what fucking century are we in again? (re: "kinsey")

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Protests, Prayer Vigils To Greet 'Kinsey'

Religious conservatives and family-values groups are planning to wage a battle against Fox Searchlight's Kinsey, about the pioneering sex researcher, when the movie opens in limited release on Friday. In a statement on Wednesday, Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America charged that the movie "lionized" a man whose "proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist." Knight went on to assert that Kinsey "was the godfather of the homosexual activist movement, the campaign to mainstream pornography, and even the campaign to strike down abortion laws." The youth group Generation Life, composed of "virgins and renewed virgins," announced that it would picket theaters showing the film. And the conservative WorldNetDaily.com has taken aim at the movie in the current issue of its monthly magazine Whistleblower, in which it charges that Kinsey transformed America "in five decades from the Leave It to Beaver innocence of the 1950s to today's wanton, 'anything-goes' sexual anarchy."

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 12 November 2004 05:54 (twenty-one years ago)

uh, Dubya won.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 12 November 2004 05:56 (twenty-one years ago)

i know i know

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 12 November 2004 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

the Leave It to Beaver innocence of the 1950s

Did these people actually ever LIVE in the 1950s?

jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 12 November 2004 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

what in the holy fuck is a renewed virgin

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 12 November 2004 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I'M GONNA BUY A FLESHLIGHT IN PROTEST OF THE PROTESTERS.

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 05:58 (twenty-one years ago)

A renewed virgin is a christian idiot who has actually had sex before but pledged to their church not to have sex again until they're married.

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 05:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I suppose it's a tribute to Kinsey that he can still cause such outrage after all these years.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:08 (twenty-one years ago)

we should all go see this movie and masturbate in the theaters just to show these crazy xtians.

Miss Misery (thatgirl), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:09 (twenty-one years ago)

"beaver"!

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:10 (twenty-one years ago)

EVEN the campaign to strike down abortion laws!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:18 (twenty-one years ago)

man, IF ONLY my life was sexual anarchy...

aside from its current state of sexual nihilism

kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyone who dares to call themselves a "renewed virgin" can go suck a fuck. How ridiculous!

Trayce (trayce), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Sexual Anarchy sounds like some all nude mohican revue.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:26 (twenty-one years ago)

sexual bolshevism: everyone gets laid, but badly

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:27 (twenty-one years ago)

let's go get some renewed virgins drunk and sex them

Riot Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Somebody, I can't remember the guys name, wrote a utopian novel (this was in the 1700s I think) one of the features of which was a kind of national sex service, where people went around having sex with the ugly, old and disabled. It was based on a principle of collective ownership of each other, and was wish fulfillment to the extent that the guy died a virgin, as far as anyone can tell.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I was reminded of the book by the sexual boshevism comment, in case anyone feels that popped out of thin air.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I am going to post something neat, otay?

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:37 (twenty-one years ago)

erm, no I'm not. I have kinsey shooting script as .pdf, and was gonna link it ... but the 'federal penalties' link scared the shit out of me.

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:39 (twenty-one years ago)

YOU DAMNED CRIMINAL.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:40 (twenty-one years ago)

The last interview, though, with the perv = very creepy.

"Of my extended family I've had sex with 17 out of 31 members. I've had fornicated with 2,451 individual partners and 16 species of animals. Of these, 231 were preadolescent girls, and 648 were preadolescent boys. Have you ever seen a little boy ejaculate, Mr. Kinsey? It's exactly like a grown man, but nothing comes out."

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:42 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread makes me wanna download a whole mess o' ribald porn and have a burnin' Bible barbecue for Beelzebub!

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow....or at least until the post before mine appeared.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Now you want to have some ephebe garnish too.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that conversation was also had in Happiness.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Being 'lionized' is a better thing than you would think it would be.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:47 (twenty-one years ago)

The movie is ... it's not offensive at all, but the viewpoint it takes suggests one allow absolutely any sexual deviancy (excepting, of course, non-consent situations) as normal human behavior, taxonomically classifiable, and utterly allowable. I agree with this completely, but I think that disagreeing with it means one's a prude, backward, hyper-conservative, or ridiculous. It is a pretty extreme position, at least from the standpoint of [religious / political / contemporary social] dogma.

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:48 (twenty-one years ago)

you mean you DON'T think?

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:49 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, sorry.

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:50 (twenty-one years ago)

apology accepted!

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 12 November 2004 06:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Fox Searchlight execs must be wetting themselves -- wacky Christian protesters calling their movie pornographic! Genius marketing, especially with every pissed-off liberal in the country looking for some easy symbolic way to piss on the religious right. Did Murdoch put Phyllis Schlafly up to this or what?

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:04 (twenty-one years ago)

The timing of the film is ... a little bit overdetermined, I think.

