In the films, “Thank You For Smoking,” directed by Jason Reitman and “Kinsey,” directed by Bill Condon, main characters Nick Naylor and Dr. Alfred Kinsey, defend their actions with either facts, strong opinions, and in Naylor’s instance, symbolism. Hence, both have dynamic characteristics that make them persuasive when proving their points. In both films, there are two questions that are raised. Are their actions justified and reflected in societal morals? Are they trying to route people into a less prejudice mindset? Despite their approach, both Dr. Kinsey and Nick Naylor over step boundaries by implying blunt commentary that allow their audience to think critically.
Dr. Kinsey pride himself on his work in regards to the advancement of sexuality. Starting from a strict religious family, he took a stand against his fathers will, and studied biology. To Dr. Kinsey human nature is natural and he was very interested in explaining to his students the science of life. He took a strong stand from the beginning and he remained forceful when trying to explain why “morality disguises fact.” (Kinsey) Further on, his ideas of spreading the true meaning of sexuality evolved into an institute which plenty did not approve of. He backed up his comments by stating that sex is a “normal biological development” which is true and if a couple did not try it then humans would not be on earth presently.
Similarly, Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for the Academy of Tobacco Studies, takes on the topic of “morality disguises facts” (Kinsey). To plenty, advocating for cigarette companies is immoral since there is plausible cause, but to Naylor he enjoyed making people think critically by basing himself with prior knowledge of a topic and using symbolism th...
... middle of paper ...
... normality of it. An issue that made its way to about every argument was the Book of Genesis vs. Darwin. (Kinsey)
Overall, Nick Naylor and Dr. Alfred Kinsey took interesting stands on supporting issues that many would not dare to speak or act upon. Each used persuasive points whether they used data or not to illustrate points. They did step the fine line on moral ground, but did an extraordinary of standing behind them. Whether if a fictional or fact based characters there is a lot to learn from the dynamic characteristics each have. From Nick Naylor, “the beauty of argument,” (TYFS) does exist, and for Dr. Kinsey data makes a difference when proving a point, though many will not agree.
Works Cited
Kinsey. Dir. Bill Condon. Prod. Gail Mutrux. Fox Searchlight, 2005.
Thank You For Smoking. Dir. Jason Reitman. Prod. David O. Sacks. Fox Searchlight,
2006.
Alfred Kinsey remains the most renowned scientists in the field of sexology. His studies yield important information that helped shape the idea of sex and continues to educate all in the most private aspect of our lives. The Kinsey film is a great depiction of his life, research, and impact on the perspectives of sex as we know it.
Masters and Johnson were a pioneering team in the field of human sexuality, both in the domains of research and therapy. William Howell Masters, a gynecologist, was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1915. Virginia Eshelman Johnson, a psychologist, was born in Springfield, Montana in 1925. To fully appreciate their contribution, it is necessary to see their work in historic context. In 1948, Alfred C. Kinsey and his co-workers, responding to a request by female students at Indiana University for more information on human sexual behavior, published the book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. They followed this five years later with Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. These books began a revolution in social awareness of and public attention given to human sexuality. At the time, public morality severely restricted open discussion of sexuality as a human characteristic, and specific sexual practices, especially sexual behaviors that did not lead to procreation. Kinsey's books, which among other things reported findings on the frequency of various sexual practices including homosexuality, caused a furor. Some people felt that the study of sexual behavior would undermine the family structure and damage American society. It was in this climate - one of incipient efforts to break through the denial of human sexuality and considerable resistance to these efforts - that Masters and Johnson began their work. Their primary contribution has been to help define sexuality as a healthy human trait and the experience of great pleasure and deep intimacy during sex as socially acceptable goals. As a physician interested in the nature of sexuality and the sexual experience, William Masters wanted to conduct research that would lead to an objective understanding of these topics. In 1957, he hired Virgina Johnson as a research assistant to begin this research issue. Together they developed polygraph-like instruments that were designed to measure human sexual response. Using these tools, Masters and Johnson initiated a project that ultimately included direct laboratory observation and measurement of 700 men and women while they were having intercourse or masturbating. Based on the data collected in this study, they co-authored the book Human Sexual Response in 1966. In this book, they identify and describe four phases in the human sexual response cycle : excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. By this point in time, the generally repressive attitude toward sexuality was beginning to lift and the book found a ready audience.
References to Kurt Freund’s studies to “assess sexual arousal in men and women” and Alfred Kinsey’s “sexual orientation” scale are made to further explain how sexuality and asexuality are not solid concepts with strict definitions of their own but rather more multifarious. For
It was not until Kinsey et al. (1953) developed the Kinsey Scale to measure sexual orientation that the notion of sexual fluidity began to be considered in Western cultures. It consisted of a seven-category continuum based on two indicators: sexual fantasy and sexual experience. Both fantasy and experimental measures were found to have similar result, and many agreed this form of measurement was better than one consisting of only a few discrete variables (Ellis, Burke, & Ames, 1987).
The question is, who should be held accountable? And what should be done? There is clearly no way tobacco will never be outlawed, but I believe there should be tighter restrictions on age limits throughout the world, and restrictions on the materials that are used in cigarette processing. Who is just letting cigarette companies continue to poison people and cause cancer risk? Throughout my essay, I will analyze the affects of cigarette use on the society of the world and the elaborate corruption that keeps cigarette companies in business.
