Lynk Former Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 the most important part is when I went upto him with a sledge hammer and flattened his head (can feel the topic closing as we speak) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Lynk Former I like the advice InsaneSith is givin thank you. so what exactly is the topic of the post now cuz im sure its not the topic of the pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 *KICK* to everyone who's being off-topic spammers Okay. Looks like everyone needs a new topic. Now that we've all seen the poll and the results, etc...I want to know your opinions/etc. on a theory I keep running into in various places on the Internet (and actually something I was curious about when creating this topic) What do you think of this? ( For those of you too lazy to click links: ) WE'RE ALL BISEXUAL (Taken from STUDENTADVANTAGE.COM written by Kerala Goodkin) Alright, I'm going to propose a theory. A theory about sexuality. Some of you may think it obvious. Others of you may think it bogus. Some may like it. Others, undoubtedly, will not. This can only be expected. So please bear with me. Simply stated, this theory asserts that human sexuality is not fixed into rigid categories of "straight" and "gay;" rather, it's a sliding scale between the two. Thus, the labels "straight" and "gay" as determined and unchanging characteristics are essentially rendered meaningless: the sliding-scale theory posits that everyone out there is essentially and inherently bisexual. We are all part "straight" and part "gay." Some people are obviously a lot more "gay" than "straight" and vice-versa, but everyone is a little of both. Otherwise stated, those who identify as straight can find at least one person of the same gender that they are sexually attracted to, and those who identify as gay could find at least one person of the opposite gender that sexually appeals to them. That's it, plain and simple. Already I can feel some hands tensing, some eyes hardening. I say this because I've been sharing this theory for a while now with friends, family, past boyfriends. And I've encountered a fair amount of resistance. Perhaps not surprisingly, all of those I've found so far who have opposed the sliding-scale theory identify as straight. They get uncomfortable. They get defensive. They sputter, "But I'm just not attracted to people of the same sex!" Guys say, "Ew, I would never look at another guy that way." Girls say, "No way, I could never imagine kissing a girl!" I once reacted similarly. Having grown up in San Francisco, I've always kept an open mind toward gay issues. But me? I'm straight, right? I mean, I've only had crushes on guys. I've only flirted with guys. I've only gone out with guys. I've only hooked up with guys. I've never had any similar impulses toward girls. So it must mean I'm straight, right? Well, maybe it's not that simple. Over the past two years, some good friends of mine from high school have started to explore their homosexual impulses, and I've noticed a reluctance on their part to identify themselves exclusively as gay. They say, "Well, I just feel attracted to whoever I feel attracted to. Sometimes girls, sometimes guys." This frustrated me at first. I wanted to know, "Well, which is it?" And when they shrugged off the answer, I shoved them into the tidy "bi" category for convenience. But the solution didn't satisfy me. Why could so many of my friends overlook gender entirely and just feel attraction to whomever struck their fancy? I started to reflect on my own sexual history and when I really thought about it, the revelation that finally came to me was this: it wasn't necessarily that I'd never been attracted to a girl before, it was that I'd never even considered being attracted to a girl before. Trust me, there's a big difference. "Those people over there might be gay. But I'm completely straight! I'm positive!" Even with increased media attention toward homosexual issues, heterosexuality in our culture is still largely considered "the norm." A norm that is ingrained in our heads from early early on. In second grade when I complained to my Mom about Johnny teasing me during recess, it was always, "Oh that's because Johnny likes you. He's flirting with you!" But when Rachel teased me, was she ever flirting? No no, Rachel was just "not being nice." Were there ever two princesses who lived happily ever after together in Disney movies? I don't think so. Did Certs ever advertise the minty freshness of their product with a glossy ad of two guys kissing? Not on your life! During middle school Halloween hops, did the chaperones ever ask which two girls wanted to start off the slow dance? No siree. All this, plus the obvious fact that the majority of our parents have set for us a heterosexual example. And since we've grown up with this example all our lives, so many of us just assume that in general, that's the "way things work." Girl meets boy. Boy meets girl. Homosexuality is out there, sure, but it's an exception to the standard. It's understandable, then, that those of us who don't feel homosexual impulses so overwhelming that we feel the need to break from the norm simply stay within the comfort zone of "straight." While according to the sliding-scale theory, we may actually lie somewhere between the two extremes, standards perpetuated by the media and social practices yank us over to the "100 percent straight" side. So many of us who feel undeniable heterosexual inclinations tend to lay back and say, "Yep, I'm straight." We rule out homosexuality for ourselves entirely. We lounge around in our heterosexual comfort zone, and it's not that we don't ever want to leave. It's that we don't even ponder the possibility. I've noticed that