First open bisexual congresswoman elected

[Deleted]

Here's what Kinsley thinks people are:


And this is the scale:
However even according to him, not everyone is bisexual. Just look at 0, 6.

You know, I agree that a lot of people tend to be all over the map, but the claim that all people are bisexual is just political cannon fodder, and I don't like it. It's an effort to dispel homophobia and it just won't work.

This is the problem with politics: people are far too obsessed with winning an argument for the sake of winning alone for their own good.

There's no proof in science. You're just dismissing my evidence because you have no way to actually address it on its merits. One claim has evidence - mine, while yours have none. The way you are rejecting one side for insufficient evidence while proclaiming the other to be true is anathema to science. Again, where is your evidence that sexuality is discrete?

You have both a mother and a father, Semaphore. So does everyone else.

Do you want a peer reviewed scientific paper proving to you that 1+1 = 2 as well?

Again, in other words you have absolutely no idea how science works, or what statistics is.

Science revolves around proving things by replicating the results. You haven't done that yet. You have speculation based on scraps of biased evidence, not proof.

Prove to me that everyone is bisexual. I'm waiting.

Still strawmaning. Where did I say most people are bisexual?

"And what has became apparent is that sexual orientation of humans is on a continuous spectrum that does not fall neatly into just three distinct groups".

Your words. You are also wrong. A lot of people do fall distinctly into those categories, just to different degrees.

Yeah the fact that Greek men generally had sex with other men and women regularly totally doesn't help my argument that sexuality for most people is not on the extreme ends of a spectrum. Wait that doesn't make any sense.

They were taught to prefer men. They were the product of their environment. They took their boy lovers to war, and thought that they'd be more motivated to win because they'd want to protect each other.

The fact that they had to make laws in order to encourage the men to breed speaks for itself. Greek men were actually taught that women were incomplete men.

It was a cultural phenomenon. They literally went against their own nature to make better soldiers.

Irrelevant red herring. Humans are one of the species who have sex for recreational purposes.

Which just so happens to perpetuate the species. Evolution doesn't care how or why people breed as long as they do.

You're just manufacturing a semantical argument. Being on different places on the spectrum for your sexuality, means you have different sexualities. Like, do you even know what a spectrum is?

Yeah, so stop claiming that we don't fall into three distinct groups when we do.

[Rukentuts]

Yeah, so stop claiming that we don't fall into three distinct groups when we do.

Actually it's far more than that. I think it's about 8 like Kinsley said.

[semaphore]

You have both a mother and a father, Semaphore. So does everyone else.

Completely irrelevant to your claim. I'll take this to mean you simply don't have any logical argument.

Prove to me that everyone is bisexual. I'm waiting.

Still strawmaning, still have no actual argument whatsoever.

"And what has became apparent is that sexual orientation of humans is on a continuous spectrum that does not fall neatly into just three distinct groups".

Notice how I did not say they fall into the bisexual group. It sucks when reality disagree with you doesn't it. Resorting to outright lying is just bad form.

A lot of people do fall distinctly into those categories, just to different degrees.

In other words it's actually a spectrum.

Which just so happens to perpetuate the species. Evolution doesn't care how or why people breed as long as they do.

Except when you have sex while there's no egg, when you waste sperm in places that can't fertilise an egg, when you have sex with the same gender...

Yeah, so stop claiming that we don't fall into three distinct groups when we do.

At this point I think you're just willfully refusing to understand the point, and being zealously defensive about the (self-imagined) possibility that you might be "a little gay".

[Deleted]

Completely irrelevant to your claim. I'll take this to mean you simply don't have any logical argument.

Do you want me to prove to you that you need to breathe oxygen to live too?

It's far from irrelevant. Male and female couples are the foundation of civilisation and nothing except for meddling with DNA is ever going to change that.

At this point I think you're just willfully refusing to understand the point, and being zealously defensive about the (self-imagined) possibility that you might be "a little gay".

