DOD Asks: How Would You Feel Showering With Gays?

rladouceur said:
Reba, since you cite my site, Textbook History, I thought I'd chime in.

Alfred Kinsey, like virtually every one of his peers in applied biology and biology education in the 20s and 30s, didn't see much danger in the promotion of eugenic management of the human population, and thought it perfectly proper to teach students about eugenics in high school. However, the topic was never central to Kinsey's ideology nor was it ever the focus of his professional work. In fact, prior to the marriage course in '38 and his sex studies in the 40s, Kinsey wasn't that interested in human beings, preferring the company of gall wasps to people.

Kinsey's male and female studies can be criticized from many angles. Was his research and were his conclusions influenced by a desire to open up some space in the culture for folks like himself? Probably, though I think Kinsey's homosexuality as a motivator has been overblown.

Regardless, if we are to call Kinsey's studies into question because he also held positive views about eugenics, we're going to have to call into question every study done by every biologist (not to mention every chemist, physicist, doctor and even many preachers) who came of intellectual age in the years between 1900 and 1930.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Someone who actually understands how to evaluate research methodolgy.
 
Reba said:
Welcome to AD. :)

Thank you for your input.

My point about Kinsey and eugenics wasn't part of the criticism of his research. It was an aside point about the man. Long-time members of AllDeaf know that eugenics is a long-time historical anathema to the Deaf community. Anyone who suggests any kind of control of human reproduction for the reason of eliminating "defects" in the population is looked upon with disdain, and seen as an enemy of the Deaf.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It was an aside point attempting to divert. Very underhanded manner to engage in debate.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. It was an aside point attempting to divert. Very underhanded manner to engage in debate.
Click to expand...
I didn't attempt to divert anything. I answered your question about Kinsey's research. The fact that Kinsey supported eugenics was just a bonus.
 
Reba said:
I didn't attempt to divert anything. I answered your question about Kinsey's research. The fact that Kinsey supported eugenics was just a bonus.
Click to expand...

A bonus in the form of a thinly disquised attempt to discredit the person because you could not effectively discredit the research. Go back and check the sequence. It is quite obvious.
 
jillio said:
A bonus in the form of a thinly disquised attempt to discredit the person because you could not effectively discredit the research. Go back and check the sequence. It is quite obvious.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion. Was anything I posted untrue?
 
If it helps on anything on the discussion..
Having come from a background of theory and (social) research methods, the topics and discussions Kinsey presented contributed to much of the stuff we had learned. Any topic regarding sexology and marriage, frequently linked to texts and data produced by Kinsey. Granted, as much of it is just theory and material statistics, it is really up to each individual to see the orientation they side with. Theory tends to support; or tries to at least build up the reasons behind facts.

Kinsey's reasoning are probably on par with any general biological theory regarding organisms, it doesn't have to be the end-all, but rather helps in understanding.

A professor once stated to the class, the word social theory only grew within the 20th century when rationalization became a big part of our world..
 
Kinsey did research. He came to conclusions. Not everyone agrees. Sounds a lot like the Global Warming debate, doesn't it?
 
Reba said:
That's your opinion. Was anything I posted untrue?
Click to expand...

Was anything you posted related to the topic of his research? That is what you were attempting to invalidate. Still asking unrelated questions, I see.
 
naisho said:
If it helps on anything on the discussion..
Having come from a background of theory and (social) research methods, the topics and discussions Kinsey presented contributed to much of the stuff we had learned. Any topic regarding sexology and marriage, frequently linked to texts and data produced by Kinsey. Granted, as much of it is just theory and material statistics, it is really up to each individual to see the orientation they side with. Theory tends to support; or tries to at least build up the reasons behind facts.

Kinsey's reasoning are probably on par with any general biological theory regarding organisms, it doesn't have to be the end-all, but rather helps in understanding.

A professor once stated to the class, the word social theory only grew within the 20th century when rationalization became a big part of our world..
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
saywhatkid said:
Kinsey did research. He came to conclusions. Not everyone agrees. Sounds a lot like the Global Warming debate, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeppers. A lot like it. Do you find it odd that those that normally disagree with the research have never even read and analyzed the research?
 
jillio said:
Was anything you posted related to the topic of his research? That is what you were attempting to invalidate. Still asking unrelated questions, I see.
Click to expand...
Still avoiding answering my questions, I see.

Is there an AD rule that limits my post content to the topic of Kinsey's research?

To be honest, the whole Kinsey detour is :topic: .
 
Reba said:
Still avoiding answering my questions, I see.

Is there an AD rule that limits my post content to the topic of Kinsey's research?

To be honest, the whole Kinsey detour is :topic: .
Click to expand...

