I would like to see a chart consisting of two Stormses, one for sexual and one for romantic attraction, with axes labeled "male-indentified attraction" and "female-identified attraction." It poses problems of labeling the terms as homosexual or heterosexual because of a significant trans and genderfluid/-queer population, but on its own it's easy to say, from your own personal experience, if you are attracted to a certain gender a lot, a little, or not at all. I don't think any kind of scale is stupid, though. I wanted to put some points forward why I think the Kinsey scale is stupid, without stirring up too much heat. There are plenty of reasons and arguments to my opinion, but I feel that Off-Topic isn't the place I prefer to chitchat about sexual psychology. stuff like sexuality needs to be investigated at the neural level rather than the social level, imo.Well I didn't go into details on that second point exactly because I didn't want this thread to get serious as it just did. I think these kinds of "scales" are pointless since attempting to quantify human behavior in an explicitly imperative sense is the ultimate practice of futility - you will never catch all possible cases and in making your selection criteria large enough to accurately gather a valid population sample, you're going to collect approximately nothing of any real relevance to what you are trying to prove. stuff like sexuality needs to be investigated at the neural level rather than the social level, imo.Įphemeral wrote: Wojjan wrote:1) This thread is bad and you should feel bad. i'm not really well trained in this subject yet - sexuality is later on this year and towards postgrad stuff, i think. basically, humans are no different from just about every other mammal species in their sexual habits, speaking on a very general scale that is.Īsexuality is kind of unnatural from an evolutionary perspective, the absence of any sexual drive is likely a developmental issue in early childhood whether it be from environmental (social, immediate physical environment, so forth) or an actual physical deficit. Procreational drive is the primarily influencer for heterosexual prevalence, with homosexual individuals seemingly wildcarded in distribution in much the same way as other species. Try Storms' model.i'd just like to pull you up on number 2: you basically just refuted a point by saying "i doubt this is the case - i'm going to cite approximately no evidence and then use one of my own opinions as evidence" In practice, there is no such thing as "bisexual stimulus" because it implies two very mean things: humanity is inherently heterosexual (which I personally doubt, I think heterosexuality as the norm is a result of conventions) and asexuality is unnatural and has no place on this scale. Jarby already made this one once.Ģ) Kinsey is bad and you should feel bad. Wojjan wrote:1) This thread is bad and you should feel bad.
0 kommentar(er)
