Spring Break
The Daily OrangeBisexuality study distorts reality
Abstract:
Anyone who has seen MTV's "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila" can see that bisexuality as a sexual orientation is misrepresented in our society. Tila quickly became America's most popular bisexual when she had 16 heterosexual men and 16 lesbians compete for "a shot at love" with her....
- Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
Chris Filipski
posted 2/11/08 @ 11:29 PM EST
Right on Travis. Don't stop figthing the good fight!
Schmenneth Kaw
posted 2/12/08 @ 7:26 PM EST
No, you're the idiot. Kenneth.
Isn't it great to have an academic debate?
Why should we hate and discriminate
those who happen to have plenty choice of mate?
Now I don't think there's another way to Sa'it
But I'd like to ask you out on a date!
Pick me up at eight! And don't be late....Kenneth!
---------
By the way...let's use real names next time...
And yes, "right on," Travis!
Isn't it great to have an academic debate?
Why should we hate and discriminate
those who happen to have plenty choice of mate?
Now I don't think there's another way to Sa'it
But I'd like to ask you out on a date!
Pick me up at eight! And don't be late....Kenneth!
---------
By the way...let's use real names next time...
And yes, "right on," Travis!
iBernard
posted 2/13/08 @ 5:03 PM EST
Travis:
While admirable to address bisexuality, in this case as "pictured" in today's media, you'd have served a larger purpose by commenting on the trash television that is Tila Tequila, and how some silicone-enhanced cyber-character managed to rise up and invade our living rooms.
There are larger issues at play in A SHOT AT LOVE, such as alcoholism, STDS, and the desperation of some contestants to "win" no matter what.
The most important point? Do you think MTV|VH1 would be so quick to feature a show with bisexuals...if the main character was a MALE bisexual vying for the attention of 16 "straight" women, and 16 men self-identifying as gay or bisexual.
Not a chance.
Good start, great topic.
More meat elsewhere.
Take another look.
While admirable to address bisexuality, in this case as "pictured" in today's media, you'd have served a larger purpose by commenting on the trash television that is Tila Tequila, and how some silicone-enhanced cyber-character managed to rise up and invade our living rooms.
There are larger issues at play in A SHOT AT LOVE, such as alcoholism, STDS, and the desperation of some contestants to "win" no matter what.
The most important point? Do you think MTV|VH1 would be so quick to feature a show with bisexuals...if the main character was a MALE bisexual vying for the attention of 16 "straight" women, and 16 men self-identifying as gay or bisexual.
Not a chance.
Good start, great topic.
More meat elsewhere.
Take another look.
Kenneth Shaw
posted 2/14/08 @ 3:55 PM EST
The author is an idiot because he attempts to refute an opposing opinion by making conclusory statements regarding his own. He offers no evidence - whether biological, sociological, statistical or otherwise - to support his opinion. In his column he states:
"...One student quoted in The D.O. article disagreed with the results of the study, claiming that bisexuals are confused individuals who continue to experiment until they find out which sex they prefer. Another quoted student maintains that a person can be either "gay" or "straight," and that it's wrong to like both sexes.
Let me make this clear: bisexuals are not confused. We're not experimenting with alternate genders to "discover" our sexualities. Bisexuality is not a phase. It is not a relinquishing trend..."
To sum up, the author states that "One student said X, and one student said Y, but I say NOT X and NOT Y, therefore NOT X and NOT Y are the correct opinions."
That is not an intelligible argument, whether we're talking about bisexuality or tax policy. It wastes everyone's time.
So you say its great to have academic debate regarding bisexuality, Schmenneth? Why don't you start one, because this author failed to do so.
"...One student quoted in The D.O. article disagreed with the results of the study, claiming that bisexuals are confused individuals who continue to experiment until they find out which sex they prefer. Another quoted student maintains that a person can be either "gay" or "straight," and that it's wrong to like both sexes.
Let me make this clear: bisexuals are not confused. We're not experimenting with alternate genders to "discover" our sexualities. Bisexuality is not a phase. It is not a relinquishing trend..."
To sum up, the author states that "One student said X, and one student said Y, but I say NOT X and NOT Y, therefore NOT X and NOT Y are the correct opinions."
That is not an intelligible argument, whether we're talking about bisexuality or tax policy. It wastes everyone's time.
