Homosexuality is a Choice(Not!)

[chrisd]

Yes, it does. Kinsey's specific scale has problems, as does his data, but there is clearly a range, and it's probably not even a two dimensional scale.

I would vow for a much simpler way to classify the sexual nature of people. The very simply questionaire shown below is it

Question 1: I am a
(1) woman;
(2) man
(3) other (please explain in the open space below);

Question 2: I would enjoy sexual relationship(s) with
(1) women;
(2) men
(3) other/neither/both (please explain in the open space below).

In reality we do not so much need a two-dimensional scale as we would need an infinite-dimensional scale to describe all the variations that occur in actual humans. A simple set of bits and bytes just is not enough. This is why my two questions both leave room for "additional explanation". Leaving room for "additional explanation" by the subject him/her/itself is quite the revolutionary thing to do. People really want to pigeon-hole other persons in some predefined catagories. Allowing people to describe themselves is actually nothing more than simply a matter of the remarkable quality known as "respect".

Some people are going to tell me that we need a catagory "bisexual" in this, but really, this whole catagory already needs extra explanation. For instance, there are bisexuals who at any time could imagine sex with either gender and bisexuals who sort of oscillate between the two poles. Then there are bisexuals (especially in high schools in the US) who just do not want to be part of the homophobic climate but actually will turn out heterosexual when they grow up. Also, try to imagine how cool you are going to be with the ladies if you identify, being a guy, as 'bisexual' in a homophobic high school. Some self-interest might be going on here.

The problems with Kinsey's research, at this point, are largely irrelevant. It's all been gone over after he did it. What makes him such an important figure is that he did the research to begin with on an extremely taboo subject and started a conversation this country sorely needed, and laid one of the founding blocks for the sexual revolution. I don't want to give him credit for starting the sexual revolution, but I do want to thank him for starting the conversation. It has directly affected my sex life for the better.

This is, of course, very much true. Kinsey has experienced lots of adversity for doing this research. He really is a hero. And a great researcher too. Because of the great success of actually getting more or less accurate answers. Imagine how difficult questioning people about their sexual nature actually is. Question 1: Are you straight or gay? Question 2: Are you closeted? Question 3: Really? Many questionaires that one would invent on a free Saturday afternoon have, of course, problems like the one ironically sketched here. After the sexual revolution it, of course, becomes much easier, but the sexual revolution has not occured at the point in time where Kinsey is doing his research.

[Lucifer]

Yes, it does. Kinsey's specific scale has problems, as does his data, but there is clearly a range, and it's probably not even a two dimensional scale.

I would vow for a much simpler way to classify the sexual nature of people. The very simply questionaire shown below is it

<snip>

In reality we do not so much need a two-dimensional scale as we would need an infinite-dimensional scale to describe all the variations that occur in actual humans.

You're correct in terms of understanding an individual, but the point of surveys is to determine how a population behaves. Free response questions don't provide the kind of data that's needed, and instead provide a way for participants to provide feedback on what sorts of questions need to be asked in the first place. Also, a researcher could take the free response portion and use it to modify answers the participant gave, because the research fully understands the intent of the question and the participant may not.

On the subject of bisexuality, I just want to point out that we're not just talking about sexual relations. When it comes to fighting for gay rights, we're not fighting for the right for people to have sex with their same gender. Everybody (in the US and most of the western world) already has THAT right. We're fighting for the right to LOVE and engage in long, committed relationships, up to and including tying the knot and enjoying the myriad of benefits available to married couples. That means that when we're talking about bisexuality, we also have to consider folks who enjoy sex with members of the same gender, but require an opposite-gender spouse. It's that last part that is the reason I self-identify as heterosexual.

[Phytotron]

[A]mongst all contemporary strains, you'll find academics discussing performativity

I don't know what all you're being taught over there, but I'm still not sure I would agree with that blanket statement. But, we'll let it lie.

[You] have also assumed that I myself identify completely with this philosophical paradigm, and that that therefore means that I too am dismissive of other paradigms, which are allegedly typical of post-modernists (which is something I do not necessarily subscribe to). A lot of assumptions, "well done there, chap"

Well, I didn't make those assumptions or explicitly attribute them to you; I did note where you originally said you didn't necessarily agree with Butler. Although, that said, you did explicitly disregard by disregarding ("I have no time for people..."), and you have expressed a relativist view before and subsequently (e.g., "I more or less say there's no such thing as 'truth'"). You also said you were studying and enjoying postmodernism; that's where the "you're well on your way" remarks came from. Still, I was addressing and criticising the ideas themselves. And I'm perfectly comfortable dismissing them; I've never said it's wrong to be dismissive of something, especially something ridiculous.

Short version: In this day and age, any philosophy worth consideration must begin with, be grounded in, and follow from a scientific understanding of reality. Otherwise, it's just as useless as religious or other supernatural faith claims; indeed, there's quite the romance between postmodernism and flakey new agers.

What do you mean useless? Why does it need to be grounded in a scientific understanding of reality? (Not making point here, just interested)

What use is just making shit up? What meaning or veracity does it have? You can say that the earth is flat and the seasons are generated by fairies, and develop a whole philosophy on that basis, but what good is it?

