Print

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

[Truean]

Then again, I live in Ireland, so skirts are rather impractical anyway.

Skirts are guy clothes over there anyway.

Man, I love giving clothes the same treatment as people give gender. It's either pants, or a skirt. nothing else.

Behold the skort!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skort

[Rose]

what abomination is this?

Also it sounds like Coach Z trying to say skirt.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

It makes me want a Skirt trouser hybrid.

[Truean]

what abomination is this?

Also it sounds like Coach Z trying to say skirt.

Bonus points on the homestarrunner.com reference. .
Apparently it started as a sports uniform thing. Though one wonders why you wouldn't just wear shorts.

It makes me want a Skirt trouser hybrid.

Nobody's gonna buy the skrouser [joking]

[The Merchant Of Menace]

I also missed my chance to make a scouser joke.

[Truean]

I also missed my chance to make a scouser joke.

That's ok, inevitably one will come again, especially if you work it into the conversation somehow like I tried to (and luckily somehow managed to succeed at) doing with skort!

[GlyphGryph]

Ninja x 9: This is why I shouldn't write so much.

Truean, while you do a good job justifying them, I've a few minor quibbles. I've since deleted the big post I wrote about them because I realized I don't care that much, heh. Essentially, it boiled down to how I think you'd have been better off assigning distinct groups and traits and simply allowing multiple membership as a fundamental aspect of the model. I doubt this is going to get formalized anywhere though, and your categories are perfectly workable for a basic discussion about the issues. As a basic improvement, I'd suggest simply having "uncomfortable" label, with additional group memberships based on status possible but not obligatory, either "gay", "attracted", or "sexist". That way, every uncomfortable person would fit in the main group, giving you an idea of how to approach them, without needing to be any of the others, minimizing the number of non-applicable approaches assuming the person has been categorized correctly. You can take that or leave it, though. Leaving us with "Not an Issue/Comfortable", "combinations of uncomfortable and subgroups", and your "huh" group (which I'll admit I don't fully understand, an example would be appreciated"
This would also resolve the conflation that I feel is the primary component of Scriver's objection (that being, a person who is not gay, but for whom sexual attraction is not an issue). I do think this group is likely to be large enough for it to deserve its own classification, though it's clearly wasted effort with your current model since your basic uncomfortable group already includes their issues (with the added assumption of attractedness, but that's really just wasted effort)

.... If I say "steel" but I actually mean bronze whose fault is it if you don't understand I mean bronze? If you say "asexual" but don't really mean asexual, only not attracted to women without providing a definition, who has missed what point? Use words in their common meaning, or provide a definition if you expect anyone at all to understand you.

To be honest, I understood what I said. I thought he made it clear. His use was one that was perfectly square with the definitions common to many dictionaries, provided he explicitly mentioned that he was only applying it as a descriptor in regards to the specific situation, interacting with women. I feel he did that. I agree however that it isn't an apt term, but simply because you wanted to encompass specific things with your term that the word doesn't handle.

[ECrownofFire]

Then again, I live in Ireland, so skirts are rather impractical anyway.

Skirts are guy clothes over there anyway.

Man, I love giving clothes the same treatment as people give gender. It's either pants, or a skirt. nothing else.

Behold the skort!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skort

So apparently there's a Wikipedia article titled "Women wearing pants".

[GlyphGryph]

On a completely separate issue, I've recently been made a convert to the belief that we should discard of the concept of the Kinsey scale, the entire dichotomy approach to categorization of sexuality, and the category labels used therein which I see as inherently damaging by nature of both being needlessly exclusionary in regards to the actual information they are normally used to convey in addition to being inaccurate to an unacceptable level when better alternatives are available. Currently, I would like to see the following terms and definitions more widely adopted:

Homosexuality - an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions to people of the same sex;
Heterosexuality - an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions to persons of the opposite sex;

They would thus be set up as distinct axes that are not defined opposite one another or set in an arbitrary and imprecise binary.
Does anyone know if there's any sort of wider movement pushing for this sort of thing? Any drawbacks I'm not seeing or flaws in the setup?

[Rose]

I've often argued for a diamond approach, with the top corner being anything that moves, the bottom corner being asexual, left corner being fully straight, and the right corner being fully gay.

then somebody pointed out I can just rotate it to a square with one axis being gayness and the other being straightness.

[Truean]

Ninja x 9: This is why I shouldn't write so much.

Truean, while you do a good job justifying them, I've a few minor quibbles. I've since deleted the big post I wrote about them because I realized I don't care that much, heh. Essentially, it boiled down to how I think you'd have been better off assigning distinct groups and traits and simply allowing multiple membership as a fundamental aspect of the model. I doubt this is going to get formalized anywhere though, and your categories are perfectly workable for a basic discussion about the issues. As a basic improvement, I'd suggest simply having "uncomfortable" label, with additional group memberships based on status possible but not obligatory, either "gay", "attracted", or "sexist". That way, every uncomfortable person would fit in the main group, giving you an idea of how to approach them, without needing to be any of the others, minimizing the number of non-applicable approaches assuming the person has been categorized correctly. You can take that or leave it, though. Leaving us with "Not an Issue/Comfortable", "combinations of uncomfortable and subgroups", and your "huh" group (which I'll admit I don't fully understand, an example would be appreciated"
This would also resolve the conflation that I feel is the primary component of Scriver's objection (that being, a person who is not gay, but for whom sexual attraction is not an issue). I do think this group is likely to be large enough for it to deserve its own classification, though it's clearly wasted effort with your current model since your basic uncomfortable group already includes their issues (with the added assumption of attractedness, but that's really just wasted effort)

.... If I say "steel" but I actually mean bronze whose fault is it if you don't understand I mean bronze? If you say "asexual" but don't really mean asexual, only not attracted to women without providing a definition, who has missed what point? Use words in their common meaning, or provide a definition if you expect anyone at all to understand you.