So you say its great to have academic debate regarding bisexuality, Schmenneth? Why don't you start one, because this author failed to do so.
Travis
posted 2/27/08 @ 12:43 PM EST
Kenneth,
First of all, let me say that I appreciate your comments, despite your crude arrogance and sarcasm.
If you are looking for biological/sociological/statistical data, I will write another column, if you wish. However, if you actually took the time to look at those fields of study instead of just blurting them out, you would find that this is complicated.
As for the biology aspect - nature vs. nurture, right? This argument has been going on for years. When the human genome project was completed, it was concluded that sexuality was polygenic. I'm going to assume you don't know anything about biology. Being that it is polygenic (multiple genes responsible), this allegedly accounts for the fluidity and variation in sexuality in the same way that skin color is polygenic. Yes, we have white, black, etc. but skin color varies immensely from person to person, even within the same race (another polygenic trait). However, anything that is polygenic is not Mendelian, which means one's environment can have an effect. Biology doesn't determine everything, in other words, but it is the basis of sexuality. Neither argument is wrong, instead, they are both correct in their own ways.
If you're looking for statistics from studies done by sociologists or anthropologists, good luck finding them. There have been few studies, and many of the studies (like the one I commented on) are inconclusive due to small sample sizes (70-100). Part of the problem is that most of the funding for LGBT research goes to studies in gay, white men. Research cannot be conducted if there is such little funding.
http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art2449.html
This is a fact sheet with some statistics, although it doesn't prove much of anything (which is why I didn't idclude it in my argument).
If you are criticizing me for saying that those students' opinions were "wrong", then go for it.
However, it seems foolish to me. If someone were to say that 2+2 = 5...they would be wrong. There is no argument to be had. Someone saying that bisexuals are confused? Also wrong. In order to BE bisexual by definition you are KNOWINGLY attracted to both men and women. There is no confusion. To be "bi-curious", would be a state of confusion, perhaps, in that the person has not yet settled into his or her own sexuality. You should probably do some more research yourself on sexual orientation before you criticize my tactics.
The D.O. would only allow for so much space to be taken up for the column (as for any column), so I was unable to include the majority of my ideas. I will write another article in response to your comments that will include some of the points I've just made.
Please provide me with more comments without being immature (if that's possible for you).
Travis Judd
Author
First of all, let me say that I appreciate your comments, despite your crude arrogance and sarcasm.
If you are looking for biological/sociological/statistical data, I will write another column, if you wish. However, if you actually took the time to look at those fields of study instead of just blurting them out, you would find that this is complicated.
As for the biology aspect - nature vs. nurture, right? This argument has been going on for years. When the human genome project was completed, it was concluded that sexuality was polygenic. I'm going to assume you don't know anything about biology. Being that it is polygenic (multiple genes responsible), this allegedly accounts for the fluidity and variation in sexuality in the same way that skin color is polygenic. Yes, we have white, black, etc. but skin color varies immensely from person to person, even within the same race (another polygenic trait). However, anything that is polygenic is not Mendelian, which means one's environment can have an effect. Biology doesn't determine everything, in other words, but it is the basis of sexuality. Neither argument is wrong, instead, they are both correct in their own ways.
If you're looking for statistics from studies done by sociologists or anthropologists, good luck finding them. There have been few studies, and many of the studies (like the one I commented on) are inconclusive due to small sample sizes (70-100). Part of the problem is that most of the funding for LGBT research goes to studies in gay, white men. Research cannot be conducted if there is such little funding.
http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art2449.html
This is a fact sheet with some statistics, although it doesn't prove much of anything (which is why I didn't idclude it in my argument).
If you are criticizing me for saying that those students' opinions were "wrong", then go for it.
However, it seems foolish to me. If someone were to say that 2+2 = 5...they would be wrong. There is no argument to be had. Someone saying that bisexuals are confused? Also wrong. In order to BE bisexual by definition you are KNOWINGLY attracted to both men and women. There is no confusion. To be "bi-curious", would be a state of confusion, perhaps, in that the person has not yet settled into his or her own sexuality. You should probably do some more research yourself on sexual orientation before you criticize my tactics.
The D.O. would only allow for so much space to be taken up for the column (as for any column), so I was unable to include the majority of my ideas. I will write another article in response to your comments that will include some of the points I've just made.
Please provide me with more comments without being immature (if that's possible for you).
