Support NeoGAF

[crowbrow]

Don’t shift goalposts. This is about your assertion that most humans are sexually fluid (“almost no one is gay or straight 100% of the time”), not the social utility of sex, which is a tangential discussion. An appeal to the authority of science requires you to actually understand the science you’re appealing to, not just throw the word science out there and expect it to act as a shield to deflect criticism.

I'm basing that observation on what I know about biology and the study of sexuality. Unless I have access to better scientific evidence to go against that (which is usually how science works) I won't change my mind, certainly not based on something as metaphysically-sounding as "fundamental truths" which I have no idea where they come from. I mean a Christian or a Muslim could come each to me talking about "fundamental truths" but I won't take them seriously unless at least some scientific evidence agrees with whatever they mean by that.

 

[Papa]

I'm basing that observation on what I know about biology and the study of sexuality. Unless I have access to better scientific evidence to go against that (which is usually how science works) I won't change my mind, certainly not based on something as metaphysically-sounding as "fundamental truths" which I have no idea where they come from. I mean a Christian or a Muslim could come each to me talking about "fundamental truths" but I won't take them seriously unless at least some scientific evidence agrees with whatever they mean by that.

The fundamental truth that you are trying to change is heterosexuality as the default. You explicitly said that most humans are sexually fluid, ergo not heterosexual by default, and you are making spurious appeals to supposed science while citing nothing other than a name drop of Alfred Kinsey.

 

[crowbrow]

The fundamental truth that you are trying to change is heterosexuality as the default. You explicitly said that most humans are sexually fluid, ergo not heterosexual by default, and you are making spurious appeals to supposed science while citing nothing other than a name drop of Alfred Kinsey.

What I'm saying is that what we understand as heterosexuality is a spectrum but it is a simplistic one because human sexuality is complex and diverse. Usually people who identify as heterosexual and are mainly heterosexual have had homosexual feelings, attractions, experiences, etc at some point in their lives. So yeah the category works because most people fall on that spectrum but that doesn't mean that a person identifying themselves as heterosexual have been engaged or have had or will have exclusively heterosexual feelings all their lives. I think Kinsey's research as well as further research on sexuality of humans and other close species to ours have made it clear that it is not such a black and white division. That doesn't mean that heterosexual practices are not the norm in humans, which they are.

 

[Papa]

What I'm saying is that what we understand as heterosexuality is a spectrum but it is a simplistic one because human sexuality is complex and diverse. Usually people who identify as heterosexual and are mainly heterosexual have had homosexual feelings, attractions, experiences, etc at some point in their lives. So yeah the category works because most people fall on that spectrum but that doesn't mean that a person identifying themselves as heterosexual have been engaged or have had or will have exclusively heterosexual feelings all their lives. I think Kinsey's research as well as further research on sexuality of humans and other close species to ours have made it clear that it is not such a black and white division. That doesn't mean that heterosexual practices are not the norm in humans, which they are.

If you had said that some people are neither completely heterosexual nor completely homosexual but instead somewhere in between, I wouldn’t kick up a fuss. But you explicitly said that almost no one is completely homosexual or heterosexual then made a spurious, unsubstantiated appeal to the authority of science as a kind of “I win” button.

I really think trying to categorize people into sexual or identity boxes is making everything look much more confusing than it really is. I think it is simple: human sexuality and identity is fluid like almost everything in nature is subject to changes and nuances in different contexts (even genetic makeup). That's it, almost no one is gay or straight 100% of the time, the sooner we accept that the less time we will be wasting arguing such nonsense and spending a big portion of our lives in anxious agony trying to define ourselves.

 

[Helios]

Usually people who identify as heterosexual and are mainly heterosexual have had homosexual feelings, attractions, experiences, etc at some point in their lives.

 

[crowbrow]

If you had said that some people are neither completely heterosexual nor completely homosexual but instead somewhere in between, I wouldn’t kick up a fuss. But you explicitly said that almost no one is completely homosexual or heterosexual

Hmmm that's basically the same....

 

[Papa]

Hmmm that's basically the same....

No it’s not. You said “almost none”, as in close to zero, are completely heterosexual or homosexual. “Some” has an entirely different meaning. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

 

[crowbrow]

No it’s not. You said “almost none”, as in close to zero, are completely heterosexual or homosexual. “Some” has an entirely different meaning. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Ok but according to the reports from Kinsey it is the majority who don't fall on the extremes. I would support the "some" if I see evidence pointing towards that.

 

[Tesseract]

wow bro your semen is really nice all over my face, no homo

aight i prolly jumped the shark with that comment

 

[RokkanStoned]

Surprised no one has posted this one yet, considering the topic:

 

[Helios]

Surprised no one has posted this one yet, considering the topic:

 

[lock2k]

The lengths that some people go to not identify as gay are mind boggling to me.

 

[lock2k]

Well there is scientific evidence suggesting it is, I haven't yet to see any scientific studies proving sexuality in humans is mostly a fixed and static thing. Like I said, it makes sense because of how nature works. I'm not prepared to accept things out of ideological dogmas from the right or the left, I prefer things that make scientific sense.

 

[Halo is Back]

just suck his dick already geez