Author Topic: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?  (Read 87203 times)

Offline Sheriff Roland

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,492
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #100 on: February 27, 2007, 06:50:57 pm »
David - I'm catholic too, but I'm a thinking catholic. The church is and has been often wrong and behind the times. It's viewpoint today is not what it was as posted in this article (written over 40 years ago). Granted, the current viewpoint of the Church on homosexuality is still far behind the times (at least by western current thought) - It still views us as inappropriate role models, who shouldn't teach - especially Physical Education(!!), and we are to be pitied, not hated. And our sexual drives are suppose to be additional temptations with which we are suppose ta constantly battle. Of course they're wrong wrong wrong!!! But the church did teach you valuable humane values which you can continue to cherish (and you do - I've read your posts - many of yer 3 000+ post shows you've learned to be a good persons.

Just continue to be a thinking catholic - accepting some teachings, discarding others.
2015 - Toronto: Pan Am Games
2015 - Edmonton, Montréal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg: Woman's World Cup of Soccer

Offline Sheriff Roland

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,492
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #101 on: February 27, 2007, 07:42:57 pm »


disclaimer: this is part of an article published in 1965 in LIFE magazine, a very popular magazine of it's time. It is not a recent article!

The ‘Gay ’ World takes to the City Streets                by Paul Welsh                      (part 5 of 5)

_______________________________________________________________________

Many of the recommendations of the Wolfendon Committee were adopted by the American Law Institute when it wrote a model penal code. In 1961, Illinois based a redraft of its penal code of the American Law Institute’s paper which in effect, says that a person’s private sex life is none of the law’s business. An explanation note in a draft of the Illinois code states that it ‘is not intended to prescribe any sexual conduct between consenting adults unless such conduct adversely affects one of the key interests sought to be protected.’ The ‘key interests’ specifically in mind were preventing the use of force and child exploitation, public sensitivities and the family institution.

Other states, including New York and California, currently are considering penal code revisions similar to Illinois’. But in Florida early this year the Legislative Investigation Committee’s consideration of homosexuality produced an inflammatory report, calling for tougher laws to support the conclusion that ‘the problem today is one of control and that established procedures and stern penalties will serve both as encouragement to law enforcement officials and as a deterrent to the homosexual (who is) hungry for youth.’ Its recommendations would make psychiatric examination of offenders mandatory and create a control file on homosexuals which would be available to public employment agencies throughout the state. The report, which included an opening-page picture of two men kissing and photographs of nude men and boys, was so irresponsible that it brought attacks from the Dade County state’s attorney and the Miami Herald, which described it as an ‘official’ obscenity.

Florida’s attempt to brand homosexuals in order to prevent their being hired in the state has been a long-standing policy with many government agencies. As a result of a 1953 presidential executive order, homosexuality is an absolute bar to security clearance by the federal government. The Department of Defense lists a variety of reasons why it considers sexual deviates poor security risks: they are far more subject to blackmail than heterosexuals, they are emotionally unstable and therefore less reliable keepers of secrets.

There is no psychological evidence to support the DOD’s contention that ‘the weakness of their moral fiber’ makes homosexuals as a group more susceptible to the blandishments of foreign agents. However, FBI and security agency experience does substantiate the charge the homosexuals are particularly subject to blackmail - for fear of exposure which can lead to social ostracism and loss of job.

Homosexuals are unwelcome in the armed forces, where forced segregation of the sexes develops more pressure for deviate activity (as it does in prisons). Many homosexuals are drafted for the service – and quickly weeded out when they have been identified. Homophile groups have protested the unfairness of the system that forces a man into military service and then rejects him with ‘less-than-honorable’ or ‘dishonorable’ discharge because of a psychological condition over which he has no control. But a DOD official explains the policy: “If we didn’t throw them out, we’d be condoning homosexuality. The services’ position has to be that homosexual practices prejudice morale and discipline.”

