Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Humans are indeed very creative when it comes to pleasing their partners.

IE, the business partners of whoever invented toilet paper or brought it to market.
(I'm sure their SO was very pleased too, though)

[Bohandas]

Homosexuality exists in other animal species, and various sexual deviations are not at all limited to humans.

Odd thing is, we seem to be the only species that exhibits outright homophobia. Kinda kicks the 'Homosexuality is unnatural!' crowd in the face.

Argument I see is, animals also lick their buttholes.

Now I'm tempted to link that video of the Ugandan preacher

[Graknorke]

Boo, there's some malware on this shitty laptop that prevents me from running antivirus programs. Fucking Bill Gates making home operating systems be mostly the same.
GG time to try fucking around with booting Ubuntu from USB.

[Worldmaster27]

I have no motivation to do much of anything and I have a fairly large thing to do for school, which is stressing me out because my mom keeps talking about it and how much I have to do it but I have no will to actually do the stuff and just

ugh, i don't know

[scrdest]

Humans are the only species in which exclusively homosexual individuals are quite widespread, AFAIK. Homosexuality/bisexuality does exist in many species, but even among the ones in which homosexuality manifest as a normal preference (such as bonobos), individuals of those species will still very likely breed, when possible, even if said individuals have a special preference for homosexual partners.

It's not impossible that humans aren't that different. It IS kind of a sliding scale after all, it's just that the way they are conceptualized creates a box for people on each end and slightly extending and one big collective box for everything in between that's treated as a 50-50 split, so people kinda follow what's on their box's label rather than something like '26.834% gay'.

[Orange Wizard]

That's because the boxes are actually meaningful whereas "26.835% gay" isn't helpful to anyone except possibly statisticians, and they're not real people anyway.

[LordSlowpoke]

well, being able to call yourself 26.836% gay is helpful because you know you're gay 26.837% of the time and therefore can expect yourself to be nongay 73.162% of the time, allowing you to make valid choices regarding the 73.161% of nongay time allocated ot you (or conversely, the 26.840% of gay time you have)

shit's relevant to your interests yo

[Orange Wizard]

Assuming 26.841% of your time is spent gay, rather than my assumption that is was referring to a ratio of overall sexual attraction directed towards others.
Sure, that might manifest itself as time spent gay, but that implies you have some kind of gay switch that spends 73.259% of the time set to off.

[scrdest]

That's because the boxes are actually meaningful whereas "26.835% gay" isn't helpful to anyone except possibly statisticians, and they're not real people anyway.

The number was picked to be silly. 25% though? Means you are attracted to both, with a marked preference for opposite sex, for example.

[penguinofhonor]

What a good idea. Someone should make a scale we can use to measure sexuality like this. 0 to 100 clearly has too many graduations to be meaningful, but what about something like 0 to 6?

[Graknorke]

IMO 0-6 isn't gradated enough. At least, not enough for anything other than very broad categories.
If you want to reduce people's behaviour to statistics you need fractions of a percent.

[scrdest]

What a good idea. Someone should make a scale we can use to measure sexuality like this. 0 to 100 clearly has too many graduations to be meaningful, but what about something like 0 to 6?

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. You literally described the Kinsey scale.

[Rolan7]

Needs more axes though

[Orange Wizard]

Am I the only person here who thinks fewer boxes = better?

I don't want to have to go around asking people "which milli-percentile on the Graknorke Graduated Sexuality Scale do you fall into?"
It's inefficient and functionally useless outside of a academic setting.

What a good idea. Someone should make a scale we can use to measure sexuality like this. 0 to 100 clearly has too many graduations to be meaningful, but what about something like 0 to 6?

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. You literally described the Kinsey scale.

It's penguin, he's probably being sarcastic.

[penguinofhonor]

*she's being sarcastic

Am I the only person here who thinks fewer boxes = better?

I don't want to have to go around asking people "which milli-percentile on the Graknorke Graduated Sexuality Scale do you fall into?"
It's inefficient and functionally useless outside of a academic setting.

I mean, you wouldn't need to do that any more than you need to interrogate people on whether they're straight/bi/gay right now. And how are we measuring efficiency here? Words per sexuality disclosed? The new one could be more efficient depending on how you're looking at it.

More detail and labels can help people with self-identification, but I also think people need to realize even the current labels aren't particularly useful for day-to-day interactions. Even if you're trying to have sex with someone, does knowing their sexuality really help? If a woman is into a guy, she's into him. What's it change if it's because she's straight, or she's bi, or she's a lesbian who makes a rare exception for men? What does the ratio of men/women she's attracted to change about this specific situation?