Not avoiding at all. The questions were answered previously. And Kinsey's stance on other topics has virtually nothing to do with his research on sexuality. It is simply a matter of scolling back. Evidently, there is more than one poster that has seen, and comprehended, the answers you were given. Just because they are not the answers you wanted doesn't mean that you were not given an answer.

No, there is no rule. But there is not a rule, either, that forbids my pointing out the fact that your comments were not related to Kinsey's research and were simply a back door method of attempting to discredit the man instead of sticking to the topic of his research. Actually, the Kinsey topic is not detour. His research was cited to support the statement that all people have a bit of gay in them. A statement to which you objected. Seems that you request that I cite research to support statements, but when I do, you say it is unrelated. Another diversionary topic. And then you wonder why I am reluctant to provide citations. I simply refuse to participate in the double binds that you and others attempt to enact.
 
jillio said:
... Actually, the Kinsey topic is not detour. His research was cited to support the statement that all people have a bit of gay in them. A statement to which you objected. Seems that you request that I cite research to support statements, but when I do, you say it is unrelated. Another diversionary topic. And then you wonder why I am reluctant to provide citations. I simply refuse to participate in the double binds that you and others attempt to enact.
Click to expand...
Here's the entire post to which I objected:

"Originally Posted by Eseff
Everyone is a little bit gay. Only prudes who don't really like sex are 100% straight. Those are the missionary only people."

Did Kinsey's research actually prove all three of those statements?

BTW, what is the scientific definition for "a little bit gay?"

Did Kinsey prove that "100% straight" people are prudes who don't like sex? (Oh, wait a minute, if everyone is a little bit gay, then there aren't any 100% straight people, so there aren't any prudes.)
 
Reba said:
Here's the entire post to which I objected:

"Originally Posted by Eseff
Everyone is a little bit gay. Only prudes who don't really like sex are 100% straight. Those are the missionary only people."

Did Kinsey's research actually prove all three of those statements?

BTW, what is the scientific definition for "a little bit gay?"

Did Kinsey prove that "100% straight" people are prudes who don't like sex? (Oh, wait a minute, if everyone is a little bit gay, then there aren't any 100% straight people, so there aren't any prudes.)
Click to expand...

Kinsey's research did not PROVE anything. Nor does any research. What research does is support a hypothesis or a null hypothesis. So if you are asking if Kinsey's research supported that hypothesis, then yes, it did. And the operational definition is what you need, not the scientific one. The operational one is the one used to interpret the research and is specific to the results found. But you can find all of that in Kinsey's research.
 
jillio said:
Kinsey's research did not PROVE anything. Nor does any research. What research does is support a hypothesis or a null hypothesis. So if you are asking if Kinsey's research supported that hypothesis, then yes, it did. And the operational definition is what you need, not the scientific one. The operational one is the one used to interpret the research and is specific to the results found. But you can find all of that in Kinsey's research.
Click to expand...
Please answer my question about all three of the original statements (even if they are contradictory).
 
Reba said:
Please answer my question about all three of the original statements (even if they are contradictory).
Click to expand...

I have already answered them. Go back and read my post. The answer is in there.
 
All of this because some guy in the shower crossed another guy's "boundaries"?! (Referring to Reba's article about some guy's experience)

Geez, do you know how many times I've gone in the bathroom and another woman picks the stall RIGHT NEXT TO MINE, even though the other 5 stalls are empty. That's crossing the boundary to me. I propose we have individual bathrooms to solve this problem.

We can't? Why not? Oh.. it's not a priority? Too much time and money? I have to put up with this so that you can save money and space? Aww geez...

Discomfort by ?% of the soldiers versus ?% of soldiers kicked out.

I suspect that the percentage of soldiers being uncomfortable with this idea has decreased tremendously, probably because they found out they've been doing it all along. Pfft.
 
Daredevel7 said:
All of this because some guy in the shower crossed another guy's "boundaries"?! (Referring to Reba's article about some guy's experience)

Geez, do you know how many times I've gone in the bathroom and another woman picks the stall RIGHT NEXT TO MINE, even though the other 5 stalls are empty. That's crossing the boundary to me. I propose we have individual bathrooms to solve this problem.
Click to expand...
Not the same situation. Toilet stalls are enclosed. Gym-style military showers are one big, open area with multiple shower heads. There is no separation or privacy.

It's standard common courtesy when living in close-quarter group situations to respect each others' personal space and privacy as much as possible.
 
jillio said:
I have already answered them. Go back and read my post. The answer is in there.
Click to expand...
So Kinsey's research supported each one of these statements?

1. Everyone is a little bit gay.

2. Only prudes who don't really like sex are 100% straight.

3. Those are the missionary only people.


If everyone is "a little bit gay" how can some people also be "100% straight?" Isn't that contradictory?
 
Back
Top