Civil Service regulations – which governs 93 per cent of federal employes (sic) – states that a person is unsuitable for government employ if he is guilty of ‘criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral or notoriously disgraceful conduct.’ The Civil Service Commission maintains that homosexuals can be a disruptive influence in a government agency, that a homosexual in a position of influence is likely to bring other homosexuals onto government services, and that where security is necessary, they are a greater risk than heterosexual co-workers. When the commission has evidence that an employe (sic) or prospective employe (sic) is a homosexual, he is denied a job – or fired – for immoral conduct.’
____________________________________________________________________

A recent legal challenge to the commission’s stand was made by a homosexual who was denied a Civil Service job although he had passed tests for three personnel and management positions. With the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union, the man went to court, charging that the government has on grounds of personal immorality, denied him a job for which he was qualified.

David Carliner, chairman of the board of the Capital area A.C.L.U., which is handling the case, points out that his organization is ‘not taking a position on homosexuality. We are arguing that qualifications for government employment should be related to the nature of the employment and the employe’s (sic) experience and ability to do the job. A majority cannot deny a person certain rights. We concede that homosexuality is considered immoral in this country. But the notion of immorality is a very vague one. This puts the government in the position of being Big Brother in passing judgment on other people’s behavior. It is a rather awesome power to pass on someone’s morality.’

For the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the homosexual’s case, which it will probably consider when the court reconvenes in October. But no legal procedures are likely to change society’s basic repugnance to homosexuality as n immoral and disruptive force that should somehow be removed. Today, as homosexuals become more visible to the public, there is a need for greater knowledge about them. What science has found outs discussed in the article following.

________________________________________________________________________________
2015 - Toronto: Pan Am Games
2015 - Edmonton, Montréal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg: Woman's World Cup of Soccer

Offline Tommydreamer

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #102 on: February 27, 2007, 10:06:06 pm »

disclaimer: this is part of an article published in 1965 in LIFE magazine, a very popular magazine of it's time. It is not a recent article!

The ‘Gay ’ World takes to the City Streets                by Paul Welsh                      (part 5 of 5)

_______________________________________________________________________

Many of the recommendations of the Wolfendon Committee were adopted by the American Law Institute when it wrote a model penal code. In 1961, Illinois based a redraft of its penal code of the American Law Institute’s paper which in effect, says that a person’s private sex life is none of the law’s business. An explanation note in a draft of the Illinois code states that it ‘is not intended to prescribe any sexual conduct between consenting adults unless such conduct adversely affects one of the key interests sought to be protected.’ The ‘key interests’ specifically in mind were preventing the use of force and child exploitation, public sensitivities and the family institution.

Other states, including New York and California, currently are considering penal code revisions similar to Illinois’. But in Florida early this year the Legislative Investigation Committee’s consideration of homosexuality produced an inflammatory report, calling for tougher laws to support the conclusion that ‘the problem today is one of control and that established procedures and stern penalties will serve both as encouragement to law enforcement officials and as a deterrent to the homosexual (who is) hungry for youth.’ Its recommendations would make psychiatric examination of offenders mandatory and create a control file on homosexuals which would be available to public employment agencies throughout the state. The report, which included an opening-page picture of two men kissing and photographs of nude men and boys, was so irresponsible that it brought attacks from the Dade County state’s attorney and the Miami Herald, which described it as an ‘official’ obscenity.

Florida’s attempt to brand homosexuals in order to prevent their being hired in the state has been a long-standing policy with many government agencies. As a result of a 1953 presidential executive order, homosexuality is an absolute bar to security clearance by the federal government. The Department of Defense lists a variety of reasons why it considers sexual deviates poor security risks: they are far more subject to blackmail than heterosexuals, they are emotionally unstable and therefore less reliable keepers of secrets.

There is no psychological evidence to support the DOD’s contention that ‘the weakness of their moral fiber’ makes homosexuals as a group more susceptible to the blandishments of foreign agents. However, FBI and security agency experience does substantiate the charge the homosexuals are particularly subject to blackmail - for fear of exposure which can lead to social ostracism and loss of job.

Homosexuals are unwelcome in the armed forces, where forced segregation of the sexes develops more pressure for deviate activity (as it does in prisons). Many homosexuals are drafted for the service – and quickly weeded out when they have been identified. Homophile groups have protested the unfairness of the system that forces a man into military service and then rejects him with ‘less-than-honorable’ or ‘dishonorable’ discharge because of a psychological condition over which he has no control. But a DOD official explains the policy: “If we didn’t throw them out, we’d be condoning homosexuality. The services’ position has to be that homosexual practices prejudice morale and discipline.”

