• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Long before Fox Searchlight’s “Kinsey” opened in theaters this month, the film’s allies at the New York Times reported a campaign by the studio that included a four-page spread in Daily Variety and special screenings.

Why? Because the film is so revolting the studio had to get a critical mass of blue-state opinion makers before it hit the local theater?

Well, yes, but also because the studio knew that the horrible truth about Kinsey might reach some of those opinion-makers before they were conned by pre-screening fraternization.

“Kinsey” was shown to the media elite in Toronto, Colorado, Chicago, Maryland, the Hamptons, Dallas, Denver, Mill Valley and scores of other venues in the USA and Canada. The stars and/or director and writer Bill Condon were always there to “chat.”

On Nov. 13, the star-studded group appeared at Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute to officially launch its American blitzkrieg. (Apparently, however, a gutsy Catholic youth group “Catholic Outreach” spoiled the party by showing up to protest Kinsey’s ghastly child experiments. Good for them, I say!)

Would this unprecedented promotion have something to do with the fact that the Kinsey Institute faces congressional queries when it returns for grant refunding in a few months?

And, what is the New York Times’ role in this unprecedented sex-publicity campaign?

At first blush, an Oct. 3 story in the Times by Caleb Crain actually slipped in a few of Kinsey’s more ruthless, conspiratorial crimes against children. However, such off-the-compound errors have not been repeated. Instead, Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute – sexual icons of the illiberal left – are being aggressively marketed, promoted, pushed and trafficked by the Times.

Recent issues have had full page spreads on this “honest” film, claiming Kinsey was a “flawed” but great man who led us into the sunny, bright rays of sexual light.

But it’s more sinister than that. The Oct. 23 issue boasted a pensive photo of Bill Condon alongside a full-page New York Times advertisement for: “A conversation with BILL CONDON.” Bill is part of the “New York Times Speaker Series.” He is their boy!

The ad sold a Times-sponsored “Kinsey” screening “with conversation following” at the “Egyptian Theatre.” The promo gushed about the aggressively homosexual Condon:

Following a preview of his new film, “Kinsey,” the acclaimed writer and director discusses his work and career – including “Gods and Monsters” (Academy Award, Best Adapted Screenplay) and “Chicago” (Academy Award nomination, Best Adapted Screenplay) – with Bill Goldstein, founding editor of NYTimes.com/books.

An “Outfest” logo appeared below the ad as partnering with the Times’ “weekly gay-and-lesbian themed movie screenings in Los Angeles” alongside an “AUDI” logo as the “official automotive sponsor of the Times Talks gay/lesbian speaker series.”

The New York Times decides what is “fit” to print and who is “fit” to speak. But Condon’s appearances certainly have been revealing.

A woman, who confronted Condon during a question-and-answer session after seeing “Kinsey” at the Writer’s Guild in Hollywood, sent me an e-mail about her experience. A worker with a child-protection group, she asked Condon about Kinsey’s child “sexuality” research.

Mr. Condon assured me that none of the child abuse “masked as research” stories were true and that he included the “omniphile” scene to show that Kinsey got data directly from abusers rather than actually doing the research.

The woman told me Condon “said he had to address it because he knew that there were people out there that knew of the ‘supposed’ abuse. He did say that all one needs to do is go to the Internet to read about the allegations, so I did and that’s how I found you.”

At an Oct. 20 appearance in Hamptons, reported Indiwire, Condon protested about some “woman opposing the movie who had seen only 10 minutes of the film and challenged it, charging that the film included ‘gross inaccuracies.’” (True, that was me, censored from two promised “Kinsey” screenings.)

“Kinsey was a catalyst for the gay movement,” said Condon, and gays “have embraced Kinsey’s work as supportive of their cause.” Condon should have noted that the North American Man-Boy Love Association said “boy lovers” should also embrace Kinsey’s studies as supportive of their cause, “and hold them dear.”

Condon was challenged again the next day at a Washington, D.C., Film Society screening in Bethesda, Md. A young woman first asked how Condon knew that Kinsey had said “no one forced to do anything against their will. No one should be hurt.”

The director responded that Kinsey said so in his books (which he didn’t). He went on to explain that he was an “objective” biographer because there were things he left out of the film that could have made Kinsey more “cuddly.”

The woman challenged that statement by asking:

Isn’t it true that you eliminated information about Kinsey that would have made him a much more scary person?”

She mentioned Kinsey never documented that his “research” on child sexuality came from a pedophile who raped kids as young as a few months old.

Condon was notably hostile, saying Kinsey cited in his report he “received his research from nine omniphiles, even though it really was primarily from one.”

“You are ignorant,” he snapped at the young woman. “You shouldn’t believe everything you read.”

“But I read it in the New York Times, on October the third,” she retorted. “And, Dr. Judith Reisman reprinted Kinsey’s own child sex-abuse tables in her book.”

Condon’s reply? “She’s a quack!”

The D.C. Film Society moderator turned on the young woman for daring to challenge the director. Not knowing her, the tolerant illiberal angrily pronounced – before an audience of over 200 – “You’re a prude! … It’s people like you that have problems with sexuality!”

Bully and smear. End debate.

He then called on another person to continue the film “discussion.”

It’s not surprising that the Washington Post also is in on the promo Kinsey act. The Post hosted a live discussion with Condon that generated at least one more critique: “According to a New York Times article by Caleb Crain, you stated in response to a question about whether Alfred Kinsey was a monster: ‘I don’t see him that way.’”

Asked the Internet critic: “If Kinsey is not a monster, than what is he? He hardly deserves public sympathy for his collusion with criminals. What does that make you, Mr. Condon? Are you a monster also?”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.