In conclusion, what I learned from this article is that sex is much more complicated then I could have believed it to be. This article made me aware of many conflicts, issues, and disagreements that go along with what is or isn’t sex, and how there is no clear way to say, it’s really just a matter of opinion. For lesbians the simple use of a finger is enough, for gay men its anal sex. For some sex is innate and instinctive, while others believe it is learned. For some it’s based on love and pleasure, while for others it’s about domination. I highly doubt that there is anyone in this world that could come up with a universal meaning to sex which would please all parties. It is my conclusion that there is no right or wrong definition of sex; it is whatever
Thank you for smoking is a satirical comedy about a lobbyist whose job is to promote tobacco use at a time when the disease burden secondary to smoking threatens to cripple the nation. The film presents how industries, media and the government interact to influence the consumers’ decision. While the use of rhetoric, such as fallacies and twisted truths, is evident throughout the film, it is most evident midway when the chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, assists his son with his assignment. The son, Joey Naylor, enquires why the American government is the best and in response, the father argues it is because of America’s ‘endless appeals system’ (Thank you for smoking). His response seamlessly captures the tone of the movie as much as it represents the extensive use of a combination of fallacious arguments and twisted truths.
The film Thank You for Smoking is an obscure jesting that follows a petitioner, Nick Naylor, for the tobacco industry. Murky comedies take a grave topic, and make light of the topic through mockery. Worthy example of rhetoric can be found in Thank You for Smoking during a scene where Nick Naylor delivers an argument against putting a skull and crossbones label on every pack of cigarettes. Senator Finistirre does this during a hearing in front of a congressional committee lead from Vermont. Naylor’s audience is the committee and members of the audience including his young son. Naylor is defending a controversial idea with controversial evidence and support, whether it goes against what he believes or not. Naylor’s own morality is called into question. Logos, pathos, Kairos, and ethos, the mainstays of rhetoric, can all be found throughout Naylor’s defense. Rhetorical fallacies can also be found throughout the sequence.
Advertisement agencies that promote the sale of cigarettes do not give room for you to think of others and how the cigarettes are toxic to the earth and its inhabitants. Cigarette ads choose to zero in on human insecurities and say without saying with images and words what you’ve been dying to hear all along. It’s about you and what you want. The answer lies in the puff of a cigarette.
To gain advantage over his opponents and pave ways for his success in winning the argument, Nick Naylor, the lobbyist for Big Tobacco applies the re-framing strategies. He re-frames most of the conversations in order to promote smoking, win the arguments and change people’s notion about smoking. Nick Naylor’s effective means of interaction portrays that anyone who argues correctly can win an argument. He pointed this out in his interaction with Joey- his son, where he states that the "beauty of an argument
Notwithstanding such information, children continue to evolve into a society that does not specify just how life-threatening tobacco is, and, with today’s societal standards, many will never see to believe that peer pressure is not as prevalent as it appears to be in our world today. Anti-smoking ads exist in the countries that do not have a national legislation passed against smoking. Yet, those ads aid in showing just how much of one’s life and freedom is needed in order to so much as humour the idea of buying a pack of
I am not used to watch those types of scenes in movies; especially watching those types of scenes in a room full of strangers. Also, I felt that Kinsey was very open to seek for help from an expert in regards of his sexual difficulties with his wife; however, he was hesitant to even mention the side of his penis. I think it was interesting how Kinsey’s lock of knowledge about sex intrigue him to do researches and experiments of why sex was a topic that many people were not open to talk about. However, I think Kinsey went too far to reach his goal. Seeing Kinsey kissing with another man was an awkward moment, I did not see that coming. I think his desire to find out what people experience in their sexual encounters, was a motive why Kinsey decided to sleep with a man. I am against same sex encounters due to my religion beliefs, and watching Kinsey with another man was not a pleasant experience. I would like to state that I do not dislike gays or lesbians; however, I do not approve their sexual
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
charged with covering up the addictive properties of nicotine and finding ways to exploit it to increase profits. For example, in Wigand’s interview for 60 Minutes, he says that tobacco companies view cigarettes only as a delivery device for nicotine. He also says they take advantage of the addictive properties by manipulating and adj...
One of the earliest proposed definitions of asexuality came from the famed Alfred Kinsey in 1948, who called it “a lack of sexual behavior associated with a lack of sexual response to erotic stimuli” (Houdenhove, “Asexuality” 1). Later re-definitions include “a lack of sexual behavior associated with a lack of sexual desire” in 1977, “a lack of sexual orientation” in 1980, “a lack of sexual behavior” in 1993, and “a lack of sexual desire or excitement” in 2007 (Houdenhove, “Asexuality” 1; Yule 1). It was not until 2016 that researchers recommending using the definition that asexuals had been using to define themselves (which had also undergone some modifications), describing asexuality as “a lack of sexual attraction” (Houdenhove, “Asexuality” 1). It is interesting to note that all of these definitions define asexuality as “a lack of ______”, as it implies that there is something that asexuals are missing and that they are not complete, but the currently used definition at least describes the phenomenon in a way that is satisfactory to almost all who discuss asexuality.