To be honest, I understood what I said. I thought he made it clear. His use was one that was perfectly square with the definitions common to many dictionaries, provided he explicitly mentioned that he was only applying it as a descriptor in regards to the specific situation, interacting with women. I feel he did that. I agree however that it isn't an apt term, but simply because you wanted to encompass specific things with your term that the word doesn't handle.

Basically, the model is far from perfect as a lovely understatement. There should probably be more categories, but then, you could never have enough, cause humans are so damn complex. I sorta thought I got into this by saying it was a starting framework and you dig into the individual stuff later. You could go over the "attracted" or not stuff a million different ways along with all the other characteristics, but it's pretty good to learn.

The "Huh?" subgroup:
We knew a guy named Jeff, and he sort of fit in anywhere. We're almost certain he liked girls, he had girlfriends, sometimes. Jeff didn't give a shit about or really acknowledge anything. I'm sure the pot had nothing to do with this.... Even when entirely sober/not stoned, Jeff didn't seem to look at people like they had any differences, because he simply didn't care, at all. He was the logical conclusion of a philosophy that started and ended with "huh?" I'm not insulting Jeff either.

You couldn't talk to Jeff about the differences between men and women. It wouldn't register in his brain. He played guitar (like a boss actually), studied computer science, and always seemed to have a computer tower torn up somewhere. Jeff just sorta floated on through life not giving a crap about anyone or anything. He showed up to fix computers that were broken, inhale the contents of your fridge, and watch movies. People were interchangeable pegs to him and with his talent, I think he's probably off somewhere programming for some company or the government, or has stolen all of our PIN and bank account numbers, who knows. Jeff was an extreme example of "huh?". "Huh?" is not comfortable, nor are they uncomfortable, nor are they anything else. If I had to pick a phase, clueless.

Common Term Usage:
You understood; I didn't. If you use non standard definitions, then don't be surprised when people are confused by this. It is entirely foreseeable and preventable. As for "asexual" meaning just one type of sex not being desired, I've never seen that. [shrugs]

[ECrownofFire]

On a completely separate issue, I've recently been made a convert to the belief that we should discard of the concept of the Kinsey scale, the entire dichotomy approach to categorization of sexuality, and the category labels used therein which I see as inherently damaging by nature of both being needlessly exclusionary in regards to the actual information they are normally used to convey in addition to being inaccurate to an unacceptable level when better alternatives are available.

The Kinsey scale as I understand it more points out that not everyone is 100% gay or straight, and almost all people at least have some element of attraction to both genders.

[GlyphGryph]

The fact that its a scale inherently sets up a dichotomy, though - the assumption that liking girls is the opposite of liking guys.
The fact that you get a bunch of people who's sexualities are ACTUALLY diametrically opposed falling on the same slot in the scale should be enough to show that the concept is flawed. Bisexual and Asexual aren't really "between" hetero and homosexual in any meaningful way.

So, right now you get:
Hetero <---- Asexual/Bisexual ----> Homosexual

The fact that he had to introduce another variable to get meaningful results from the scale in the Kinsey Reports is a pretty good indicator as well. If you can frame the issue in regards to the same subject (sexual attraction) so that suddenly the two "opposites" fall on the same end of the scale, like, for example, if you set it up so that:
Asexual <------> Homo/Heterosexual/Bisexual
that's a good indicator that your conditionals are not opposites, and you should not create a "scale" out of one of them.

Basically, if you split it into two questions (or scales), you'd get something that's a lot more useful, since you could create an actual scale.
Likes Guys: 0<-------->10
Likes Girls:   0<-------->10

Edited to add:
Of course, this is really only a problem with the common interpretation of the Kinsey Scale. The actual Kinsey scale didn't measure "sexuality", but rather the ratio of same sex sexual encounters to opposite sex ones, and this was used to build correlations for sexuality purposes. The correlations exist, but the aren't strict.

Examples of a bad scale (but pretty much identical to the Kinsey Scale):
Likes Apples <---- ----> Likes Oranges
Meters <---- ----> Seconds (this one should clarify what the actual Kinsey scale measures - a ratio.)

Example of a good scale:
Likes Apples <---- ----> Does not like apples

[Truean]

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2011/08/three_charts_to.htm

[Bauglir]

Not that I disagree with the main message, but I think that using estimates for that sort of thing is a bit disingenuous, particularly with the second graph (where the estimate shows a sudden reversal of the current trend). The estimates may be good, but the article gives the impression that the charts in question are factual data, and using an estimate of future conditions (of any confidence) as the entire basis for your point about what has actually happened (which the second graph does, since there's no decline until the extrapolation) is inevitably going to lead to people ignoring you.

That's "you" in a general sense, by the way, not specifically referring to Truean.