DOD Asks: How Would You Feel Showering With Gays?

[quirkylibra]

This weekend I had to share a locker room with a bunch of men. (at a military school) I have to say I rather have shared a locker room with 100 lesbians. I didn't even get a door on the stall!

 

[mistercristofer]

In military situations you don't always have a choice about shower time.

Yeah well gay people also can't choose whether or not they get turned on by their naked friends...all they can do is look away and be respectful

But honestly, I think the gay man should be MORE afraid. If someone were to realize he was gay in the shower, he might feel embarassed...or in danger. He has a LOT more to lose than the straight ones do in that situation.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

the issue is forcing someone to accept something they do not see as moral. It is infringement.

You may not have a problem with it, but someone else may have religious issues.

So you're one of those people that believe homosexuality is a choice?

How is it forcing someone to accept homosexuality as moral issue? That's like saying people shouldn't tolerate deaf people, since deafness is not visible either, because it's against their morals to respect or accept the fact there are "disabled" people.

 

[KristinaB]

Some of my best and favorite co-workers were gay. I had no problem with them at all. They are very respectful and open. Maybe the mid-west is a little more open to respecting them, I don't know. All I know is, I was taught to respect each person for themselves, no matter what. Goes with the saying "Never judge a book by it's cover."

 

[jillio]

I didn't say anything about it being my research or my personal experience.

There is criticism of Kinsey's lack of random sampling, the fact that the majority of participants in his male study were incarcerated prisoners , and his face-to-face interviewing techniques.

As an aside, Kinsey was also a supporter of eugenics and the "survival of the fittest" philosophy. Was he valid in that viewpoint also?

Please support those criticisms. The fact is, the majority of his repsonders were not incarcerated prisoners, his face to face interviewing techniques were the accepted techniques used by all self report forms of research, and random sampling is an issue with any self report form of research. Got anything else. None of the things you have listed invalidates the findings.

Likewise, I'm going to need proof of the fact that Kinsey was a supporter of eugenics. But that really has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his research on sexuality. You have brought it up as a way to instill bias against the research. Nice try, but it doesn't work.

 

[Kuifje75]

Even if I am inclined to like someone of same sex, I still prefer to shower alone in privacy. Maybe I just like being modest, and it has nothing to do with people being gay or straight.

 

[Reba]

Likewise, I'm going to need proof of the fact that Kinsey was a supporter of eugenics. But that really has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his research on sexuality. You have brought it up as a way to instill bias against the research. Nice try, but it doesn't work.

Kinsey also actively supported eugenics. In a 1937 text designed to train biology teachers, Kinsey predicted that eugenics will have a

‘ … permanent place, both in high school and college teaching. Events in the last decade have made the younger generation wonder how eugenic factors account for the dependence of a third of the population on the other two thirds, even in times of prosperity. It is one of the most hopeful signs for the future that young people are becoming interested in problems of human breeding.’29

Kinsey also actively supported eugenics. In a 1937 text designed to train biology teachers, Kinsey predicted that eugenics will have a permanent place, both in high school and college teaching. … Kinsey’s list of eugenic references is especially telling.

He concluded that it is wrong not to apply information about human heredity to social problems, and even advocated that ‘eugenics ideas should be given to boys and girls as early as their first interest in companions of the opposite sex’.30

After noting the problems of applying eugenics to people (such as determining which people are ‘undesirable’) Kinsey stressed that, ‘there would be little difficulty in selecting the ten percent which is the greatest drain on the advancement of our social institutions. The limitation of the reproduction among this ten percent might be necessary before we can expect any decrease in the number of helpless dependents.’31 He concluded that people who were ‘hereditarily sound and environmentally privileged may contribute to society by planning to have as many or more children than the average’.31

Kinsey’s list of eugenic references is especially telling—he recommends Dugdale’s now infamous The Jukes,32 Goddard’s The Kallikak Family,33 Davenport’s Heredity in Relation to Eugenics,34 and Castle’s Genetics and Eugenics.35 Both the Jukes and Kallikak accounts have been fully refuted by modern research.

Kinsey, A.C., Methods in Biology, J.B. Lippincott, Chicago, IL, 1937.
29. Kinsey, ref. 27, p. 222.
30. Kinsey, ref. 27, pp. 222–223.
31. Kinsey, ref. 27, p. 224.
32. Dugdale, R., The Jukes, Putnam, New York, 1910.
33. Goddard, H., The Kallikak Family, MacMillan, New York, 1912.
34. Davenport, C., Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, Henry Holt, New York, 1911.
35. Castle, W.E., Genetics and Eugenics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1930.

Kinsey, Darwin and the sexual revolution


Eugenics in 20th Century Biology Textbooks at Textbook History


"Finally Jones reports that, 'Kinsey concentrated on negative eugenics, calling for a program of sterilization that was at once sweeping and 'terrifying.' The reduction of the birth rate of the lowest classes must depend upon the sterilization of perhaps a tenth of our population.'"
James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Private/Public Life at 809, footnote 78 (1997).

