[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Let me rephrase my question.

What was Mr. Fry's original sexuality?

It never changed. It is probably something around 5/5.5 on the Kinsey scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) - I can't really be sure as I'm not him. He probably identified as a 6 because he hadn't met a woman he was attracted to, but when he did he gained new information about something that always existed in him.

Another example, I'm assuming you're straight. Now imagine you had never met anyone of the opposite sex, you would probably assume you were asexual. However when you first met the opposite sex, you would realise that you were in fact heterosexual. Nothing about you has changed other than the information you have. You were always heterosexual, but with the information you had you could only define yourself as asexual. The new information you gain when you met the opposite sex changes your definition of your sexual orientation, it doesn't change your sexual orientation.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
I can assure you it is not an absurd question, it may be absurd in your opinion because you cannot answer it.

But your post did not answer my question.

So I will ask once again, what was Mr. Fry's original sexual orientation?

His sexual orientation has always been the same - I've already stated that sexual orientation is solidified at around 9 to 12.

What he identified himself as may have changed, but his orientation has been and will be stable over time.

[barney121]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
It never changed. It is probably something around 5/5.5 on the Kinsey scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) - I can't really be sure as I'm not him. He probably identified as a 6 because he hadn't met a woman he was attracted to, but when he did he gained new information about something that always existed in him.

Another example, I'm assuming you're straight. Now imagine you had never met anyone of the opposite sex, you would probably assume you were asexual. However when you first met the opposite sex, you would realise that you were in fact heterosexual. Nothing about you has changed other than the information you have. You were always heterosexual, but with the information you had you could only define yourself as asexual. The new information you gain when you met the opposite sex changes your definition of your sexual orientation, it doesn't change your sexual orientation.

I doubt it, I refer you to this ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katie-...r=Gay%20Voices :P
Though as funny as the song is it does actually quote scientific evidence.

[Jess Holly]

Society doesn't accept paedophilia because of the consent issues involved with children. Even if they do consent, someone of that age may not be able to understand the implications of that kind of decision. Also, it's wrong in the sense that sexual attraction shouldn't happen before puberty; it's against nature.

Whereas with homosexuality in action -as opposed to it in theory- it's two consenting adults past the age of sexual maturity. Animals have been found to be homosexual, and I very much doubt they've chosen it; therefore it's natural.

Incest is thought of as wrong because of the implications for children, which is difficult for people to get past, and because we're programmed not to be attracted to people we've grown up with, for that reason. So we're socialised by means of our genes not to find it acceptable.

If you are a troll, I salute you.

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
It never changed. It is probably something around 5/5.5 on the Kinsey scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) - I can't really be sure as I'm not him. He probably identified as a 6 because he hadn't met a woman he was attracted to, but when he did he gained new information about something that always existed in him.

Another example, I'm assuming you're straight. Now imagine you had never met anyone of the opposite sex, you would probably assume you were asexual. However when you first met the opposite sex, you would realise that you were in fact heterosexual. Nothing about you has changed other than the information you have. You were always heterosexual, but with the information you had you could only define yourself as asexual. The new information you gain when you met the opposite sex changes your definition of your sexual orientation, it doesn't change your sexual orientation.

Your example is rather interesting, a world without women?

I do not want to explore this Kinsey Scale or whatever you have mentioned, because this discussion is about sexuality. Its a very very simple concept. If Mr. Fry has said he is attracted to some women but mostly men, then by definition he is bisexual and not homosexual.

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by NYU2012)
His sexual orientation has always been the same - I've already stated that sexual orientation is solidified at around 9 to 12.

What he identified himself as may have changed, but his orientation has been and will be stable over time.

Which is?...

[NYU2012]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
I do not want to explore this Kinsey Scale or whatever you have mentioned, because this discussion is about sexuality.

(1) You mean sexual orientation, not sexuality.

(2) The Kinsey Scale is entirely relevant to this topic because it exactly pertains to sexual orientation.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Its a very very simple concept. If Mr. Fry has said he is attracted to some women but mostly men, then by definition he is bisexual and not homosexual.

That's not technically true. Sexual orientation isn't as absolute and binary as you would like it to be - again, see the Kinsey scale.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Which is?...