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that conversation was also had in Happiness.
-- Allyzay Science Explosion (allyza...), November 12th, 2004.

"i finally came!"

latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:52 (twenty-one years ago)

he just says "I came" /pedant

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:54 (twenty-one years ago)

"...Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America"

ROBERT of Concerned WOMEN, though.

wow.

chicago, now! (chicago, now!), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I have that and Dollhouse on DVD, sorry.

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:55 (twenty-one years ago)

talk to the (sticky) hand

latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:56 (twenty-one years ago)

"I've never measured"

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:57 (twenty-one years ago)

latebloomer check your gmail

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 07:59 (twenty-one years ago)

It's exactly like a grown man, but nothing comes out.

Um...

???

caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 12 November 2004 08:14 (twenty-one years ago)

read the post I wrote above that one, caitlin.

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 08:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he meant to say "orgasm" not "ejaculate", which makes no sense.

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 08:16 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, hah. I'm dumb.

Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 12 November 2004 08:16 (twenty-one years ago)

aaron's definition of renewed virgin in this context is probably accurate, renewed virgins could also refer to those who have had hymen reconstructions

H (Heruy), Friday, 12 November 2004 09:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Trust me, that's NOT what they mean.

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 09:06 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/09/religion-of-the-rich/

The business arm of the GOP - the real leaders - lets its idiot fundie wing make noise about this sort of shit so that they can go about the serious business of jacking the tax code while the media is distracted.

erferfefewrferf, Friday, 12 November 2004 09:32 (twenty-one years ago)

where do i sign up for this wanton sexual anarachy ?

anthony, Friday, 12 November 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

also, i think that if that was the attitude of the film, then it was basically an attitude of kinsey. (the whole taxonmy thing)

anthony, Friday, 12 November 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

You have to come to America, clearly.

Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 12 November 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.oneposter.co.uk/UserData/Poster/Poster_3468.jpg

Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 12 November 2004 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

dont remind me of the born again virgin shit, i just sent off an academic article on them. (yes, i get paid to talk to vapid ex sluts and the boys who love them, but only in a agape sense.)

anthony, Friday, 12 November 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Since the election, I've felt incredibly polarized towards conservatives in a way I never have before. I grew up in a somewhat conservative church, and generally felt that I shared certain human principles with them and we could break bread etc. Now I feel little but a great antagonism towards most conservatives, and that they oppose my core values and all I hold dear.

This is an excellent example as to why. Did this virulent conservatism come out of nowhere or was I just not paying attention?

Laura H. (laurah), Friday, 12 November 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

What Laura said - has the election given the loonies the confidence to come out of the closet knowing that they'll have federal protection for the next 4 years?

Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 12 November 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm all for them coming out and demonstrating their moronicism clearly.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 12 November 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't decide what is funnier:

Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America OR Renewed Virgins?

Help me out!

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 12 November 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I wonder if they're saying "We're 51% now, you can't ignore us!" as I read a rightist saying recently. It's also an odd and incorrect claim.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 12 November 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

What did they do about the Borg in the Trek again? Same shit, different galaxy.

suzy (suzy), Friday, 12 November 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

In one episode they made the Borg fall asleep, and then the Borg exploded. So there ya go.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 12 November 2004 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Dude, michaelmoore.com should just become this gigantic site to upload homemade lullabies, then.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 12 November 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Someone named "Robert Knight" is the spokesperson for a group called "Concerned Women of America?" Well, that says it all, as far as I'm concerned (it's a man, I checked). This sounds like one of those bogus fundamentalist shit-stirrer groups. Why do these people get paid attention to at all? Where did you get this article, Slutsky? Similar crackpot groups on the left are generally ignored; I wish we could do the same with these goofs.

antexit (antexit), Friday, 12 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, this should certainly motivate us all to see the movie, just out of sheer spite! OK, that and Liam Neeson.

Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Friday, 12 November 2004 22:37 (twenty-one years ago)

The parents on "Leave it to Beaver" were not virgins, nor conservative.

LSTD (answer) (sexyDancer), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

leave it to the christian fundamentalists to protest increased tolerance. fucks.

j.m. lockery (j.m. lockery), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

bbbbut God told us to hate our bodies!

Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Why do they ALWAYS bring up Leave it to Beaver?

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Cause they're idiots, duh.

oops (Oops), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

WHY CANT LIFE BE MORE LIKE VIDEODROME?

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Pardon me, but Barbara Billingsley spoke JIVE.

suzy (suzy), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)

"I'm a renewed virgin because I can't find anyone to have sex with me because I am a christian douchebag"

Hi, I am a genius. a big one. (AaronHz), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:33 (twenty-one years ago)

The CWA is a relic of the anti-Equal Rights Amendment fight. Their Web site says it was founded by a woman who got outraged while watching an interview with Betty Friedan, so I guess attacking Kinsey is right in line with their mission.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 12 November 2004 23:37 (twenty-one years ago)

What Remy said. I haven't seen the film yet of course though so am not really in a position to comment.

