Kinsey Report voted 4th most harmful book by conservatives

[Brian]

Prominent conservatives were asked to nominate and vote on the most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. Kinsey's Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male came in at number 4. For those of you who don't know, Kinsey's report was really the first to "expose" how common bisexuality really is, and is often creditted with helping launch the sexual revolution of the 60's.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

It's interesting times we live in. Here in Canada there is very strong legal precidence for the principle that the government has no right to tell people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedroom (provided it involves only consenting adults and no one gets hurt of course). The forces that disagree, call them social conservatives or conservative socialists, seem to be amassing for an assault on these freedoms all over the western world.

I wonder if conservatives deem Kinsey's report harmful because they feel the data or conclusions are flawed, or if they deem it harmful because, in true book-burning tradition, it is accurate and therefore dangerous.

... And all this gives me an idea for a new poll. See above.

- Drew :paw:

[wellred]

Drew,

Thank you for establishing this poll. This seems to be a very serious issue, not only for like-minded people (as found in sites like this one), but for all those who value human rights.

[I am about to express what sounds like a conspiracy theory. At the risk of taking myself too seriously or coming off as paranoid, I share these thoughts with you -- after all, I suppose I do take myself too seriously and am a bit paranoid.]

One significant trend, that has been in motion for at least the past fifteen years, is a deliberate effort on the part of the religous right conservatives to infiltrate and control the political and moral fiber of the United States (perhaps, other countries too). Unfortunately, their agenda is anti-inclusivenss. If you happen to believe or be different from the rigid standards set by these groups, you are cast out. Many examples exist in today's political arena that show blatant efforts to change historical policy to leverage their cause.

This, to me, seems dangerous not because of the solid foundation of their morale convictions, but because there is no acceptance of those outside the fold. If there is sexual intolerance, then it is a slippery slope to other forms of discrimination and degradation of human rights.

It seems if an aspiring political leader (seeking votes) has a platform that includes restriction of sexual freedoms, he/she also often carries other constrictive agenda that are in opposition to how I would like to see our political future.

Thanks for this chance to sound off.

- Red

[softfruit]

This is an interesting poll for me living in England. We just had a General Election here in the UK which was the first in my life where my primary motive in how to cast my vote was not what you'd think of as LGBT rights issues.

At past elections we had a choice between the Conservative Party actively anti-gay, Liberal Democrats actively pro-equality, and the Labour Party somewhere in the middle ground. Even at the last election in 2001, Labour had just voted down Liberal attempts to repeal the laws that sought to "protect" young people from finding out about homosexuality and had introduced new laws to reduce transgender people's employment rights.

But thanks mostly to the influence of the European Union forcing our Labour government to get off the fence we've had the repeal many of the anti-gay laws such as the military ban and the unequal age of consent. Coupled with the Conservative Party's belief that these days racism would be more popular than homophobia, there was now relatively little to choose between the three parties this time around. Sure the Lib Dems were the only people really talking about moving equality any further forward, but whoever got in it was unlikely to be that bad on a gay rights front in the next Parliament.

It's taken a heck of a lot of fighting to get to where we are now though, and the anti-Europeans could undo it all for us only too quickly. So I find myself voting to keep us in the EU and against things like compulsory state ID cards - issues that unlike the age of consent aren't "classic" LGBT issues, but indirectly are very much so.

and as for the article Drew linked to, i am SO tickled that JMK's general theory could be deemed a menace to civilised society!

[bigballsbiguy]

I find it fascinating that so many of you (us) feel that there's a concerted effort among conservatives to roll back or somehow curtail the rights of sexual minorities. I think that what's happening is a natural defensive reaction to their perception that the LGBT community is pushing their agenda upon society. In other words, when you shove someone, frequently they shove back.

I think that Red's comment about religious right conservatives trying to "infiltrate" th political scene is silly. They've always been there, usually in the majority. What's actually happening is just the opposite. The far left liberal minority is trying their best to influence the rest of society and the conservatives are attempting to preserve what they think is best for society. Both sides are using the political system to achieve their agenda. I think it's healthy that in our country we can peacefully debate these subjects and, as a society, move in whatever direction seems best. We have moved both left and right in the last few decades and it doesn't worry me at all that there's another shift going on.

For example, while "gay marriage" is being fought strongly by the right, domestic partnership laws have been approved by many states and by many large employers. Also, silly sodomy laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The only time sodomy should be a crime is when it is part of a rape and, in fact, this is about the only time it is applied.

