|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | There was a sexual revolution in the 50s? Where? --[[User:Emmeline|Emmeline]] 14:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
| + | [[image:JWallaceface.JPG]] |
| − | :I think the writer means it had its roots in ideas developed in the 50s? It would be much more appropriate to say 60s and 70s, though. [[User:Human|Human]] 15:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References that do not support the statement==
| |
| − | The statement
| |
| − | :Kinsey claimed that 10% of American men were [[homosexual]]. He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.{{fact}}<ref>
| |
| − | Judith A. Reisman, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16094 The APAs: "Academic Pedophile Advocates"], ''WorldNetDaily'', March 26, 1999.</ref><ref>Judith A. Reisman, [http://www.academia.org/store/kinsey.html ''Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences''], retreived from Accuracy in Academia 8 May 2007.</ref>
| |
| − | is followed by two references. Although both of the references make many unflattering statements about Kinsey, ''neither of them says anything about his statistical sampling methods.''
| |
| − | The statement should be supported by a reference that analyzes his statistical methodology. To say that his statistical sampling methods must be faulty because he was an unpleasant person is a very pure example of argument ''ad hominem.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Just to clarify, since I see that [[User:Suricou]] removed the statement. I don't like the statement as Ed phrased it. Apart from the question of ''what'' he said was true of 10% of the population, which Suricou clarified I believe there is a case to be made that Kinsey's sampling methodology wasn't good enough to produce quantitatively accurate percentages. So if Ed or someone else wants to say something about faulty statistics, that's OK with me but it a) needs to be supported, b) by a reference that addresses ''that question,'' not some other question.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Now, as for the references, which I see were added by RobS. They are both traceable to the same source, a Dr. Judith Reisman, who says that Kinsey and his associates had many repellent sexual abnormalities. They are both reported by distinctly conservative websites. If RobS wants to add a statement to the effect that "Psychologist Judith Reisman says thus-and-such" about Kinsey, that's OK too, as long as it's carefully qualified so that the reader can make a judgement about credibility. I'd like to see it attributed to "Conservative psychologist Judith Reisman" actually. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Direction of the article==
| |
| − | | |
| − | We don't need to justify Kinsey - that's a separate issue in itself. And the role of condoms and the Pill was overblown: these merely greased the gears that were already turning.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It's the attitude which underlies the sexual revolution which needs more exposition. Also, we need to detail the consequences.
| |
| − | *the deep unhappiness experienced by girls (and often boys) who give up their virginity to sexual experimentation - instead of "saving it for marriage"
| |
| − | *the divorce culture, and the terrible toll it takes on children (see [[Children of divorce]])
| |
| − | *the prison of self-centered promiscuous [[homosexual activity]] (it's not because of societal disapproval, because the murder-suicide-addiction rate is sky high even in "gay" enclaves such as San Francisco, Greenwich Village, and Provincetown, Massachusetts).
| |
| − | | |
| − | The [[homosexual agenda]] to destroy marriage cuts to the heart of this, and its unholy alliance with radical [[Feminism]] should also be explored. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Based on the ideas of three men...==
| |
| − | Really? Off the top of my head, I would have said:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*Margaret Sanger had something to do with those "ideas;"
| |
| − | :*That the ''ideas'' of the sexual revolution had been around for a long time;
| |
| − | :*That the sexual revolution was really just a follow-on to the Roaring Twenties and the "Jazz Age," and everything important about it is plainly evident in the novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald and John O'Hara's early work (''Appointment in Samarra,'' ''Butterfield 8''). It was just a continuation of something that had been interrupted by the Depression and the Second World War.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'd also have said that the sexual revolution had very little to do with ''ideas'' and a great deal to do with "the Pill." I was going to associate it with the names of Gregory Pincus and John Rock, but [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/timeline/timeline2.html this page] also connects it to Margaret Sanger, who helped spark the idea in a 1951 conversation with Pincus, and with Katherine McCormick, who funded the development of the drug. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Edit conflict with Ed, obviously we're in agreement that it was a continuous process and in disagreement about how much was "ideas" and how much was due to The Pill. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