Kevin, the book you're thinking of is "We" by zamyatin, I think.

mouse (mouse), Saturday, 13 November 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Good suggestion, but I don't think so. I know 'We' pretty well, this other book I only read while doing some research...

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 13 November 2004 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh right, you said the 1700s. Hmm, can't think what that would be.

mouse (mouse), Saturday, 13 November 2004 00:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, it's a good suggestion, because of the 'everyone belongs to everyone else' thing, but that is more like a state dating service, whereas this is like a squad of 20 men and women going around having sex with everyone. I just had a look for it, and I can't find it, but my books are all in boxes, and it's hard to rind anything. I'll need to have a rummage tomorrow.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 13 November 2004 00:17 (twenty-one years ago)

pride and prejudice?

cinniblount (James Blount), Saturday, 13 November 2004 00:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahahaha no Sense and Sensibility has the old people sex.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Saturday, 13 November 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Nah, it'll be called something like "Perfect People: An account of a journey to the Antipodes and the society I found there" because they're all called things like that - and the writers were lying bastards because a lot of the time they would write under a false name (for very good political purposes) and pretend they were a real account of a voyage where they found a world a lot like their ideal one.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 13 November 2004 00:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Concerned Women of America was founded by Barbara LaHaye who is the wife of the guy who writes the Left Behind series.

tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Saturday, 13 November 2004 03:14 (twenty-one years ago)

tim lahaye.

anthony, Saturday, 13 November 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i love that the spokesperson for Concerned Women of America is a man

H (Heruy), Saturday, 13 November 2004 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Concerned Women of America was founded by Barbara LaHaye who is the wife of the guy who writes the Left Behind series.

Haha!

"This movie would be PERFECTLY all right if it just starred Kirk Cameron!"

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 13 November 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, there's some truth to that.

Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 13 November 2004 22:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Somehow the idea of Kirk Cameron playing Kinsey talking about sex to a 1950s university classroom is disconcerting.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 13 November 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

You hate porn.

Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 13 November 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Kirk Cameron is disconcerting period.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Saturday, 13 November 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

You hate porn.

_Kirk Cameron's Asian Knights_

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 13 November 2004 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

and Alan Thicke as God

both in Kinsey and all the Left Behind films

H (Heruy), Saturday, 13 November 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Alan Thicke was the one who booted Kirk off the show for refusing to do certain scenes(like be shown in a bed with a chick he wasn't married to)

kingfish (Kingfish), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

There are Left Behind films? I'm scared now.

caitlin (caitlin), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

"No, the only woman I will ever be in bed with ANYWHERE is my wife in real life!"

"That's why it's called 'acting,' Kirk."

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't remember Kirk getting booted off the show.

Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

dammit, i can't find any verification for that, but i do know that near the end of the show's run, he started refusing to do anything in the scripts that he found objectionable.

he also had Julie McCullogh fired from the show for posing in Playboy.

kingfish (Kingfish), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Soon he will arrest himself for having lustful thoughts about the person he is married to.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

well, there is at least 1 left behind film but more are on the way

H (Heruy), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Left Behind Again

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 13 November 2004 23:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Kirk was booted for refusing to simulate oral sex on a male castmember (you can check the IMdb).

J Sims, Sunday, 14 November 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Left Behinder

MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Sunday, 14 November 2004 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

this is from another thread I started.

WELCOME TO OUR WORLD
by Dan Savage

Liberals Are the New Gays

Liberals are staring into the red belly of this country with incomprehension and fear. They are wondering how one even begins to talk to the huge percentage of voters who told exit pollsters last Tuesday that "moral values" guided them in choosing president Bush. Among straight liberals there is a sudden feeling that it is desperately urgent to reach out to these people, that the straight liberal way of life may depend on it.

Welcome to our world.

We gay Americans have been wondering how to engage these people for years, and not just in an abstract, political-strategizing sort of way. For too many gay Americans, the homophobic wing of the "moral values" voting bloc includes mom and dad, the ones who disowned their child simply for being queer. These kids, and those of us who befriend them in their urban exile, have long known that a vast swath of red America would like nothing better than to push us first out of their territory, and then from our coastal enclaves straight into the sea. So the wounded contempt generated by the new map of divided America isn't new to us.

And here is what we have learned about the religious fundamentalists who hide their ignorance and fear behind a cloak of "moral values," and who, through the cynical attentions of the Republican Party, have now become political kingmakers: First, you cannot compromise with them. As the Republicans themselves frequently remind us in another context, to compromise with a religious fundamentalist is to establish a moral equivalence between his or her core convictions and your own; it is, in other words, to cede far too much ground. You do not change a homophobe by suggesting that he is correct, just as you do not change an Islamic fundamentalist by allowing that perhaps nonbelievers should be killed. There will be a temptation among Democrats to do this, however, to pander to America's evangelical fundamentalist voters by aping Bush's strategy of pretending to be one of them. Don't do it. It is inimical to the core values of liberalism, it is a step toward quasi-theocracy, and it would only embolden the bigots, the anti-choice control freaks, and the God-appointed totalitarians.