Drew, regarding the Kinsey report, the conservatives I know have 2 problems with it. It was wildly inaccurate in some areas from a factual standpoint which, of course, led to false conclusions. Secondly, it did help fuel the sexual revolution which many conservatives see as being a disaster for this country. That being said, I know very few conservatives (none actually) who want to control people's bedroom activities or burn books about them.

As a married bi man, I've come to terms with my bisexuality but I could care less whether society thinks I'm normal or a pervert. As long as sexual activities among adults remain legal, I don't care, nor do I expect everyone else to "embrace" my orientation.

Last but not least, most Christians I know think homosexual behavior is a sin. They also think adultery and beastiality are sinful behaviors are sinful. I think the reason that those of us who are gay or bi feel we're being targeted bi the religious right is that we're attempting to change the status of homosexual behavior from a perversion to a normal form of sexual expression. No one is trying to legitimize beastiality or adultery so we don't here them rail against them as often.

[Brian]

Hi Bigballs et al,

Well I am glad I started the poll and thread because I think this is a fascinating topic. I don't know this for fact, but I suspect that bisexuals (as a group) have very wide ranging opinions on politics in general, and gay and sex rights in particular, compared to folks who identify as 100% gay or nearly so. In otherwords I think there are probably many bisexual liberals and many bisexual conservatives. So I think this thread could become a long one. :)

About a few things you said Bigballs...


For example, while "gay marriage" is being fought strongly by the right, domestic partnership laws have been approved by many states and by many large employers. Also, silly sodomy laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The only time sodomy should be a crime is when it is part of a rape and, in fact, this is about the only time it is applied. I think that is a very rosey view of the current state of domestic partnership benefits and sodomy laws in the US.

With regards to same-sex marriage and domestic partnership laws/benefits... Look what's happening to any large company that approves gay-friendly partnership benefits: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/afa/312005a.asp

As for the sodomy laws... Keep in mind that it was only 2 years ago that the federal sodomy law was struck down. Time will tell if that ruling holds - it won't if conservative Christians have anything to say about it. In that particular case, there was no rape; Texas authorities charged two men who were having sex in the privacy of their own home when the police burst in while investigating a false complaint. Here's Jerry Falwell's take on the ruling: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/26/234737.shtml ("Texas Sodomy Law Ruling a Tragedy for America"), and this page has the reactions of many other conservatives: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws8.htm Clearly many conservatives DO want to control what goes on in the bedrooms of the nation, in spite of the conservatives you know.


Drew, regarding the Kinsey report, the conservatives I know have 2 problems with it. It was wildly inaccurate in some areas from a factual standpoint which, of course, led to false conclusions. Conservatives are simply wrong when they contend that the Kinsey report was "wildly inaccurate". Kinsey himself agreed with and accepted the criticism that some of his data collecting methods were flawed - that his sampling wasn't as representative of the general population as it should have been (a disproportionate amount of his data came from prisoners, for example). So his data may have been flawed a bit one way or the other - and he took steps to correct this in his second report, on female sexuality. This does not make the report "wildly inaccurate", and Kinsey's numbers have generally been confirmed by subsequent attempts to measure sexual behaviours in the western world.


Secondly, it did help fuel the sexual revolution which many conservatives see as being a disaster for this country. I agree that many conservatives feel that way- and again they are wrong. The sexual revolution of the 60s was a beautiful thing that freed people from constraints which were counter to the principles of human freedom. That's why conservatives want to undo it; truly free people don't need conservative gods.


I think that Red's comment about religious right conservatives trying to "infiltrate" th political scene is silly. They've always been there, usually in the majority. What's actually happening is just the opposite. The far left liberal minority is trying their best to influence the rest of society and the conservatives are attempting to preserve what they think is best for society. Both sides are using the political system to achieve their agenda. I think it's healthy that in our country we can peacefully debate these subjects and, as a society, move in whatever direction seems best. We have moved both left and right in the last few decades and it doesn't worry me at all that there's another shift going on. I hear ya BigBalls, but I disagree. There is no doubt in my mind that there is currently a very well-organized and financed campaign to stamp out liberalism in America, and it is spreading into Canada, Australia and the UK. I don't buy this "defending ourselves from the gay agenda" theory that conservatives put forth.

Let's take same-sex marriage as an example. To many conservatives this is the ultimate insult. But what do they care? It doesn't affect them in any way - nothing will change in their churches. The United Church of Canada wants to allow same-sex marriages in their churches (on a congreagation by congregation basis - in otherwords each congregation can decide for itself). The law proposed by liberals here in Canada would permit this to happen, while allowing for right-wing churches to continue to ban such a practice in their churches. The law even goes further and allows those who perform civil marriages (Justices of the Peace and such) to abstain from having to preside over gay marriages if they choose (conscientious objector status for the piously conservative in otherwords).

