[NYU2012]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
So according to this Kinsey Scale, we cannot assume every homosexual in the planet is in fact homosexual and is subject to change?

That's not entirely accurate.

Every homosexual who identifies as homosexual, identifies as homosexual - but that's a trivial statement.

There may be some people which identify as homosexual who are not 100% homosexual, but rather, have some heterosexual inclinations but believe themselves to be much closer to homosexual and therefore identify as homosexual.

Their orientation is not subject to change - merely how they identify is subject to change.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
So according to this Kinsey Scale, we cannot assume every homosexual in the planet is in fact homosexual and is subject to change?

No.
For gods sake read about it.

Sexuality is not 'homosexual', 'heterosexual' or 'bisexual', you can be 'predominantly homosexual', 'predominantly hetrosexual' etc. It's a continuum.
The only thing liable to 'change' is where you think you fit on this continuum, based on the information you have. Such as if you'd never met a woman you would think you had no sexual orientation, but when you met one you'd identify as a 0 'fully heterosexual'.

[konvictz0007]

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

[Jester94]

(Original post by NYU2012)
No, the Kinsey scale is clearly not about sexual orientation.

Clearly - god, we've been so stupid all along!

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
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?

I think you will well and truly mindf*** him with that one Mini!

[minimarshmallow]

(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.

[Jester94]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Leave me with the responsibility of explaining gender, normativity and all those other things - oh how I appreciate it lol

Have fun with that one

[minimarshmallow]

(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?

[NYU2012]

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

No.

We can say he falls somewhere on the Kinsey scale between completely bisexual and completely homosexual. There is no 'name' for what his orientation is - it doesn't fall under 'bisexual' nor does it fall under 'homosexual'.

I don't remember exactly which numbers the Kinsey scale uses, but:

let 0 represent 100% homosexual
let 5 represent 50% homosexual and 50% heterosexual (call it bisexual)
let 10 represent 100% heterosexual

0 ------ 1 ------ 2 ------ 3 ------ 4 ------ 5 ------ 6 ------ 7 ------ 8 ------ 9 ------ 10

This person, Fry, would fall somewhere between 0 and 5, which is an unnamed non-binary and non-absolute orientation.

[Jester94]

(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

[perlsh]

(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:

“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)

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?
Anyways, there are a few articles on APA if you search for Lisa diamond on the website.

(Original post by NYU2012)
No, I very much did get your point.

I wouldn't say that their sexual orientation in any way changed - rather what was always present has become consciously known. Sexual orientation is solidified somewhere between 9 and 12, so sexual orientation does not 'change', rather, something causes you to become aware of something which you think is 'new'.

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.

[barney121]

(Original post by NYU2012)
No.

We can say he falls somewhere on the Kinsey scale between completely bisexual and completely homosexual. There is no 'name' for what his orientation is - it doesn't fall under 'bisexual' nor does it fall under 'homosexual'.

I don't remember exactly which numbers the Kinsey scale uses, but:

let 0 represent 100% homosexual
let 5 represent 50% homosexual and 50% heterosexual (call it bisexual)
let 10 represent 100% heterosexual

0 ------ 1 ------ 2 ------ 3 ------ 4 ------ 5 ------ 6 ------ 7 ------ 8 ------ 9 ------ 10

This person, Fry, would fall somewhere between 0 and 5, which is an unnamed non-binary and non-absolute orientation.

Kinsey scale uses 0 - 6, 0 being exclusively (or predominantly I can't remember which is used) hetero.

[konvictz0007]

(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?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Jester94)
x

(Original post by NYU2012)
x

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
x

Awww it looks like I missed all the fun

[NYU2012]

(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?

Because he does not identify as bisexual - he many only have minimal attractions to the opposite sex; he may only be attracted to the opposite sex on rare occasion; etc.

We've answered this question many times already. How one identifies is important - but may not be a 100% accurate identification.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(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.

[Jester94]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Awww it looks like I missed all the fun

Soooooorry

[Pindar]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Sexual orientation: (From the APA)
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.

Because 'children' are not a sex, it cannot be a sexual orientation. Rather, a pedophile is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual with a particular attraction towards children.

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.

[Pindar]

(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.

[Beebumble]

Still has nothing to do with you.

[Jester94]

(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.