DOD Asks: How Would You Feel Showering With Gays?

Reba said:
Since that's a reference that I posted from the newspaper, could you please elaborate on what part specifically is the example of fear of one's own sexuality? That is, which sentence(s) of that post?
Click to expand...

There is no single sentence, but a general attitude displayed in the entire post that shows a fear of one's own sexuality. Or to be more specific, a fear of the certainty of one's own sexuality. Trying to point out a single sentence instead of taking the contextual meaning from the entire post is far too narrow a scope. It is also an ineffective way to dispute that the post is indicative of someone who has a concerns about their own sexuality.
 
Reba said:
Since that's a reference that I posted from the newspaper, could you please elaborate on what part specifically is the example of fear of one's own sexuality? That is, which sentence(s) of that post?
Click to expand...

I knew a few of the guys that were gay on the ship. It was well know who was and who wasn't. So that didn't bother me as long as they did not cross my boundary.
Click to expand...

This can cause people to get jumped on. I just turn my shower off and got out.
Click to expand...

You have to be very careful that you don't step into someone else comfort zone.
Click to expand...

we go back to disliking or hating our fellow crew member
Click to expand...

Quite a few sentences, I'll say.
 
Another question is, why is it always the straight's boundary that is mentioned? They never say anything about the homosexual's boundary.

Hmm. Makes you wonder.
 
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.
 
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...

Now I chime in, lol. I prefer the studies of Wilhelm Reich, Kinsey's contemporary.
Humanist Perspectives: issue 153: Alfred C Kinsey
 
jillio said:
There is no single sentence, but a general attitude displayed in the entire post that shows a fear of one's own sexuality. Or to be more specific, a fear of the certainty of one's own sexuality. Trying to point out a single sentence instead of taking the contextual meaning from the entire post is far too narrow a scope. It is also an ineffective way to dispute that the post is indicative of someone who has a concerns about their own sexuality.
Click to expand...
How does wanting to have one's personal space respected a fear of one's sexuality? If the whole shower room is available and someone takes the shower right next to you, isn't that an encroachment of personal space regardless of "sexual orientation?"

Private personal space in the military is very limited in showering, bunking, relaxing, or whatever. It's standard military courtesy to not invade anyone's "space."
 
Banjo said:
Quite a few sentences, I'll say.
Click to expand...
Quote:
I knew a few of the guys that were gay on the ship. It was well know who was and who wasn't. So that didn't bother me as long as they did not cross my boundary.
Click to expand...
He said that it didn't bother him that other shipmates were gay. What did bother him was crossing his boundary.


Quote:
This can cause people to get jumped on. I just turn my shower off and got out.
Click to expand...
It's not "gayness" that causes people to get "jumped on" but crossing the personal boundary that does.

He did the right thing. He quietly left. No violence involved.


Quote:
You have to be very careful that you don't step into someone else comfort zone.
Click to expand...
Exactly. When people live together in tight quarters under stressful situations it's extremely important to respect each others' comfort zones. That applies to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.


Quote:
we go back to disliking or hating our fellow crew member
Click to expand...
People don't like each other for whatever reasons (rightly or wrongly), including sex, race, religion, home state, attitude, personality, socio-economic status, etc. People can work together for a common cause without "liking" each other. As long as they keep their personal biases to themselves and don't act upon them that's their prerogative. In the military, the main focus is on the mission. If each sailor does his job on board the ship and pulls together when times get rough, then whatever else they think or believe is their own business.
 
Reba said:
He said that it didn't bother him that other shipmates were gay. What did bother him was crossing his boundary.



It's not "gayness" that causes people to get "jumped on" but crossing the personal boundary that does.

He did the right thing. He quietly left. No violence involved.



Exactly. When people live together in tight quarters under stressful situations it's extremely important to respect each others' comfort zones. That applies to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.



People don't like each other for whatever reasons (rightly or wrongly), including sex, race, religion, home state, attitude, personality, socio-economic status, etc. People can work together for a common cause without "liking" each other. As long as they keep their personal biases to themselves and don't act upon them that's their prerogative. In the military, the main focus is on the mission. If each sailor does his job on board the ship and pulls together when times get rough, then whatever else they think or believe is their own business.
Click to expand...


Sounded like our family growing up! :lol: I have two brothers and two sisters, and we were taught to shower with military efficiency, i.e., turn off the water while soaping up, then turn the water back on to rinse. It saved hot water that way and I still shower this way. (Or at least, I am tempted to and stop myself sometimes!) Weird, huh?
 
Last edited:
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...
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.
 
Beowulf said:
Sounded like our family growing up! :lol: I have two brothers and sisters, and we were taught to shower with military efficiency, i.e., turn off the water while soaping up, then turn the water back on to rinse. It saved hot water that way and I still shower this way. Weird, huh?
Click to expand...
Weird? Not at all. Our family also had to take "Navy showers" when we had only well water to depend on. Long showers would drain the well and overwork the septic tank. :lol:

Conservation of natural resources is always a good habit. :)

On a ship or sub with limited fresh water supplies it's a necessity.
 
We turn the hot water heater ON 10 minutes before taking a shower...and OFF when we are done....our hot water heater is big and we don't need all that hot water....I also wash clothes in cold water, it saves $$.

Does that sound weird?....Maybe in this day and age, but we are on a limited income. We do not take baths, showers only....I feel it's a good habit, and anything to save money in this rotten economy is imperative to my family.
 
rockin'robin said:
We turn the hot water heater ON 10 minutes before taking a shower...and OFF when we are done....our hot water heater is big and we don't need all that hot water....I also wash clothes in cold water, it saves $$.

Does that sound weird?....Maybe in this day and age, but we are on a limited income. We do not take baths, showers only....I feel it's a good habit, and anything to save money in this rotten economy is imperative to my family.
Click to expand...

Turning water heater off and on may do more harm than good. Generally it is more expensive to heat than to maintain plus it can be tough on the heating element. Better solution would be to turn the temp down That is what I do.

Washing on cold is good though. I do that as well.
 
TXgolfer said:
Turning water heater off and on may do more harm than good. Generally it is more expensive to heat than to maintain plus it can be tough on the heating element. Better solution would be to turn the temp down That is what I do...
Click to expand...
Or get a tankless water heater.

Or use a programmable timer for the water heater.
 
rockin'robin said:
We turn the hot water heater ON 10 minutes before taking a shower...and OFF when we are done....our hot water heater is big and we don't need all that hot water....I also wash clothes in cold water, it saves $$.

Does that sound weird?....Maybe in this day and age, but we are on a limited income. We do not take baths, showers only....I feel it's a good habit, and anything to save money in this rotten economy is imperative to my family.
Click to expand...

This house we live in has no tubs. When the bathrooms were remodeled in the 60's, they went with shower stalls only.
 
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...

Indeed, though I'd place Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, son and husband of deaf woman, member of the American Breeders Association, much higher on the list of hostiles than Kinsey.
 
rladouceur said:
Indeed, though I'd place Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, son and husband of deaf woman, member of the American Breeders Association, much higher on the list of hostiles than Kinsey.
Click to expand...
Oh, don't worry, he is. :lol:
 
Back
Top