressed by
> any other of my favorite "friends in high places."
> Many blessings to you,
> Dove
>
> ********************************************************************************
> Overall Grade: D-
> Story: D+
> Acting: A-
> Direction: C-
> Visuals: A-
>
> "Stop using science to justify what you've done"
> by filmfanatic1967 (movies profile) Nov 16, 2004
> (329 of 626 people found this review helpful)
> This may be the best line from the movie because it sums up in a line (from one
> powerful scene) what's wrong with this picture. Sure, Kinsey is not made to look
> perfect, but hollywood heroes rarely are. He is made to look brave and noble, just
> blinded by his desires and ambition. What's wrong with that? Nothing (welcome to the
> human condition). And before I critique the movie, I want to state right here that I
> think sex is a terrific, glorious, fantastic thing with many ways, positions, tastes
> and expressions (of which I've tried more than a few). In one sense, we probably owe
> Kinsey something for the much freer exercise of sex today. However, having said
> that, I also have to ask 'but at what cost?'
>
> From Kinsey's own colleagues and writings, we find that Kinsey and friends gathered
> "data" from 1888 (mostly involuntary) pre-adolescent boys (and 147 girls), starting
> as young as 5 months old. This isn't some whack theory, it's directly from the
> Kinsey team*. Over 800 were from one child molester (codenamed Mr. X). Here's a
> direct quote from Paul Gebhard (played by Timothy Hutton in the movie) that you
> won't find in the movie: "Mr. X had sex with men, women, children and animals....
> Nursery school people [and] parents... couldn't give us the extraordinary detail
> that Mr. X did. IT WAS ILLEGAL AND WE KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL and that's why a lot of
> people are furious... they say we should have turned him in instantly... IF WE HAD
> TURNED HIM IN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF OUR RESEARCH PROJECT." (CAPS used for
> emphasis)
>
> But leaving that troubling aspect aside, there is also a serious issue with his
> thousands of interviews, which the movie infers were primarily collected from
> average --albeit adventurous -- citizens. The reality, though (according to his
> colleagues and notes), is that a high percentage of his interview subjects were from
> prisons (convicted sex offenders), bath houses, "mens" clubs (yes they existed back
> in the 30-40's), etc. This wasn't a cross section of average, everyday Dick and
> Jane's. It was a collection of deviants (I think we still rank adults who have sex
> with small children and animals that way, even today) and sexual "professionals" of
> various sorts. Nothing wrong with that per se, as long as you don't try to pass it
> off as the behaviors of the AVERAGE persons sex life (as Kinsey and his institute
> did forever thereafter).
>
> The movie has some great actors, performances, etc and is of the high quality
> presentation that we expect from Hollywood today. If those were the only merits upon
> which to judge an artistic performance, then this would definitely be above average.
> But I don't think that's all there is to art. There's also reality, fairness and
> intellectual honesty. Of that, this movie is largely lacking. And for that reason, I
> cannot rank it higher.
>
> *- In Ethical Issues in Sex Therapy, Volume II (1980), influential sexologists
> Masters, Johnson, Kolodny, and Weems present one important essay, by Albert Jonsen
> and J. Mann, which states that Kinsey "included observational reports on...1,888
> boys, ages 5 months to adolescence," and "147 pre-adolescent" girls, for a total of
> 2,035 children. The authors cite their "personal communication" with Kinsey and
> co-author Wardell Pomeroy (played in the movie by Chris O'Donnell), who validated
> the 1,888 boys in the Kinsey reports. --Addt'l note --Over 800 were collected
> privately by Mr. X, who took copious notes while researching (molesting?) his
> "subjects."
>
>