Which is a non-binary, non-absolute sexual orientation (or so my best guess would be). You're trying to make sexual orientation into one of either (1) homosexual, (2) bisexual or (3) heterosexual. Again, as we've stated, you should look into the Kinsey scale as it should give you an idea about the non-absoluteness of sexual orientation.

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by Jess Holly)
Society doesn't accept paedophilia because of the consent issues involved with children. Even if they do consent, someone of that age may not be able to understand the implications of that kind of decision. Also, it's wrong in the sense that sexual attraction shouldn't happen before puberty; it's against nature.

Whereas with homosexuality in action -as opposed to it in theory- it's two consenting adults past the age of sexual maturity. Animals have been found to be homosexual, and I very much doubt they've chosen it; therefore it's natural.

Incest is thought of as wrong because of the implications for children, which is difficult for people to get past, and because we're programmed not to be attracted to people we've grown up with, for that reason. So we're socialised by means of our genes not to find it acceptable.

If you are a troll, I salute you.

I certainly am not a troll.

You can practise incest without children, does that make it right?

[Jester94]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Your example is rather interesting, a world without women?

I do not want to explore this Kinsey Scale or whatever you have mentioned, because this discussion is about sexuality. Its a very very simple concept. If Mr. Fry has said he is attracted to some women but mostly men, then by definition he is bisexual and not homosexual.

This shows how uninformed you are about this topic, seeing as how the Kinsey Scale is directly relevant to this discussion.

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Which is a non-binary, non-absolute sexual orientation (or so my best guess would be). You're trying to make sexual orientation into one of either (1) homosexual, (2) bisexual or (3) heterosexual. Again, as we've stated, you should look into the Kinsey scale as it should give you an idea about the non-absoluteness of sexual orientation.

There exists a non-binary non absolute sexual orientation?

So we can safely establish that a person can go from heterosexual to homosexual according to the Kinsey scale?

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Jester94)
This shows how uninformed you are about this topic, seeing as how the Kinsey Scale is directly relevant to this discussion.

No, the Kinsey scale is clearly not about sexual orientation.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Your example is rather interesting, a world without women?

I do not want to explore this Kinsey Scale or whatever you have mentioned, because this discussion is about sexuality. Its a very very simple concept. If Mr. Fry has said he is attracted to some women but mostly men, then by definition he is bisexual and not homosexual.

I was just saying if you imagined you hadn't met one up until your teens.

The Kinsey Scale is about sexual orientation. It's a very simple concept. Maybe you should read it instead of ignoring something you're attempting to discuss.

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by Jester94)
This shows how uninformed you are about this topic, seeing as how the Kinsey Scale is directly relevant to this discussion.

Apologies I had not heard of this Kinsey Scale before. But as my original post highlights, I am open to discussion and debate about this topic.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
There exists a non-binary non absolute sexual orientation?

Yes

(Original post by konvictz0007)
So we can safely establish that a person can go from heterosexual to homosexual according to the Kinsey scale?

No. The person's orientation never changes - merely, what they identify as may change.

For example, someone near the middle of the Kinsey scale may identify as bisexual, then later identify as homosexual, but their actual orientation (to whom they are attracted) has not changed.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
There exists a non-binary non absolute sexual orientation?

So we can safely establish that a person can go from heterosexual to homosexual according to the Kinsey scale?

I'm pansexual. I'm attracted to anyone, including people who don't conform to gender norms. Think about that.

And no, we can establish that the range of definitions of sexual orientation exists.
Can't you read?

[NYU2012]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I'm pansexual. I'm attracted to anyone, including people who don't conform to gender norms. Think about that.

If he asks you questions about this - namely gender and gender normativity and how they relate to sexual orientation, I blame all of the complexness that follows completely on you

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by NYU2012)
If he asks you questions about this - namely gender and gender normativity and how they relate to sexual orientation, I blame all of the complexness that follows completely on you

I only mentioned it knowing that I'm going for a walk in a bit and you'd back me up...

[konvictz0007]

So according to this Kinsey Scale, we cannot assume every homosexual in the planet is in fact homosexual and is subject to change?

[NYU2012]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I only mentioned it knowing that I'm going for a walk in a bit and you'd back me up...

Leave me with the responsibility of explaining gender, normativity and all those other things - oh how I appreciate it lol