we as human beings love absolutes. We like to place things in little compartments — we like things neat and clean. No mess. We like you to be either a Democrat or a Republican, either a science or a humanities person, either straight or gay. And if you're not straight or gay, we'll put you in this tidy "other" box that we call "bi." But the sliding-scale theory dismisses such absolutes altogether. Just because a man may tend toward women, it doesn't mean he could never find another man capable of emotionally and sexually satisfying him. Maybe a lot of us are mostly attracted to those of the opposite gender, but does that mean we should entirely block out the possibility of any homosexual attraction? I've noticed certain patterns of homosexual acceptance on the Brown campus that run along the lines of: "The gay people can do their thing, and that's OK, as long as it's over there." But start questioning the same person's own sexuality and so often it's: "Those people over there might be gay. But I'm completely straight! I'm positive!" Are you? That's all I ask. I'm not trying threaten anyone's own sexuality. For those of you who disagree, I'm not trying to set up an "I'm right, you're wrong" situation. I have no scientific proof or any hard statistics to back up my claims. This is just an idea I've been tossing around for a while. Take it or leave it. -- 03/14/2000 (By the way, although this person seems to think she came up with the idea herself, I first saw it in a ton of other places. I found that particular article using yahoo ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 thats an interesting theory. has some good points. it is ashame how society keeps people down and keeping people from open mindedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalXWing Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Wow, you know what. Its right, at times I've found myself quite sexy...and you have all too, admit it! ...ADMIT IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by SuicidalXWing Wow, you know what. Its right, at times I've found myself quite sexy...and you have all too, admit it! ...ADMIT IT! I don't think that counts as bisexuality. More like perverted narcissism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacky_Baccy Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Redwing *KICK* to everyone who's being off-topic spammers Okay. Looks like everyone needs a new topic. Now that we've all seen the poll and the results, etc...I want to know your opinions/etc. on a theory I keep running into in various places on the Internet (and actually something I was curious about when creating this topic) What do you think of this? I think it's spot-on - I've spoken to several people about that idea, and they all agree that it's a much more accurate description of sexuality/sexual orientation than 'gay' 'straight' or 'bi' - it allows for much more freedom, and doesn't get your mind set irrevocably on any one course... (By the way, although this person seems to think she came up with the idea herself, I first saw it in a ton of other places. I found that particular article using yahoo ) I actually came up with the same idea/theory myself, totally independently of any outside source, and that just convinces me even more that it's 'less false' as Cjais would put it We as humans rely on 'black and white' far too much and far too often, in my opinion... It's all shades of grey to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by InsaneSith thats an interesting theory. has some good points. it is ashame how society keeps people down and keeping people from open mindedness. How about it's our SPECIES not society because it's our primary objective to BREED and a woman and a woman can't breed no matter how much i watch them try? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDove Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Didn't know we were animals working on only our basic instincts which is to improve our numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 WE still have basic impluses that many people follow, while others ignore. Just the same, I figured we'd have evolved further than "do what your instincts say or get exiled" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by BlackDove Didn't know we were animals working on only our basic instincts which is to improve our numbers... That's not that far off from the truth. We, as a species, really like to believe that we are far more evolved than we actually are. Unfortunately, most of our core impulses that drive our daily behavior come from the most primative (reptile) part of our brain. Our ability to use language and develop technology has increased exponentially over the last several millenia,.. but our basic brain wiring is exactly the same as it was the day the first homo-sapiens walked upright. All life exists to reproduce itself. That is it's only function. Everything else is secondary. Intelligence and sentience are negligable side-effects. The most successful and longest lived species produced by natural evolution the planet has ever known were barely intelligent or totally un-intellegent, and certainly did not qualify as sentient. So far, in the cosmic scheme of things, we don't even rate. As a species we have proven to show a natural propensity to settling into an area, then overbreeding until we totally expend the natural resources available to that location, then use violence to take resources or land away from those around us who still have them. These are all animal instincts coming to the fore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by Redwing What is your...SEXUALITY? Are you straight? Gay? Both? Neither? Other? I'm... *runs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by