The right on the other hand wants to impose their interpretation of the bible on everyone - period. So under the counter-proposed Conservative law, left-leaning churches would not be allowed to perform same-sex marriages, even though their interpretation of the bible supports such a thing.

So who, the right or the left, is really trying to impose restrictions on who? Who's the oppressor and who's the freedom fighter? I think the answer is clearly that the left and the LGBT community are on the side of freedom. No gay agenda is being imposed on anyone; people are simply trying to make the world a more just and free place: every church free to interpret the bible/qu'ran/torah the way they choose. Each to his own.

That's my 2 cents.

- Drew :paw:

[ThrillMe]

I take offence to any attempt to say that the Bible anywhere directly says that homosexuality is a sin - it simply is not there.

Take a look at "Of Love and Justice" from the United Church of Canada

http://www.united-church.ca/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=67&EXTRA_ARG=&host_id=42&page_id=13762560&query=same+sex&hiword=same+SAMEH+sex+

Even if it did ... the Bible tells me I should burn offerings to God. Not sure if my neighbours would appreciate me torching a calf in my backyard. Leviticus also tells me I can have slaves, in fact, that I should.

Mycliffe, Tyndale, Luther et al translated the Bible to the best of their abilities from the original languages, but often based on 14th and 15th century societal norms.

[julie]

I second that Thrill, If only the people who persistantly quote these same old passages were as dilligent in adhereing to those regarding love and judgement.

'Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing DEBT to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law' Romans ch13v8

Sometimes I wonder if Christians forget why Jesus came :(

Love Julie

[kev1963]

Whatever the case... or anyone's take on the situation, I think it's fair to say that the most vocally anti-GLBT people out there are the ones most anxious to bed a MOTSS and chances are they'd do it in a heartbeat if they felt they could do it with just about anyone willing with a guarantee of being able to stay in the closet and keep living their pathetic hypocritical lives.

That said, I know as well as anyone how hard it is to "come out" and the coming out process is different for everyone. What I am driving at however is that we in the GLBT community should not, under any circumstances, respect a person's right to stay in the closet if they are vocally outspoken in the political arena about their disapproval of homo or bi sexuality.

Yes. You read it right. Why should any of us here keep our mouths shut if there are forces out there trying to turn the clocks back to the stone age and among them are practicing homo or bi sexuals? Yah, I know, it's called OUTING someone... but hey, if words and actions make a person a walking example of the word hypocrite, I see no reason why we should keep quiet about it and take their rhetoric. There's no sane reason why we should just sit bi and let ourselves get beaten up.

In other words, if they deserve it, OUT THEM... in any mass media willing to listen.

(Unfortunately there's also a big part of me that believes that the media has already been bought-off by the right-wing to shut up and ignore a lot of matters of real importance [education, health care, pollution]. Instead, all the outspoken GLBT Rights-Bashers want to do are wrap their prissy perfect lives in the flag and stomp out any and all forms of dialog or serious public debate on any / all REAL issues of substance; not just GLBT rights. And if they [the media] aren't already TOOLS of the far right then they are at least spineless enough to not make a stand on an issue or for fear of losing a couple advertising dollars if not readers/subscribers/ or viewing audience members. But, this is a subject for an entirely separate discussion thread altogether.)

But back to where I was.... if all these voices want to do is de-humanize us, further the causes of intolerance, and breed future insurrection, then fine. All we need to do is make a concerted effort to OUT the worst of the rotten apples who amount to nothing more than being moles in the GLBT community looking for a quick f**k [the way they really like it to begin with] who can't admit how much they like going both ways and are probably with an opposite sex partner so they can live their spineless gutless "perfect" Wonder Bread lives.

Just think of how much better off we'd probably be now if J. Edgar Hoover had been outed in about 1940 rather than 10 years after he died... (a good 40-50 years later)....

As far as I'm concerned, a person's right to privacy ends when their speech and actions begin to affect what happens behind my own closed doors.

Find a way to OUT all of those who legitimately deserve to be, and discredit them for being the pathetic losers they really are.

[blitz120]

This thread strikes me as more about the politics of sex than Kinsey, based on the poll (so don't be surprised if I don't talk about his books ;) ).

I find the poll flawed, because it it doesn't account for one having an underlying philosophy that both acccepts all forms of consensual sexual expression and relationships and other issues consistently.

My philosophy is basically one of free market anarchy :eek:. In terms of gay and bi issues, that means that government should have zero say in the matter. Government should not approve or disapprove of marriage of anyone, criminalize any consensual behavior, or have any say in how individuals consensually interact based on the issue.