 

[jillio]

Sorry, but personal opinions from religious websites do not constitute support of anything other than an opinion that agrees with your opinion, or a demonstration of the less than factual and credible source you have used to form your opinion. Gonna have to do better than that.

And still, this is all just a distraction. None of it has anything at all to do with the validity of his research on sexuality. If you want to invalidate that particular research, that is what you will need to stick with. Anything else is just a back door attempt to discredit the person, and is totally unrelated.

 

[kokonut]

Kinsey, Darwin and the sexual revolution


Eugenics in 20th Century Biology Textbooks at Textbook History


"Finally Jones reports that, 'Kinsey concentrated on negative eugenics, calling for a program of sterilization that was at once sweeping and 'terrifying.' The reduction of the birth rate of the lowest classes must depend upon the sterilization of perhaps a tenth of our population.'"
James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Private/Public Life at 809, footnote 78 (1997).

You're certainly up to speed on these things than most people.

Interesting references to look up.

 

[Banjo]

What's the deal with people saying they are okay with it as long they don't talk or touch them?

Basically, it sounds like a veiled physical threat when one says that.

 

[jillio]

You're certainly up to speed on these things than most people.

Interesting references to look up.

Interesting in what regard? They are useless in invalidating research, and in particular the research referenced.

Up to speed on what? Expressing opinion, and obviously biased opinion at that? Or up to speed at introducing distractions in an attempt to discredit a person rather than sticking to the topic of the research? I can see why you would admire those skills, as you appear to be trying to perfect them in yourself.

 

[jillio]

What's the deal with people saying they are okay with it as long they don't talk or touch them?

Basically, it sounds like a veiled physical threat when one says that.

Yes, it does. Still indicative of some sort of fear of their own sexuality.

 

[Banjo]

Yes, it does. Still indicative of some sort of fear of their own sexuality.

Like this post for instance...

http://www.alldeaf.com/current-even...ld-you-feel-showering-gays-5.html#post1621420

 

[jillio]

Like this post for instance...

http://www.alldeaf.com/current-even...ld-you-feel-showering-gays-5.html#post1621420

Very good example.

 

[Beowulf]

What's the deal with people saying they are okay with it as long they don't talk or touch them?

Basically, it sounds like a veiled physical threat when one says that.

Yup. I had a friend who had piranhas in an aquarium. I would spend hours watching them, they way they protected their personal space, making false charges when other piranhas venture too close. The friend told me to make sure the aquarium light is off during the night, otherwise the piranha would stress out and kill each other. Hmmmm, would lights out help in this situation? :P

 

[Reba]

Please support those criticisms. The fact is, the majority of his repsonders were not incarcerated prisoners, his face to face interviewing techniques were the accepted techniques used by all self report forms of research, and random sampling is an issue with any self report form of research. Got anything else. None of the things you have listed invalidates the findings...

What percentage of criminal responders would you consider to be an acceptable representation of our population?

Same question about the prostitutes he interviewed as representative of American women.

 

[Reba]

Sorry, but personal opinions from religious websites do not constitute support of anything other than an opinion that agrees with your opinion, or a demonstration of the less than factual and credible source you have used to form your opinion. Gonna have to do better than that.

Personal opinions? They are direct quotes of Kinsey from his own text books.

... Anything else is just a back door attempt to discredit the person, and is totally unrelated.

No, it is related. It goes to credibility of the man, and any biases he might have in approaching his research.

 

[jillio]

Yup. I had a friend who had piranhas in an aquarium. I would spend hours watching them, they way they protected their personal space, making false charges when other piranhas venture too close. The friend told me to make sure the aquarium light is off during the night, otherwise the piranha would stress out and kill each other. Hmmmm, would lights out help in this situation? :P

Interesting question. I would think it would create more fear in the homophobes.

 

[Banjo]

Yup. I had a friend who had piranhas in an aquarium. I would spend hours watching them, they way they protected their personal space, making false charges when other piranhas venture too close. The friend told me to make sure the aquarium light is off during the night, otherwise the piranha would stress out and kill each other. Hmmmm, would lights out help in this situation? :P

But I bet there'll be a few bumps in the night.

 

[jillio]

Personal opinions? They are direct quotes of Kinsey from his own text books.


No, it is related. It goes to credibility of the man, and any biases he might have in approaching his research.

Sorry, nothing but opinion from a religious website. Quotes are taken out of context and therefore cannot be used for support of anything. Must be used in context.

But again, what does any of this have to do with the validity of the research on sexuality? Nothing. You are attacking credibility because you have nothing substantive with which to support your claims. It simply doesn't work, and is nothing more than a back door attempt to create bias.