I wouldn't care if I was. It makes no difference to me. You, however, are fanatically defending an indefensible point of view.

Straight people exist. Get over it. Gay people exist too.

You are arguing that people don't fall neatly into three categories when they quite clearly do.

[semaphore]

It's far from irrelevant. Male and female couples are the foundation of civilisation and nothing except for meddling with DNA is ever going to change that.

This statement is of very dubious validity, but it is still irrelevant regardless. The role of heterosexual couples have no direct bearing on whether people can only be straight, homosexual or bisexual.

Also I see you're just flat out ignoring the part where I called you out on your blatant lies. And ignoring the part where by your own words, sexuality is a spectrum (to different degrees). So I suppose there's no hope of any actual conversation. Though then again the fact that you used the exact same strawman every single post probably indicated that ages ago.

[Deleted]

This statement is of very dubious validity, but it is still irrelevant regardless. The role of heterosexual couples have no direct bearing on whether people can only be straight, homosexual or bisexual.

Also I see you're just flat out ignoring the part where I called you out on your blatant lies. And ignoring the part where by your own words, sexuality is a spectrum (to different degrees). So I suppose there's no hope of any actual conversation. Though then again the fact that you used the exact same strawman every single post probably indicated that ages ago.

Here are your words:

The fact that sexual orientation is no longer considered a dichotomy but rather a spectrum where very few people actually falls exactly at the extreme ends?

Like I said, the burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to prove your claim. And you haven't. Humanity would not even exist if men and women didn't have children together. I don't need to prove that; the proof is all around you. That could not be more relevant to this discussion.

Many many people exist as extreme heterosexuals. Maybe that's not convenient to your worldview, but it is what it is. You call that "outdated", but I call that reality. Accept it.

And what has became apparent is that sexual orientation of humans is on a continuous spectrum that does not fall neatly into just three distinct groups. Someone who identifies as a heterosexual but feels attraction to another person of the same gender is on a sliding scale regardless of their professed identification.

That person is not heterosexual.

[semaphore]

Like I said, the burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to prove your claim. And you haven't. Humanity would not even exist if men and women didn't have children together.

I already supplied scientific evidence for my claim that sexuality is a spectrum. All you're doing is regurgitating a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that's part strawmans, part red herring, and part outright lies.

That sexuality is a spectrum does not preclude heterosexual couples whatsoever. Your desperate attempt at creating a false analogy of "either it's a spectrum or there are no different-sex couples!" is a pathetically transparent at disguising the fact that you have no argument against the fact that it's all "different degrees", as you yourself just admitted.

Bottom line, you don't have to be 100% purely heterosexual to make babies. That you keep using such a ridiculously broken logic as "proof all around you" is just pathetic.

A lot of people do fall distinctly into those categories, just to different degrees.

In other words it's actually a spectrum. Stop lying to yourself.

[starlord]

That person is not heterosexual.

but they will still probably have babies & humanity would continue to exist.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Christ all you had to say was "In a rainbow, some people are 100% red, some people are 100% green, some people are 100% blue, but many people are somewhere between in a nice shade of purple."

[Deleted]

I already supplied scientific evidence for my claim that sexuality is a spectrum. All you're doing is regurgitating a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that's part strawmans, part red herring, and part outright lies.

That sexuality is a spectrum does not preclude heterosexual couples whatsoever. Your desperate attempt at creating a false analogy of "either it's a spectrum or there are no different-sex couples!" is a pathetically transparent at disguising the fact that you have no argument against the fact that it's all "different degrees", as you yourself just admitted.

Bottom line, you don't have to be 100% purely heterosexual to make babies. That you keep using such a ridiculously broken logic as "proof all around you" is just pathetic.

In other words men and women have to find each other attractive in order to perpetuate the species. Wow I never knew that! That's proof of heterosexuality. You want to argue that you can still be bisexual and do that, fine. You argue that. But you haven't proven it beyond all doubt.