Both "liberals" and "conservatives" want their say to some extent in the matter; I say that neither should have any say whatsoever about anyone other than themselves.

--blitz

[mike9753]

I am very worried about those people in the world who are so "balck or white" in their approach to life that they do not tolerate any grey. They can be American "Conservatives", Muslim extremeists, Right to Life advocates, etc. To me, our world is a very complex place. In my humble opinion, we cannot and we should not boil things down to polar opposites. That approach is dehumanizing and disrespectful to the creative spirit that makes us different from every other life form.

I believe that we need to be tolerant and accepting of the way we humans are evolving and growing.

To me, the only things to hold the line about and be "black and white" about have to do with the issues like child porn, abuse of people (spouse abouse, rape, violence against children and other crimes like this). Again, to me and I think to a vast majority of humans, these things are wrong today and will always be wrong. We should strive to erradicate these issues and not spend time persecuting and judging people who are gay or bisexual or who just want to be happy.

Sorry, got on a soap box - I'll get off now.

Mike

[gayle]

Hey Drew,
You've come up with a poll that I can't vote in. The question, as phrased, asks how MY bisexuality affects my voting. The problem is that I am NOT bisexual so I can't take part in the poll. My bf is bisexual. I'm not the only straight person who visits this site. I might be the most active straight person on this site, but I know I am not in isolation here.
As for how I vote --- I don't actually vote based on issues of sexuality. This might be a surprise to a few people, I AM a conservative Christian. I vote based on the prolife/prochoice issue. For those who want to know, I am ADAMANTLY PRO LIFE. I believe life begins at conception at all life is valuable. I won't vote for any candidate that I know to be prochoice. Since those who are pro-choice often argue that life begins at some nebulous point after conception, or who voice the absurd opinion that "we don't know what it is" (that is within the womb of a pregnant woman), I feel we are unable to agree on such a significant issue, I am unlikely to agree with them on other issues. I am unlikely to come out as a big supporter of same sex marriage, but I am also unlikely to come out in strong opposition to it. Everyone has some sort of issue that is important to them politically, and for me, obviously it is the prolife and prochoice movements.
I try to practice tolerance --- or more appropriately stated --- love. I try to show love towards others and love is my general motivation in life. I try to be understanding of others who have different beliefs and lifestyles from what I have. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I fall flat on my face. Just because I am not bi or lesbian, doesn't mean that I am not supportive of those who are. As always, I try to view people as being people, choosing not to judge them based on what they may or may not be doing behind the closed door of their bedrooms.
As for Kinsey's book, some of the data may be skewed, but wouldn't that be true in any major study? The book challenged society when it was published and remains a challenge for many today. What some people consider to be "normal" sexual behavior is going to be viewed as being abnormal by others. We will never reach a consensus on what does or does not constitute normal sexual behavior, just as we'll never achieve a consensus on what constitutes "the perfect hamburger." Dissention is a normal part of modern society and diversity is something we should value, not seek to condemn. :2cents: :soapbox: :compuser:

[BiShadoman]

First of all I would like to agree wholeheartedly with Gayle, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Second I won't start a second debate in regards to theological issue but to those who want to start quoting the Bible and making interpretations as to its content I would suggest that you delve into quite a bit more research before you start making such definitive statements, Look to some of the original greek, latin, and hebrew texts for the original intent of the scripture.

[twosides]

Hi folks. Great site. I'm new here and thought I would start by putting my thoughts into the mix. bigballsbiguy and Drew both had some interesting points.

bigballsbiguy:
I think that Red's comment about religious right conservatives trying to "infiltrate" th political scene is silly. They've always been there, usually in the majority. What's actually happening is just the opposite. The far left liberal minority is trying their best to influence the rest of society and the conservatives are attempting to preserve what they think is best for society.

I agree with this whole heartedly. Whenever things like the Kinsey Report, "Last Tango in Paris", short shorts, Ellen, Janet Jackson, same sex marriage, anything along these lines, comes into the public awareness, the conservatives do what their name implies: they rail against this sexual or philisophical or moral affront to their sensibilities and try to _conserve_ that which is already established. They see any little change as the next step down the slippery slope and believe we won't see the negative changes to society happening around us. The frog in the steadily heated water story.

I find nothing wrong with this way of thinking. I like to keep things so that it's not the few who decide for many, or have changes take effect too quickly before the options are carefully considered. If someone wants to influence how society at large considers a particular point of interest, go ahead and make the effort to get the tide moving in your direction. How many tides have been turned over the last two centuries? How easy were any of them? You can't expect something great to happen without some effort in a society that is as asleep as ours.

