Bachmanns Poo-Poo Kinsey—And I'm Lovin' It
A "Gay-friendly Iowan" tries to use Kinsey to persuade Michelle Bachmann and her husband (oh, where's my gaydar gun!) that there's a sizeable homo-population (thus, implicitly asserting the "born-this-way" agenda), but both Bachmanns refuse to have ANY of her Kinsey-juice...and I'm loving it. (Really, how much more offensive could Kinsey have been than to have QUANTIFIED desire? Numbers are asstastic. Desire is fluid.)
Tweet
Comments [13]
Kinsey was actually trying to
Kinsey was actually trying to get away from the very strict demarcations of "gay", "straight", and "bisexual" of his day. He was using his scale to demonstrate that sexual orientation is a continuum of shades and degrees of gayness or straightness throughout the population (ie to unlock people from boxes rather than put them in boxes). I would have thought this was a concept you would agree with Marcie?
Also, by your statements here and elsewhere, you are implying that you agree with reparative therapists who say that it is possible for someone gay to change and become straight. Does this mean you therefore have no objection to Mr. Bachmann's clinic (and others like it) that attempt to facilitate such a change?
Well of course they're going
Well of course they're going to dispute science! Tea partiers don't believe in science.
bosh! the kinsey report is
bosh! the kinsey report is rubbish!
Rubbish or not, he used the
Rubbish or not, he used the scientific method in his study. Ergo- science.
i agree...it is science. but
i agree...it is science. but "What price [science]?"
... i think, for me, i'm a bergsonian and bergson had a firm split from science in the early 1900s (after he laid the SMACKDOWN on einstein in a 1906 debate...HOLLA!)
I don't know who Bergson is
I don't know who Bergson is or particularly care. I was originally just making commentary on the tea party's general eschewing of science and facts in favor of myth and rumor.
true that.
true that.
Half of Darwin's original
Half of Darwin's original reports are rubbish too, does this mean all of his evolutionary theories were wrong? You seem to have a hell of a cavalier attitude to scientific explorations.
i'm mostly teasing ye about
i'm mostly teasing ye about this -- but darwin and kinsey employed 2 VERY different methodologies...my issue is with kinsey's spatialization/quantification of desire...which has nothing to do with darwin, ackshully.
I am using Darwin as another
I am using Darwin as another famous example of a scientist in the era before science reports were subjected to the rigorous reviews they are today. All scientific reports that predate the middle of the last century cannot be swallowed wholesale, but that doesn't mean that many of them don't contain good points.
As I point out above, Kinsey was expanding the current sexual orientation categories from 3 to 7. In other words, he was taking a step in the direction of de-categorisation. His scale was intended to illustrate diversity, not restrictiveness.
As I also point out above, your continous "teasing" about this is coming across in a very different and offensive light. I don't believe you are in fact this unpleasant of a person, so I am asking you to consider the implications of what you are casually saying here.
C, I agree that Darwin was
C, I agree that Darwin was regarded the same way.
I read Kinsey differently, though: the further delimitation or "refinement" (the expansion) of the system only quantifies it more...tries to locate the quantifiable specificity of desire...interesting, right?
Hear. hear!
Hear. hear!
He could not be any more
He could not be any more perfect.
@carollani
www.gaynation.posterous.com