Civil Service regulations – which governs 93 per cent of federal employes (sic) – states that a person is unsuitable for government employ if he is guilty of ‘criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral or notoriously disgraceful conduct.’ The Civil Service Commission maintains that homosexuals can be a disruptive influence in a government agency, that a homosexual in a position of influence is likely to bring other homosexuals onto government services, and that where security is necessary, they are a greater risk than heterosexual co-workers. When the commission has evidence that an employe (sic) or prospective employe (sic) is a homosexual, he is denied a job – or fired – for immoral conduct.’
____________________________________________________________________

A recent legal challenge to the commission’s stand was made by a homosexual who was denied a Civil Service job although he had passed tests for three personnel and management positions. With the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union, the man went to court, charging that the government has on grounds of personal immorality, denied him a job for which he was qualified.

David Carliner, chairman of the board of the Capital area A.C.L.U., which is handling the case, points out that his organization is ‘not taking a position on homosexuality. We are arguing that qualifications for government employment should be related to the nature of the employment and the employe’s (sic) experience and ability to do the job. A majority cannot deny a person certain rights. We concede that homosexuality is considered immoral in this country. But the notion of immorality is a very vague one. This puts the government in the position of being Big Brother in passing judgment on other people’s behavior. It is a rather awesome power to pass on someone’s morality.’

For the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the homosexual’s case, which it will probably consider when the court reconvenes in October. But no legal procedures are likely to change society’s basic repugnance to homosexuality as n immoral and disruptive force that should somehow be removed. Today, as homosexuals become more visible to the public, there is a need for greater knowledge about them. What science has found outs discussed in the article following.

________________________________________________________________________________


Hey Sheriff, that 5 part post was great. Fortunately or unfortuntely depending on your feelings towards age, I remember Life magazine vividly. In fact I have many back editions. The articles like the one you reprinted really illustrate the "mindset" of many in America. The ads too as you probably know speak volumes about our society then.

I was just wondering, can you get these past articles on-line or do you have to purchase them etc. The one you posted was fascinating and I would like to read others on this topic and probably any other topic too.

My recollections of 1965 were just enriched by your article. I think of 1965 as the start of the real Johnson administration, the beginnings of the Viet Nam cloud over his presidency, race riots, and in general a shift towards the start to the "sixties revolution".

My first recollection of major news stories with respect to gay issues was either 1968 or 1969 (sorry my memory slips) but it pertained to the horrible Stonewall Riot.

I guess what I am driving at is, while I have lived through alot compared to our younger posters, I would love to re-read society's perspective back then as it compares to todays viewpoint which can easily be found on-line.

Any help would be appreciated. Regardless the old Life magazine article you already posted was fascinating and greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Offline Sheriff Roland

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,492
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #103 on: February 27, 2007, 10:59:58 pm »
The article that I've retyped was a one shot deal - on homsexuality, and there's another, nearly as long article to follow (taken from the same issue of Life Magazine).

I do not know if LIFE magazine is available online: this / these articles I heard about through a leatherfolk book published in the late 90's. I found the old LIFE magazines on microfilm in the reference library here in Toronto back then (late 90's) and kept the photocopies I made nearly 10 years ago. If you live in a large city, it is quite likely that a similar collection of socially revealing parts of history is archived in yer part a the world.

As for Stonewall, here's how Wikipedia starts it's "definition": "The Stonewall riots were a series of violent conflicts between New York City police officers and groups of gay and transgendered people that began on June 28, 1969, and lasted several days."

Glad yer enjoying reading the article I've already retyped, and I hope it was also informative as to what I was talking about in my first response to your "rosy" remembrance of "What Was Life Like in 1963", as the title of this thread asks.
2015 - Toronto: Pan Am Games
2015 - Edmonton, Montréal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg: Woman's World Cup of Soccer

Offline Sheriff Roland

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,492
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #104 on: February 28, 2007, 07:48:29 am »
Been typin again this mornin - started the second article from the watershed LIFE magazine issue. This one portrays itself as bein based on the best scientific evidence of the day.
_________________________________________________________________________

disclaimer: this is part of an article published in 1965 in LIFE magazine, a very popular magazine of it's time. It is not a recent article!