That's where "progressives" come in. We need to have this voice heard and taken seriously. I do my part in my anti-social way. I believe everyone has a voice and hands that can help make this a better place. But what I see happening whenever a hot topic is being "discussed" is that everybody just closes their ears and starts flapping their gums. Then the walls come up and the rhetoric is flying, the propaganda is splashed, and the mud raked.

Uh-oh. A rant happened. Sorry. I'm a new guy.

Rob

[julie]

First of all I would like to agree wholeheartedly with Gayle, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Second I won't start a second debate in regards to theological issue but to those who want to start quoting the Bible and making interpretations as to its content I would suggest that you delve into quite a bit more research before you start making such definitive statements, Look to some of the original greek, latin, and hebrew texts for the original intent of the scripture.


I stand by every word I said Bi shadowman and resent your apparant assumption that my viewpoint- for that is all any of us have- is not grounded in theological research.

My point was that through the crucifixion and ressurrection of Christ, that one sacrifical act, and the New Testament commandments to love God, oneself and others, transcends the law. Christians are commanded to love, Christians are also commanded not to judge.

Julie

[BiShadoman]

So Julie according to you the old testament no longer has any bearing or relevance to us today? I said that I didn't want to turn this into a theological debate. I don't agree with what the conservative right completely and I don't agree with the liberal left, None of us are going to agree on everything and if we want things to change then we need to open our mouths and write letters to the powers that be.
Julie I am sorry that you took offense to what I had to say, that was not my intent.
Out of the Shados (probably goihg back in the Shados because people are quite touchy around here if you disagree with them)

[julie]

So Julie according to you the old testament no longer has any bearing or relevance to us today? I said that I didn't want to turn this into a theological debate. I don't agree with what the conservative right completely and I don't agree with the liberal left, None of us are going to agree on everything and if we want things to change then we need to open our mouths and write letters to the powers that be.
Julie I am sorry that you took offense to what I had to say, that was not my intent.
Out of the Shados (probably goihg back in the Shados because people are quite touchy around here if you disagree with them)


Once again BiShadowman you appear to be putting words in my mouth. That is what I get 'touchy' about, as I rather imagine you might.

Sigh- I am not saying the old testament bears no relevance today- I am saying the new testament bears relevence also and this is something that appears to be overlooked by many Christians. Especially about Christs love being for all, not just those who were 'fortunate' to be born on number 1 of the Kinsey Scale

Like you, I have no desire to enter into theological debate- especially as so much within the bible is open to interpretation. And on that note, I hope you are not sleeping on polycotton sheets tonight Sir.

Julie

[light_of_sorrow]

this is my first post on this site - just joined....

first of all, someone commented about the 'liberal left' - since when is liberalism left wing? if liberalism is considered left wing that's a pretty narrow ideological spectrum. left wing is socialism, communism, anarchism...

second of all, i view all politics in the same way - their connection to the class structure in society.

the heterosexism of the far right (as well as things like racism, sexism, and transphobia) makes sense when you have a solid understanding of the class structure of our society. since there's nothing that the ruling class fears more than a united working class able to challenge their power, they use a divide-and-conquer strategy that sadly, works very well.

if you're too busy hating your neighbours for the colour of their skin or their choice of sexual partners, it's pretty hard to see the fact that you probably have more in common with them than you do with the people at the top of society, the ones who really run the show.

so, does my sexual preference influence my politics? sure it does. does my being transgendered influence it too? sure. but ultimately, neither of these things are a substitute for having the tools of Marxist analysis...which leads us to the conclusion that as socialists, we must act as a tribune of the oppressed, and stand up against all forms of oppression.

what i'm saying is, i'd probably have the same politics even if i were a different person than i am now, sexually speaking. why is that? because the right is wrong and the left is right, that's why. ;)

[softfruit]

Welcome aboard light_of_sorrow :)

First thing to note is that this is an international board so most of the people using such terminology are in the US, which in practical terms has a much simpler party system than Canada or the UK -- they just have the two parties and the one ideology :P

OK I'm being flippant to get across separating national parties from underlying ideology -- so here's a more serious answer: the roots of the term left wing here in the UK, since I'm guessing they would have been inherited overseas from the days of Empire.

The "left" were the radicals in the 1600s who dared to say that people should have the right not to follow the same religion as the King. As such you begin with liberalism as the original and definitive left wing, and the left right axis thus defined in dissent and conformity. Socialism & communism are relative newcomers and also labelled as of the left, but it's an arbitrary categorisation more to do with them replacing liberalism as the perceived threat to the right for most of the last century. There's a fair case for putting them on the right instead.