edlib That's not that far off from the truth. We, as a species, really like to believe that we are far more evolved than we actually are. In my psych class, I learned that something close to 70% of our actions are reflexive or instinctive. We'd like to think that virtually none of our actions are, but at their very core, they're not decisions we made on our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Yeah. There's a couple of great articles in this month's Discover Magazine about the evolution of the human brain, and how we react to stimulus such as fear. (Hint: It's exact same way every other animal on the planet does.) It's the first article in a series outlining the connection between human reactions and animal ones, so it should prove to be very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by BlackDove Well I'd be grateful if you could extend that in more words lol. Would like to see how others think about it Well. Ok. I'm fine with gay people being alive. They are alive, and deserve to stay alive just like everybody else. But, I just dont want them to physically touch me....Is that discriptive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar Well. Ok. I'm fine with gay people being alive. Well that's good to hear n00t: Whu? Society frowns upon killing, raping, stealing and all kinds of other 'animal instincts'. Why shouldn't it frown on discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Redwing n00t: Whu? Society frowns upon killing, raping, stealing and all kinds of other 'animal instincts'. Why shouldn't it frown on discrimination? Because in OUR kind of species (primates that is), killing, raping, and stealing aren't things you do inside your tribe. You do it to other tribes. Discrimination and xenophobia are key to primate societies. (For example, the Ten Commandments doesn't contain "Thou Shalt Not Kill" it's actually "Thou Shalt Not Kill a Male Member of Thine Own Tribe.") Honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 i disagree with that. priomates like chimpanzees do kill, steal and rape others in their tribes. ps- this is my first post today that doesnt have the word "chicken" in it. ... well, not anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I'm not exactly Captain of Primates, but there are always variations. Just like those monkeys that have sex all the time. ALL THE TIME. LIKE ALL THE TIME. It boggles the mind! And they're all bisexual too. Two of them see each other in a tree, so they get it on. It doesn't matter that one's a juvenile male and the other's an adult male. They're sex fiends, man. It's actually kinda disturbing and I feel bad for them. They'll never get civilization at that rate. Stop humping and learn to make tools damnit. Also, here is a pygmy marmoset: They're tiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 Of course, Nute, I don't believe you But I still don't understand your logic, on-topic. I'm not even sure you're putting up an argument If you are, can you clarify why it's logical that the reason for discrimination against gay/bi people is that our primary objective, as primates, is to breed, when other primates go against that objective just like we do? Hmm. I feel somehow I may regret asking you this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Redwing If you are, can you clarify why it's logical that the reason for discrimination against gay/bi people is that our primary objective, as primates, is to breed, when other primates go against that objective just like we do? Because it's only ONE kind of primate. All of the other kinds don't. It's akin to saying "Hairless cats don't have hair, so all cats shouldn't have hair!" AND those primates aren't doing it out of "oh, just do whatever you feel like doing.' They do it because that's how they shake hands. Two monkeys meet, they 'grind' for a bit, and that's that. Without getting into too much detail about what exactly they do, it's technically sex, but if two people were to do it, it wouldn't be. (it would be carnal knowledge, and a few other things, but not sex.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Nute Gunray It's akin to saying "Hairless cats don't have hair that's true though Originally posted by Nute Gunray They do it because that's how they shake hands. :eyeraise: tahts y i dont read your posts... jk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 hairless cats terrify me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 8, 2003 Author Share Posted February 8, 2003 Originally posted by Nute Gunray Because it's only ONE kind of primate. All of the other kinds don't. It's akin to saying "Hairless cats don't have hair, so all cats shouldn't have hair!" AND those primates aren't doing it out of "oh, just do whatever you feel like doing.' They do it because that's how they shake hands. Two monkeys meet, they 'grind' for a bit, and that's that. Without getting into too much detail about what exactly they do, it's technically sex, but if two people were to do it, it wouldn't be. (it would be carnal knowledge, and a few other things, but not sex.) "All the other kinds don't" isn't a law of nature. ... Wow, this is going everywhere. "Bored now." [/Willow] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Redwing "All the other kinds don't" isn't a law of nature. I'm sorry you're too stupid to realize that there is NO OTHER SPECIES ON EARTH that is gay. Because this is an incontrovertible fact, it makes it a LAW of Nature, since it is not a Theory or Hypothesis. Those primates do little more than hump each other. It's akin to saying that because a dog had a bit of fun with your leg, then all dogs must therefore be into hot interspecies action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.