For someone who is clearly on the left of the political spectrum I cannot understand why you are so vicious and angry. Try relaxing before you die of a heart attack.

In other words it's actually a spectrum. Stop lying to yourself.

And even if it is, extremes still exist. And purely heterosexual people represent a huge part of society whether you like it or not.

Unlike you, I don't need to prove that. All you can argue is being a bit bisexual doesn't stop people from having children.

[semaphore]

In other words men and women have to find each other attractive in order to perpetuate the species. Wow I never knew that! That's proof of heterosexuality.

You're just arguing with your own strawmans. I never said heterosexuality doesn't exist, nor does the existence of hetereosexual attraction mean that sexuality can't be a spectrum. Which was my argument. So you're just trying to prove a completely irrelevant point because you have absolutely no argument to make but refuses to admit defeat.

A lot of people do fall distinctly into those categories, just to different degrees.

In other words it's actually a spectrum.

And purely heterosexual people represent a huge part of society whether you like it or not.

Unlike you, I don't need to prove that.

Yes you do. You made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim.

[Deleted]

You're just arguing with your own strawmans. I never said heterosexuality doesn't exist, nor does the existence of hetereosexual attraction mean that sexuality can't be a spectrum. Which was my argument. So you're just trying to prove a completely irrelevant point because you have absolutely no argument to make but refuses to admit defeat.


In other words it's actually a spectrum.

Yeah you can be straight but not very sexual. You can be more romantic. You could be bisexual but emotionally straight. Etc.

There are degrees of attraction, but most of us don't fall between the extremes of heterosexuality and homosexuality.

That's just your wishful thinking backed up by biased scraps of unrepresentative data.

[drukai]

8 pages of psychology and politics, no one mentioned the obvious?

She's kinda hot.

Also, kudos and all that, hope I don't hear anything else about her enjoyment of women and she does a good job.

[semaphore]

Yeah you can be straight but not very sexual. You can be more romantic. You could be bisexual but emotionally straight. Etc.

There are degrees of attraction

In other words it's a spectrum. Like I said.

Also I see you're still utterly incapable of providing any evidence for your claim, beyond pointing to something completely irrelevant and call it "proof". Though at this point I've long since stopped expecting any better.

[Puck]

ITT: Semaphore lays down the hurt.

[Deleted]

In other words it's a spectrum. Like I said.

Also I see you're still utterly incapable of providing any evidence for your claim, beyond pointing to something completely irrelevant and call it "proof". Though at this point I've long since stopped expecting any better.

The fact that sexual orientation is no longer considered a dichotomy but rather a spectrum where very few people actually falls exactly at the extreme ends?

It's easy to prove that we need to breathe oxygen to live. It's easy to prove gravity.

All I am asking is for you to prove that most people fall between the extremes otherwise stop stating it as a fact.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't see this bisexual trend that you are claiming exists.

[Rukentuts]

The reports also state that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience.[7] 11.6% of white males (ages 20–35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) throughout their adult lives.[8] The study also reported that 10% of American males surveyed were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55" (in the 5 to 6 range).[9]

7% of single females (ages 20–35) and 4% of previously married females (ages 20–35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) on Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale for this period of their lives.[10] 2 to 6% of females, aged 20–35, were more or less exclusively homosexual in experience/response,[11] and 1 to 3% of unmarried females aged 20–35 were exclusively homosexual in experience/response.[12]

It doesn't appear that a "vast majority" of males are exclusively heterosexual, but it appears there is a majority present.

[Deleted]

That's not good enough.

Replicate the results a few hundred thousand times with a qualified sample (preferably random people from all walks of life who are honest about it) then I'll believe it.

[Wikiy]

That's not good enough.

Replicate the results a few hundred thousand times with a qualified sample (preferably random people from all walks of life who are honest about it) then I'll believe it.

"A few hundred thousand times"? You might as well have said 10 billion.

[Rukentuts]

A sample size can be a few thousand and still be pretty accurate if done right.