Indeed, in LGBT equality terms as an ideology liberalism is markedly more naturally allied to our cause than socialism / communism, which lie in the murky middle ground between liberal and conservative.

[APMountianMan]

Please don't take this posting too seriously. It is only meant to give you pause. Biblically speaking, Adam was the first bi-sexual male. After all, the woman was taken out of him.

I welcome these conversations. But I must say that I think that most Christians are too emotional about the Bible to speak rationally to the problems presented in its pages. They confuse faith, truth, and fact. They don't do the hard work of hermeneutics.

That being said, I must also say that those of us that are "sexually awake" have not done what we should to stem ideals wrongly espoused as modern morality.

As a black male married to a white woman, I hear the same rhetoric used in religious objections to homosexuality as were spewed to justify banning interracial marriage. It took a political and moral revolution, with casualties, to move beyond that barrier of sexism.

The true is, as the poll shows, we are in our comfort zone. The first pruning of sexual oppression was easy. It is always the last stage pruning that is the hardest.

It is hard to stand up and say that banning gay marriage is wrong. It's hard because we can have in both ways. We can live a life that "appears" to be normal and have our fun too. We should vote to override sexual oppression. It is a moral imperative. If we don't, we allow our future to be defined in narrower and narrower terms: we may return to the days of segregation and Puritanism.

One passing shot across the bow: Biblically, in Christ there is no male or female only one new creation: the bi-sexual. :tongue:

[Bicuriousity]

I'm pretty damn conservative myself. I think sexual orientation is something that should be off the books in terms of any reference in politics.

It is a shame that lesbians and gays have to align themselves with such a polarizing force as liberals nowadays.

But I'm an independent. I hate politics overall.

[bigregory]

I vote for this :grouphug:

[JohnnyV]

Wow, I just randomly came across this thread as I saw a guest browsing it in the archives. What a controversial discussion....

Adding an innocent point at the 15th hour, I'd like to point out that that famous list of books that conservatives condemned also included:

Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals
Friedan's the Feminine Mystique
Dewey's book on liberal education
Auguste Comte's book on positive science
Marx's Communist Manifesto

Yes, they also blasted Hitler's Mein Kampf.

But the point of that list, and the fanfare it produced last summer (especially among NPR listeners) was really not much focused on GLBT rights. In fact the Kinsey Report was listed mostly because it fits in with the other books on the list -- which shared a common theme of flexibility where gender and social roles were concerned.

If you ever have a chance to read the Kinsey Report, you should do it. Not only the one on the Male, in 1948, but also the one on the female, in 1953. The section on homosexuality is very small, and "bisexuality" is actually described by Kinsey as a term ill-fitting for what he observed. For the vast majority of the book, Kinsey lays bare strange trends in people's private sex lives. He tells us, for instance, that uneducated men are more likely to enjoy sex with their clothes on, what percentage of people have had sex with animals, and how often people replace vaginal sex with anal sex, and why. Masturbation takes up much more space than homosexuality.

Conservatives put the Kinsey Report on their ban list mostly because it demystified sex in general and made it possible for people to discuss things formerly taboo. Conservatives view that as a slippery slope soon to allow all taboos, even necessary ones like taboos against seducing innocent people and abandoning them or spreading diseases, to unravel.

Generally I would say that the conservatives who drew up the list (if you look closely you can see who comprised the panel, for a good laugh) are most fearful of individuals claiming the right to think for themselves, which explains why Comte, Nietzsche, and Dewey are on the list, actually outnumbering the two sexually oriented books (Kinsey and Friedan).

There IS a conspiracy among US conservatives against gay rights -- so the people who attacked Drew in the thread above are dead wrong -- but the list of dangerous books is almost completely unrelated to right-wing homophobia. Maybe if you consider gay rights a symbol of independent thought and defying rigid social order, then you could say that their list of dangerous books is reacting violently against gays and lesbians. Mostly though the list is, sadly enough, an emblem of the American right wing's senseless rage against anything cosmopolitan. And some of the people who posted in this thread are part of that rage, or display a little of it.

Interesting stuff, though. Thanks for the discussion, Drew. Sorry I missed it the first time around.