Scientists search for the answers to a touchy and puzzling question: WHY?       by Ernest Havemann       (part 1 of 4)

Do the homosexuals, like the communists intend to bury us? Yes indeed, suggested a startling front-page story in the New York Times and other newspapers last month. A committee of the highly respected New York Academy of Medicine has come to the conclusion that American homosexuals want far more than to be tolerated and even more than being ungrudgingly accepted. Their true goal, said an academy report, is to convince the world that homosexuality is a ‘desirable, noble, preferable way of like’ – the secret of the greatness of ancient Greece and in modern times a ‘perfect answer to the problem of the population explosion.’

The Academy report, and the newspaper stories it inspired, is just another example of the confusion and downright ignorance that surrounds the entire subject of the nature, cause and extent of homosexuality. The Academy Committee was dead wrong. Only a tiny minority of U.S. homosexuals would ever beat the drum so sensationally for their way of life. Far more of them regard their homosexuality as an affliction. The lot of the homosexual, as the photographs and article on the preceding pages have shown, is often furtive, hazardous and lonely. Many homosexuals have gone t psychiatrists begging desperately for help in escaping from a life that they had decided was intolerable. Most homosexuals, far from seeking recruits, actually refuse to have anything to do with a man who has never had previous homosexual experience.

Says Dr. Paul Gebhard, successor to the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey as director of the institute for Sex Research: “Almost nobody chooses to become a homosexual. More than nine times out of ten a man becomes homosexual for the sole and simple reason that he cannot help it. Perhaps the only exception are young men who move to the big city like New York And Los Angeles and by chance find themselves thrown in with fellow workers or neighbors who belong to the ‘gay’ society. Their new companions provide friendship and flattery and sometimes money as well. A good-looking lazy luxury-loving young man who likes to be told who has artistic talent may find himself sponging off the gay world financially and emotionally, until he wakes up in middle age committed to the life but no longer attractive to his former benefactors – not unlike an aging party girl in the other kind of society.
_______________________________________________________________________

There are of course some homosexuals who specialize in seducing young boys. But they are decidedly a minority group: they are the least homosexual of all homosexuals, less active than the others, and far more likely to be married. So of them go through most of their lives not even aware of their homosexuality until at last their tendency bursts out in an incident which often results in their exposure and ruin. The others who are fully aware of their feelings about boys tend to be lone wolves who stay away from the gay society and indeed would be shunned by it. The boys they seduce are seldom lured into the homosexual life, at least not for long.

If almost nobody becomes a homosexual by choice, what then accounts for homosexuality?

Part of the answer seems to be in the fact that all mammals, humans included, are born with an innate capacity to respond to almost any kind of sexual stimulus. Zoologist observe homosexual behavior in nearly every species of animal, anthropologists find it in human societies from New York City to the South Seas and historians find records of it in the civilizations of the past (Among the noted confirmed homosexuals of history have been Plato, Michelangelo,  Leonardo Da Vinci, and probably Alexander the Great.) On our own American scene, there seems to be a good deal more homosexual activity than anybody suspected or was willing to admit before the Kinsey report was published in 1948.

According to this report, nearly half of all boys engage in some kind of homosexual play before they reach adolescence; even after adolescence slightly more than a third of them have at least one homosexual experience at some time in their lives. The Kinsey report, of course, has had many critics, including scientists who are convinced that a disproportionately high percentage of homosexually inclined men volunteered for the Kinsey study as the word was spread along the grapevine, and that therefore the figures are too high. But even if the figures are sharply discounted, they still point to a considerable amount of homosexual experimentation.

Dr. Gebhard and his present associates at the Institute for sex Research believe that given mankind’s innate nature and our present social customs and moral codes, this is only to be expected. Boys become sexually mature – and indeed reach the very height of their sexual capacity and interest - in their adolescent years. They are discourages from making any outright sexual overtures to girls, and as a matter of a fact few girls that age are interested in sex anyways. On the other hand boys are thrown together intimately on athletic teams, in boarding schools and in summer camps. An older man who takes a homosexual interest in a boy is often encouraged by parents who fail to understand the real nature of his solicitude. The adolescent has to repress his burning sex drive towards girls, but has considerable opportunity and temptation to turn it into homosexual channels. In a sense, nature and society combine to encourage homosexuality – and ironically, do so most of all among the boys who, in strictly sexual terms, are the most masculine. Numerous studies have shown that boys who mature earlier and have the strongest sexual drives and capacities are the likeliest to experiment with homosexuality and to adopt it as a way of life.
_______________________________________________________________________
2015 - Toronto: Pan Am Games
2015 - Edmonton, Montréal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg: Woman's World Cup of Soccer

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,758
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #105 on: February 28, 2007, 11:28:38 pm »
Wow, Roland, I just caught up on this thread and read your postings. Very sobering. A disturbing reminder of those old attitudes.

