The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by konvictz0007
So does that mean we can conclusively say Mr. Fry is, by definition, bisexual?


Stephen Fry is, by definition, predominantly homosexual.
Reply 321
Have fun with that one :smile:
Original post by Jester94
I think you will well and truly mindf*** him with that one Mini!


He hasn't even picked up on it. And he's continuing to ask the same question over and over so maybe I broke him?
Reply 323
Original post by minimarshmallow
He hasn't even picked up on it. And he's continuing to ask the same question over and over so maybe I broke him?


If you did, I will buy you chocolate :smile:
Reply 324
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I know someone in a situation pretty similar to what you have said...but I'm not sure that (and I think they would agree) that it....changes their sexual orientation...I would say that people are capable of forming romantic relations outside their sexual orientation...I mean whom you engage in relationships with is entirely a choice. Being sexually attracted to the person doesn't have to be a factor, nor does an innate desire to want that particular sex...it could just be that the person likes the person enough to try being romantic...I'm not sure how that has any bearing on sexual orientation however...it is an interesting thing though...

Sounds like an interesting study...do you have a link or anything that I could read up on it? The concentration on women could be for any number of reasons....it could be because most studies in the past have focused on gay males, it could be because there seems to be more of an open mindedness about exploring sexuality among females...but it definitely sounds interesting...


Hm. Well, engaging in a relationship is certainly a choice, but isn't the want to be in a relationship with a certain person kind of subconscious? For me at least sexual/physical attraction does play a role in whether I want to engage in a relationship or not - otherwise it'd just be a good friendship to me? I do agree with NYU2012's explanation though. I think he got to the point, which I meant.

She published a book on it. Here's a link to it.
Oh, while looking for good articles online I found this excerpt of her:

[INDENT]“A heterosexual woman, under some circumstances, might fall in love with another woman platonically, and that can spill into sexual desire over time,” says Diamond, a psychology professor and sexuality researcher at the University of Utah. “It may not change her sexual orientation, but it’s still a completely authentic experience.” (source)[/INDENT]

I assume that's what you meant? This article underlines it more. While I do understand her point there, I can't really stand behind it because I haven't experienced it/find it hard to imagine, but maybe that'll happen to me in a few years. Who knows? :tongue:
Anyways, there are a few articles on APA if you search for Lisa diamond on the website.



Sorry - I misinterpreted then!
I totally agree with you, but doesn't the need to label our sexual orientation complicate things in that case? I guess, I'm still at war with myself with the need to label sexual orientation and then the problems that may arise with it when you do.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 325
Kinsey scale uses 0 - 6, 0 being exclusively (or predominantly I can't remember which is used) hetero.
Reply 326
Original post by minimarshmallow
Stephen Fry is, by definition, predominantly homosexual.


You say Mr. Fry is predominantly homosexual. Your use of the predominantly means that the majority of Mr. Fry's sexuality is homosexual, say maybe 80%. What would you say the other 20% of his sexuality is?

This is quite interesting as Mr. Fry has mentioned he is homosexual and you must surely acknowledge that homosexual means one is attracted to their own sex.

So explain to me why Mr. Fry is not bisexual?
Original post by Jester94
x




Original post by minimarshmallow
x


Awww it looks like I missed all the fun :frown:
Original post by konvictz0007
You say Mr. Fry is predominantly homosexual. Your use of the predominantly means that the majority of Mr. Fry's sexuality is homosexual, say maybe 80%. What would you say the other 20% of his sexuality is?

This is quite interesting as Mr. Fry has mentioned he is homosexual and you must surely acknowledge that homosexual means one is attracted to their own sex.

So explain to me why Mr. Fry is not bisexual?


His sexual orientation is a very complex things seeing as it has to do with his sexual practices but also how he self-idnetifies. While there may be women that Mr. Fry is attracted to they may be few and far between. It may be only certain women. It may be only 2 or 3 women that he has ever felt attracted to. This seems a rather silly amount of people to redefine one's identity over. And it hardly seems fitting to redefine one's sexual orientation, unless you want to suggest that someone who has homosexual feelings and felt attracted to only one person of the opposite sex ever should be classified as bisexual. But like I said that seems a bit silly.
Reply 329
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Awww it looks like I missed all the fun :frown:


Soooooorry :redface:
Reply 330
Where in that definition does it rule out attraction to children (who are either male or female) from being a sexual orientation?

Paedophiles are not simply "homosexual" or "heterosexual". They may either be exclusively attracted towards children, or attracted to certain sex in adults and a different one in children. They clearly do not simply fit in "heterosexual" or "homosexual" categories.
Reply 331
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
The child possesses a sex, but that does not make pedophilia a sexual orientation because the attraction to the sex and the attraction to the child are two separate things.