J

[citystyleguy]

my! my! my! drew, have you ever touched off a flury of opinions!

first off, your reponses to 'big balls' was well balanced, informative, and answered quite well his tendencies to favor conservative argument. for myself, it is an open forum such as this that i will always welcome; my own fear is when someone steps up from the soapbox, and takes on the sermon from the pulpit, all in gods rightousness!

here in beautiful california, we often do not hear much of canadian politics, but it sounds as if you have somewhat less of the pendulum swing politically then here in the good ole' usa! one of california's greatest praises was when the italian cousul general said that italians love california politics as it reminds them so much of their homeland. it is so open, so widely diverse, and allows for the expression of so many voices!!

sorry, but i digress; it is not a surprise at all that conservatives rank the kinsey report so high (or low depending on personal viewpoint) as affecting their point of view of what affects a country's moral fiber! anything that stands in the face, for what ever reason, of preconceived dogama is to be slammed without balanced discussion. and this goes for any dogma, of any persuasion.

i am bisexual, not gay, not straight, it is a definitive part of my being; not a lifestyle choice as it is when i pick out an area rug for my floor, or a set of dishes to dine from, or my next pair of pants or underwear. so i care little for opinions that pose dogmas as truths, but i will fight the battle from any quarter if you dare choose to surpress my right to join, to say, to live, to be!

just so no one is misinformed; i am a liberal democrat, an episcopalian of the christian faith by family practice and choice, a firm devotee and believer of the Stoical philosophy by conviction and practice, and bisexual by being!

may one and all find answers to the questions, and the love of both a man and a woman!

[JohnnyV]

Whatever the case... or anyone's take on the situation, I think it's fair to say that the most vocally anti-GLBT people out there are the ones most anxious to bed a MOTSS and chances are they'd do it in a heartbeat if they felt they could do it with just about anyone willing with a guarantee of being able to stay in the closet and keep living their pathetic hypocritical lives.

That said, I know as well as anyone how hard it is to "come out" and the coming out process is different for everyone. What I am driving at however is that we in the GLBT community should not, under any circumstances, respect a person's right to stay in the closet if they are vocally outspoken in the political arena about their disapproval of homo or bi sexuality.

Yes. You read it right. Why should any of us here keep our mouths shut if there are forces out there trying to turn the clocks back to the stone age and among them are practicing homo or bi sexuals? Yah, I know, it's called OUTING someone... but hey, if words and actions make a person a walking example of the word hypocrite, I see no reason why we should keep quiet about it and take their rhetoric. There's no sane reason why we should just sit bi and let ourselves get beaten up.

In other words, if they deserve it, OUT THEM... in any mass media willing to listen.

(Unfortunately there's also a big part of me that believes that the media has already been bought-off by the right-wing to shut up and ignore a lot of matters of real importance [education, health care, pollution]. Instead, all the outspoken GLBT Rights-Bashers want to do are wrap their prissy perfect lives in the flag and stomp out any and all forms of dialog or serious public debate on any / all REAL issues of substance; not just GLBT rights. And if they [the media] aren't already TOOLS of the far right then they are at least spineless enough to not make a stand on an issue or for fear of losing a couple advertising dollars if not readers/subscribers/ or viewing audience members. But, this is a subject for an entirely separate discussion thread altogether.)

But back to where I was.... if all these voices want to do is de-humanize us, further the causes of intolerance, and breed future insurrection, then fine. All we need to do is make a concerted effort to OUT the worst of the rotten apples who amount to nothing more than being moles in the GLBT community looking for a quick f**k [the way they really like it to begin with] who can't admit how much they like going both ways and are probably with an opposite sex partner so they can live their spineless gutless "perfect" Wonder Bread lives.

Just think of how much better off we'd probably be now if J. Edgar Hoover had been outed in about 1940 rather than 10 years after he died... (a good 40-50 years later)....

As far as I'm concerned, a person's right to privacy ends when their speech and actions begin to affect what happens behind my own closed doors.

Find a way to OUT all of those who legitimately deserve to be, and discredit them for being the pathetic losers they really are.


I won't go on for too long about this (it is a year later, after all), but the views expressed above are extremely dangerous. As someone dedicated to gay and lesbian rights, and still actively participating in advocacy, I have seen how totally destructive the attitude above is, how many lives it has destroyed, and how it destroys bisexual people in particular. Usually the same extremists who call for outing conservatives also condemn "mixed-orientation marriages" and insist that bisexuals are lying to avoid being persecuted as gay. I have seen this attitude devleop a subculture of its own in the gay subculture, often influencing things that come out even in mainstream gay outlets like the Advocate; it creates a culture of fear. As a result, the gay community becomes an embittered place full of people who have been forced into something, and people with longstanding grudges against each other.