Travis Judd
Author
Travis
posted 2/27/08 @ 12:45 PM EST
Kenneth,
First of all, let me say that I appreciate your comments, despite your crude arrogance and sarcasm.
If you are looking for biological/sociological/statistical data, I will write another column, if you wish. However, if you actually took the time to look at those fields of study instead of just blurting them out, you would find that this is complicated.
As for the biology aspect - nature vs. nurture, right? This argument has been going on for years. When the human genome project was completed, it was concluded that sexuality was polygenic. I'm going to assume you don't know anything about biology. Being that it is polygenic (multiple genes responsible), this allegedly accounts for the fluidity and variation in sexuality in the same way that skin color is polygenic. Yes, we have white, black, etc. but skin color varies immensely from person to person, even within the same race (another polygenic trait). However, anything that is polygenic is not Mendelian, which means one's environment can have an effect. Biology doesn't determine everything, in other words, but it is the basis of sexuality. Neither argument is wrong, instead, they are both correct in their own ways.
If you're looking for statistics from studies done by sociologists or anthropologists, good luck finding them. There have been few studies, and many of the studies (like the one I commented on) are inconclusive due to small sample sizes (70-100). Part of the problem is that most of the funding for LGBT research goes to studies in gay, white men. Research cannot be conducted if there is such little funding.
http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art2449.html
This is a fact sheet with some statistics, although it doesn't prove much of anything (which is why I didn't idclude it in my argument).
If you are criticizing me for saying that those students' opinions were "wrong", then go for it.
However, it seems foolish to me. If someone were to say that 2+2 = 5...they would be wrong. There is no argument to be had. Someone saying that bisexuals are confused? Also wrong. In order to BE bisexual by definition you are KNOWINGLY attracted to both men and women. There is no confusion. To be "bi-curious", would be a state of confusion, perhaps, in that the person has not yet settled into his or her own sexuality. You should probably do some more research yourself on sexual orientation before you criticize my tactics.
The D.O. would only allow for so much space to be taken up for the column (as for any column), so I was unable to include the majority of my ideas. I will write another article in response to your comments that will include some of the points I've just made.
Please provide me with more comments without being immature (if that's possible for you).
Travis Judd
Author
First of all, let me say that I appreciate your comments, despite your crude arrogance and sarcasm.
If you are looking for biological/sociological/statistical data, I will write another column, if you wish. However, if you actually took the time to look at those fields of study instead of just blurting them out, you would find that this is complicated.
As for the biology aspect - nature vs. nurture, right? This argument has been going on for years. When the human genome project was completed, it was concluded that sexuality was polygenic. I'm going to assume you don't know anything about biology. Being that it is polygenic (multiple genes responsible), this allegedly accounts for the fluidity and variation in sexuality in the same way that skin color is polygenic. Yes, we have white, black, etc. but skin color varies immensely from person to person, even within the same race (another polygenic trait). However, anything that is polygenic is not Mendelian, which means one's environment can have an effect. Biology doesn't determine everything, in other words, but it is the basis of sexuality. Neither argument is wrong, instead, they are both correct in their own ways.
If you're looking for statistics from studies done by sociologists or anthropologists, good luck finding them. There have been few studies, and many of the studies (like the one I commented on) are inconclusive due to small sample sizes (70-100). Part of the problem is that most of the funding for LGBT research goes to studies in gay, white men. Research cannot be conducted if there is such little funding.
http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art2449.html
This is a fact sheet with some statistics, although it doesn't prove much of anything (which is why I didn't idclude it in my argument).
If you are criticizing me for saying that those students' opinions were "wrong", then go for it.
However, it seems foolish to me. If someone were to say that 2+2 = 5...they would be wrong. There is no argument to be had. Someone saying that bisexuals are confused? Also wrong. In order to BE bisexual by definition you are KNOWINGLY attracted to both men and women. There is no confusion. To be "bi-curious", would be a state of confusion, perhaps, in that the person has not yet settled into his or her own sexuality. You should probably do some more research yourself on sexual orientation before you criticize my tactics.
The D.O. would only allow for so much space to be taken up for the column (as for any column), so I was unable to include the majority of my ideas. I will write another article in response to your comments that will include some of the points I've just made.
Please provide me with more comments without being immature (if that's possible for you).
Travis Judd
Author
- Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
Kenneth Shaw
posted 2/11/08 @ 6:09 PM EST