However they are, if you are a heterosexual that doesn't mean you are going to be attracted to the same sex in children. That is a fallacy. Paedosexuality is clearly a separate sexual orientation.
Still has nothing to do with you.
Reply 333
Original post by Stefan1991
Where in that definition does it rule out attraction to children (who are either male or female) from being a sexual orientation?

Paedophiles are not simply "homosexual" or "heterosexual". They may either be exclusively attracted towards children, or attracted to certain sex in adults and a different one in children. They clearly do not simply fit in "heterosexual" or "homosexual" categories.


Are you actually an idiot? It says very clearly in the definition that sexual orientation is based on whether you are attracted to the male sex, the female sex, both sexes or neither sex. Child, no matter how much you moan, is not a sex; the term refers to either a boy or a girl below the legal age of majority. A child can have a sex, clearly, but it is not one within itself, thus paedophilia cannot be a sexual orientation.

Yes, paedophiles do fit into hetero/bi/homosexual categories, for you can have gay paedophiles, straight paedophiles and bisexual paedophiles.
Reply 334
What exactly has that got to do with it being universally harmful? You're attacking another straw man. Actually answer the question instead of deflecting.



But there is no actual study which suggests why it would be universally harmful... you are just appealing to authority (the APA) without any actual evidence to back it up.

Whereas there are many studies (e..g Rind et al 1998) which suggest the complete opposite.

And what a ridiculous argument. You don't magically suffer "psychological distress" just because you can't carry out a certain sexual fantasy. For example I have a sexual fantasy of having a threesome. However I have never had one. How exactly am I "psychologically distressed"? :lolwut: Because I'm not. You're just telling people they should feel harmed when they clearly are not.
Reply 335
Original post by Stefan1991
For example I have a sexual fantasy of having a threesome. However I have never had one. How exactly am I "psychologically distressed"? :lolwut: Because I'm not. You're just telling people they should feel harmed when they clearly are not.


Wanting to have threesome is not the same as being a paedophile, stop being so silly
Reply 336
Sex = biological sex (Latin: Sexus)
Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.

Sexual = sexual attraction (Latin: Sexualis) Eros "relating to sexual intercourse,"
Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

Different words, different meanings.



The definition says no such thing. Try harder.
Reply 337
Original post by Jester94
Wanting to have threesome is not the same as being a paedophile, stop being so silly


Both may be sexual fantasies which don't necessarily cause "psychological distress" :rolleyes: if they don't actually happen.

Just because I can't instantly have sex with any girl I want to or have a threesome just when I think about it, DOES NOT mean I have a mental illness.
Reply 338
Original post by Miracle Day
Firstly, that's not what an ignoramus means.

I don't have to explain myself to you. You're probably a paedophile.


ig·no·ra·mus/ˌignəˈrāməs/
Noun: An ignorant or stupid person.

Synonyms:
know-nothing

Yes, that adequately describes you.

And why would someone's sexual orientation make a difference to you whether you can actually prove what you're saying? What an incredibly prejudiced and bigoted position to take. People like you disgust me, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Reply 339
Original post by Stefan1991
Both may be sexual fantasies which don't necessarily cause "psychological distress" :rolleyes: if they don't actually happen.

Just because I can't instantly have sex with any girl I want to or have a threesome just when I think about it, DOES NOT mean I have a mental illness.


Wanting to have a threesome is something you would quite like to do, because it seems like fun, along the same lines as wanting to win the lottery or travel around the world. It is merely something you would quite like to try. It is not used to define you as a person. It is not (generally) the only thing a person is attracted to, nor will doing it break any laws. There is no serious hatred for those who take part in threesomes, no shame by those who take part in it. Having a threesome does not involve manipulating those who are too young to know any better into doing things they are not psychologically prepared for. Once you have had a threesome, you might never have another one (even if you want to) or you might never want to have another one.

Paedophilia is an ongoing sexual attraction; it is not a passing fancy or something they might like to do at one point. Acting on this attraction will mean breaking laws. There is a great stigma towards paedophiles in society, a disgust over what they do and a hatred for the people doing it. In many cases, paedophiles who act on their desires do so by manipulating vulnerable children, or those who are too young to fully understand what is going on. A paedophile's attraction to children will not disappear after they have had sex with a child/seen kiddy porn etc, it is something ongoing.

I could go on, but do you see why wanting a threesome and being a paedophile are very different.
(edited 11 years ago)

Latest