It's amazing, those phrases like "homosexuality -- and the problem it poses," as if in and of itself it's a problem, or "There are also the ‘respectable’ homosexuals who pair off," with the "respectable" in quotations to show that, well, a homosexual can't hope to be really, truly respectable.

It's also interesting that the article focuses almost exclusively on men.

Offline 2robots4u

  • Sr. Ranch Hand
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #106 on: February 28, 2007, 11:46:29 pm »
I've just gotten around to reading this thread, and I wanted to comment on some of the comments dated in mid Feb.

Re:  Draft...married men with dependent children were not protected from the draft.  My best friend with a 5 month old child was drafted and sent to Viet Nam immeidately.  Full-time college students were exempt for a while...there was a lot of controversy over who was and who wasn't exempt, and that helped started the exodus to Canada.

RE:  Pow braclets...I did wear one for a short time.  My POW, a Chief Warrant Officer, was declared dead about 8 months later, and I sent the braclet to his family.

RE:  The  CPO jacket mentioned was actually a Navy coat, made of heavy material and came down to about mid-thigh, usually for colder weather wear.  We, of the Air Force had one which came to just below the knees, weighed a ton, and was nick-named "Big Bertha".  It was for wear only with the Dress Blues.  I believe the Army jacket mentioned was what is called a "Field Jacket", lightweight, and became a popular item with the younger generation after the Viet Nam vets returned home.  Many are still around today, and I see them everytime I go to the VA Hospital in San Diego.   

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,186
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #107 on: March 01, 2007, 10:16:38 am »
I've just gotten around to reading this thread, and I wanted to comment on some of the comments dated in mid Feb.

Re:  Draft...married men with dependent children were not protected from the draft.  My best friend with a 5 month old child was drafted and sent to Viet Nam immeidately. 

Does anybody know what role local draft boards had--if any--in who got sent? And if they had a role, did it change over time? There was a mention in one of Fernly's posts that the rules changed.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,758
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #108 on: March 01, 2007, 02:14:05 pm »
Re:  Draft...married men with dependent children were not protected from the draft.  My best friend with a 5 month old child was drafted and sent to Viet Nam immeidately.  Full-time college students were exempt for a while...there was a lot of controversy over who was and who wasn't exempt, and that helped started the exodus to Canada.

That is such an incredibly classist policy. Who's more likely to be in college? Wealthier men. Who's more likely to have dependent children? I'd guess poorer men. (I'm not absolutely sure of the statistics back then, but I have no doubt that wealthier men nowadays are more likely to reproduce later.)

And it doesn't make sense on any moral or logical grounds. What will be harder for a man to catch up on after returning from the war -- the remainder of his college education, or his children's childhood? Who will be grieve more deeply if the man doesn't make it back at all? The employees of the university registrar's office, or his children?

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,186
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2007, 02:34:22 pm »
That is such an incredibly classist policy. Who's more likely to be in college? Wealthier men. Who's more likely to have dependent children? I'd guess poorer men. (I'm not absolutely sure of the statistics back then, but I have no doubt that wealthier men nowadays are more likely to reproduce later.)

And it doesn't make sense on any moral or logical grounds. What will be harder for a man to catch up on after returning from the war -- the remainder of his college education, or his children's childhood? Who will be grieve more deeply if the man doesn't make it back at all? The employees of the university registrar's office, or his children?

Ever hear the phrase, "A rich man's war and a poor man's fight"? Ain't right, but thus has it ever been and maybe is likely to remain, barring universal conscription. Vietnam led to outcries over it, but even today, I suppose, who is more likely to volunteer for the all-volunteer army, the college president's child or the child of the college cafeteria worker?
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.