Also, Dawkins may be a great scientist, but the guy's social commentary is a joke. But maybe if you do like him, let's not go into that.

OK, but just one example? Or, two. One example of his social commentary, and one example of any argument that you find especially "just as flawed as the religious people."


I hadn't heard the term "lad culture," but Google. "Mooks" are what I call them; the female equivalent I call "pop-tarts." Here's a PBS Frontline program that might interest you: The Merchants of Cool.

The truth is, atheism is a non-profit organisation ... doom-and-gloom aspect of atheism

You know, we've been over this before: Post A, Post B. Did you just, ahem, disregard all that?

However, the belief in some form of God, having some faith in that belief - there's nothing wrong with that.

I would disagree, going further than sinewav. Not to come off like I'm just parroting, but for space-saving purposes I refer to Hitchens's anti-theistic polemics. The very belief in a god, irrespective of religion, the sort of mentality that engenders in people, has far-reaching consequences in how we as a society and civilisation live.

It is unclear to me why Dawkins' rejection of the notion of "God" would not also apply to other abstract/metaphysical concepts such as "Love". Obviously, one can sell more books by rejecting the former rather than the latter.

Well, now I'm going to have to take back what I said about you earlier. Love is (mostly) only abstract in poetic description, and it is not the least bit "metaphysical." It is entirely physical, naturalistic. If we stick someone's head under an fMRI or PET scan, we can see it. It's really there, and to quote myself from Post B above, "To me, that makes it that much more thrilling, more satisfying, more meaningful, more romantic. I know that the love we feel is something real and material, not something 'mysterious' and ethereal that may or may not be true." And likewise, Dawkins doesn't reject love, because he wouldn't describe it as a vague, metaphysical concept. It's an actual thing in nature.



EDIT: left sumthin out

[Lucifer]

It is unclear to me why Dawkins' rejection of the notion of "God" would not also apply to other abstract/metaphysical concepts such as "Love". Obviously, one can sell more books by rejecting the former rather than the latter.

Well, now I'm going to have to take back what I said about you earlier. Love is (mostly) only abstract in poetic description, and it is not the least bit "metaphysical." It is entirely physical, naturalistic. If we stick someone's head under an fMRI or PET scan, we can see it. It's really there, and to quote myself from Post B above, "To me, that makes it that much more thrilling, more satisfying, more meaningful, more romantic. I know that the love we feel is something real and material, not something 'mysterious' and ethereal that may or may not be true." And likewise, Dawkins doesn't reject love, because he wouldn't describe it as a vague, metaphysical concept. It's an actual thing in nature.

Indeed, there are distinct chemical markers in the brain. Being in love with somebody causes an effect much like taking heroin, which is why you see so much serial dating in the world. People get addicted to it and just go from person to person, falling in love and getting ****** over.

Yeah, nothing abstract about love. Its effects have been observed, recorded, studied, and theorized.

[chrisd]

Yeah, nothing abstract about love. Its effects have been observed, recorded, studied, and theorized.

Love is quite a bit boader than romantic love. It also includes the love of a parent for a child and vice versa. The love that a person might have for a computer game. Love for beautiful nature, animals and so on. Love can be taken as broadly as loving existence and/or life.

The quoted sentence stands out by being totally illogical. If one replaces "love" in this sentence by "quantum elctrodynamics" one obtains an obvious falsehood. That the effects of something have been observed, recorded, studied an theorized says absolutely nothing about the abstractness of it. Even more remarkably, it could be argued that the fact that the effects of something have been observed, recorded and studied does not even say anything about the existence of it.

I have great difficulty to understand the state of mind that would result in such statements. One thing that is obviously the case is that nothing that Luci and Phyto are saying here has been thought through with any level of accuracy..... yet find it necessary to make some very strong statements about it. As far as I am concerned any person is welcome to believe or not believe in God as they see fit, but the total failure to even see as much as the issue at stake and the relationship to the more general philosophical issue of the existence or non-existence of each/any/some abstract concept(s) is rather ununderstandable to me. Actually, the existence of rather concrete things is already 'interesting'. Does a hole exist? It is merely the absence of something that could have been present and therefore can easily be argued not to exist. The ability that humans have to think abstractly/hypothetically, make the question whether something exists mostly a matter of philosophical taste.

[Lucifer]

I have great difficulty to understand the state of mind that would result in such statements. One thing that is obviously the case is that nothing that Luci and Phyto are saying here has been thought through with any level of accuracy..... yet find it necessary to make some very strong statements about it.

That's quite presumptuous of you, really. During my divorce, I studied the subject quite deeply and with more dedication than I've ever studied physics, engineering, music, or programming. There is nothing that I have said that I have not thought through deeply.

Love, no matter whether or not it's romantic love or any of the other "forms", is a biological phenomena that has been observed, studied, tested, etc. It exists not as an abstract thing, but as a concrete series of reactions in the brain and body. Period. This is science, love is every bit as real and observable as a supernova, or newton's laws of motion.

That is why you can't just equate a belief in love with a belief in God. God has never been observed, and testing shows he doesn't exist. Science knows nothing about him because God is an abstract thing, and likely doesn't even exist. Love is real. Love is good. Everybody must get stoned.

[Phytotron]