J

[Long Duck Dong]

lol... ok... living in new zealand with its civil union bill recently passed ( the right for have a union similair to marriage for people that wished not to marry, the LGBT community, and other groups that wished a bonding not based on the CHRISTIAN type marriage (( the remark about the christian type marriage refers to any marriage that is conducted and refers to holy matrimony in the eyes of god ))

during the run up to the final vote arguement used against the rights of people to have a civil union, was the following arguement

*gay males are immoral, against god and it will lead to the downfall of marriage and the corruption of society and marriage as a whole *

the interesing thing to note... is the emphasis on gay marriage.... and the civil union bill did become known as the gay marriage bill.... not the non christian, LGBT marriage bill, but the gay marriage bill

in the final televised debate... the overwhelming opposition to the bill was on the grounds that gay males have anal sex.....the source of that info... the kinsey report.....

now the kinsey report is not that bad.... its the idiots that swear by it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contradiction... that are the idiots

gay people, straight people, bi people, transgender people....we all contribute to society..... we all do our bit for our country.... we all bleed the same blood.... we all DON"T have the same rights

[Avocado]

This is an interesting poll for me living in England. We just had a General Election here in the UK which was the first in my life where my primary motive in how to cast my vote was not what you'd think of as LGBT rights issues.

At past elections we had a choice between the Conservative Party actively anti-gay, Liberal Democrats actively pro-equality, and the Labour Party somewhere in the middle ground. Even at the last election in 2001, Labour had just voted down Liberal attempts to repeal the laws that sought to "protect" young people from finding out about homosexuality and had introduced new laws to reduce transgender people's employment rights.

But thanks mostly to the influence of the European Union forcing our Labour government to get off the fence we've had the repeal many of the anti-gay laws such as the military ban and the unequal age of consent. Coupled with the Conservative Party's belief that these days racism would be more popular than homophobia, there was now relatively little to choose between the three parties this time around. Sure the Lib Dems were the only people really talking about moving equality any further forward, but whoever got in it was unlikely to be that bad on a gay rights front in the next Parliament.

It's taken a heck of a lot of fighting to get to where we are now though, and the anti-Europeans could undo it all for us only too quickly. So I find myself voting to keep us in the EU and against things like compulsory state ID cards - issues that unlike the age of consent aren't "classic" LGBT issues, but indirectly are very much so.

and as for the article Drew linked to, i am SO tickled that JMK's general theory could be deemed a menace to civilised society!

Are you sure that stuff about Labour is true? My experience is that it was Labour who introduced same-sex marriage, Labour who tried to introduce the equal age of consent and reduce the restrictions on teachings in schools, and it was the Lords who rejected it?

[Brian]

It's a blast from the past, lol! I think it's great when old threads are resurrected. I view old threads and posts as assets - something useful to new and old members alike even years after they have been written. So no worries about resurrecting old threads everyone.

I agree with much of what has been written in this thread recently, and find it all very interesting.

I have just one additional thought, that dovetails with much of what has been written, especially JohnnyV's second-most recent post... I think we bisexuals have the principle of freedom firmly on our side and it's our greatest intellectual weapon. I think many bisexuals are instinctively sexual libertarians - we believe people should be free to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms, provided of course it involves only consenting adults and no one gets hurt. In that sense we have natural allies, I think, in the BDSM and swinger communities.

The right tries to wrap themselves in the flag of liberty as well, but it fails the intellectual sniff test. For example they say that same-sex marriage violates their religious freedom. But for the life of me I can't see how stopping left-leaning, gay-friendly churches from marrying same-sex couples is an act of freedom of religion. How is forcing one church to follow the doctrine of another church religious freedom? No one is talking about forcing right-wing churches to marry same-sex couples.

Similarly the right declared loudly that putting the ten commandments in the court rooms of the Alabama Supreme Court was an act of religious freedom for them and stopping them is restricting their religious freedoms. But again it just doesn't pass the basic sniff test of individual freedom. How can you post the ten commandments in a court room and not infringe on someone's free exercise of a religion that doesn't believe the ten commandments are the word of god? How can you post a version of the ten commandments and not effectively establish that corresponding religion as the favoured one by the court? And which version of the ten commandments becomes the favoured (established) one by the court, the Jewish version, Catholic version or Protestant version?

(the bold words are from the First Amendment)

I think "freedom" is the new conservative movement's achilles heel - it's their weak spot. JohhnyV pointed that out when he noted the trend in the books that conservatives view as "dangerous" - most are books that advocate free thought and individual freedom. The right has declared war on the principle of "each to his own", in the name of God. And that's a war that I think they can't win in the long term - freedom always wins in the long run.

That's my two cents for the day. Gotta run for now.

- Drew :paw:

[Toad82]

Interesting thread.

[*pan*]

hmmmm very interesting, i never even knew or heard of the book, but my feelings on the matter being a pagan always was that bisexuality is natural and that seemed to be the norm before the christian movement. sounds to me the religious right who influences the government are squirming over the statistics in the book. guess they will try and make bisexuality against the law. lol. oh well what will be will be.