It is also a waste of time, which bring us to the second lesson gay people have learned in dealing with America's homophobic "moral values" voters: A certain percentage of these religious fundamentalists simply cannot be swayed from their beliefs. There is no debate with them, no appeal to rationality or even common humanity. God has told them what's right, and they're not changing. The gay children of people like this generally have to cut off or greatly circumscribe contact with their parents in order to maintain their own dignity. It is a painful process, but ultimately it creates the reward fundamentalists deserve: estrangement from the open-minded world and a lonely death. The Democrats should do likewise: give up on the fundamentalists who simply won't change, and let them die estranged from our culture.

The fear, looking at the electoral map, is that we simply can't do this now because there seems to be more of them than us, meaning they're not dying off fast enough, or if they are, they're being rapidly replaced by new true believers. Don't buy this, it's too simple. As gay children of religious parents know, there are a good number of nominal religious fundamentalists who are, in fact, open to new ideas. Some voters, like some parents, can change. If you stand up to them, and persistently but politely call them on their pseudo-moral bullshit, these people will eventually come around--if not to acceptance, then to grudging respect, or at least a respectful détente. Great is the number of families with gay children (think of the Cheneys) who discover an elasticity in their supposedly unchanging "values" when someone they know challenges them in the right way.

* * *

Paradoxically, just as straight liberals are finding themselves to be on the same cultural island as gay Americans, a good number of gay Americans appear to be under the delusion that they are welcome in the sea of red. How else to explain the fact that exit polls showed 23 percent of gay American voters chose Bush, down only 2 percent from 2000?

While straight liberals need to figure out how to deal with the evangelical fundamentalist problem better, gay liberals need to figure out how to better deal with this problem: In an election where Republicans deliberately used homophobia to rally their base, the lesson the gay community taught them was, "Go right ahead, we'll vote for you anyway." It appears the Republicans are on their way to doing with some gay Americans what they have so successfully done with the poor and the uneducated. They are turning a good number of us into a reliable constituency that can be counted on to vote against its own interests.

If for no other reason than our own self-interest, liberal gays need to find these conservative gays and beat some sense into them. The pressure on the Democratic Party to move more into the "mainstream" (i.e., away from gay rights) is already huge. If we can't reward with our votes the Democrats who stick their necks out to support us, then we gay Americans are being willing accomplices in our own destruction.

Riot Gear! (Gear!), Sunday, 14 November 2004 01:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Five minor thoughts about Kinsey (don't read if you want to be surprised!)

1) The homosexual relationship between AK and CM is unconvincing, poorly-managed, and as far as this film's dynamic is concerned, extraneous.

2) I'm not sold on any part of the AK / CK relationship. It exists on an intellectual level, yes, but there doesn't seem to be much of an emotional connection between the couple. This may factually be true, but it's unfortunate Linney and Neeson took this as predominant script-note. There's little drama in watching the romantic leads of a picture miscommunicate for all of their time together.


3) The ending scene in the forest is weird and pointless. Ditto the insert of Kinsey seeing himself as a boy scout at the end of the movie. In the scripts I read Kinsey dies; this provides the dramatic closure (closure in the true literary sense, not the overused emotional one) which the film needs.

4) I love: Platt, Redgrave, Lithgow, Curry.

5) What the f* was happening with the water glasses? How many times can one see a water-glass lifted into the air? I'm guessing they're meant to be symbolic, but of what? "Yuk, yuk, 'bottoms-up!" Pseudo-arty nonsense!

Remy (x Jeremy), Sunday, 14 November 2004 01:52 (twenty-one years ago)

dan savage also wrote this harsh piece for the Portland Mercury(a sister alt-weekly to Seattle's The Stranger), called Better Dead than Red

kingfish (Kingfish), Sunday, 14 November 2004 02:19 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...
Just watched this. Decent film, but yes, the ending is indeed weird and pointless. I have no clue what you're talking about, Remy, re the water glasses.

Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 3 January 2005 07:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan Savage is wrong to say that the majority of America chooses to live in cities. In fact, I think it was in 2004 that for the first time ever the majority of Americans lived in suburbs.

Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 3 January 2005 08:06 (twenty-one years ago)

three years pass...

Kinsey is one of those movies that really, REALLY fucking inspires me re: "Science is so important! Scientists are so heroic!" But remy's points are unfortunately right on, tho I have to say Skaarsgard is one attractive naked man.

Abbott, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 00:49 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.