Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Myriad said:
I'm wondering about the "0.5 on the Kinsey scale." He seems to have mistaken the Kinsey Scale for perhaps the Richter Scale, which unlike the Kinsey Scale is a continuous function. Zero on the Kinsey scale means exclusively heterosexual, while 1 means "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual." So what's the .5 for? If he's thinking of "that one time in band camp," or the occasional fantasy here and there, that's already covered by "incidentally homosexual."

Embrace the one, dude. Or if you're really totally absolutely hetero, embrace the zero. Don't waffle.

(Could be worse; at least he didn't rate himself a negative three.)
Click to expand...

I'm a -1,000,000,000,000+
 
Myriad said:
I'm wondering about the "0.5 on the Kinsey scale." He seems to have mistaken the Kinsey Scale for perhaps the Richter Scale, which unlike the Kinsey Scale is a continuous function. Zero on the Kinsey scale means exclusively heterosexual, while 1 means "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual." So what's the .5 for? If he's thinking of "that one time in band camp," or the occasional fantasy here and there, that's already covered by "incidentally homosexual."

Embrace the one, dude. Or if you're really totally absolutely hetero, embrace the zero. Don't waffle.

(Could be worse; at least he didn't rate himself a negative three.)
Click to expand...

At a guess I would take it as open to no male-male sexual contact MMF threesomes, instead of the more hetero-flexible that a 1 would be.
 
Why does this comment on the Carrier blog not surprise me?
When I first read this post, my immediate gut reaction was “eeew, that feels a little creepy/weird.” And if I hadn’t been hanging around SJW types for the last few years, I might have been perfectly happy to stick with that gut response.
But my exposure to the people on this blog network led me to automatically ask the question: “Is this unfamiliar thing making me uneasy because it’s a problem, or because I have a problem?” And there are mental techniques to check that, like role reversal. I asked myself, “If a poly woman whose work I enjoyed reading made a similar offer, and I was still in the market for a relationship, would it get my interest?” And I had to admit that, yes, it probably would. So I said, “Huh, I guess the problem was in my own head, after all. Carry on and good luck, RC.”
These are good habits, and I would highly recommend them to everyone who expects to encounter New Things in their lives.
Click to expand...
 
cornsail said:
I assumed it meant bisexual with no clear preference.
Click to expand...


What it meand is that He's consider a trans* woman. He knows it's not gay but there's something that keeps the experience from being 100% hetero.

Wasn't Carrier the guy who had his wife support him and then dumped her over his poly orientation?
 
There's nothing morally wrong with the post. It's just a bit cringey. Like "Hey people who like my blog, does anyone want sex with me? I do very well FYI and I'm totally not gay." If Dawkins had written the same thing I've little doubt they'd be chomping at the bit to use it to paint him as a creep.
 
cornsail said:
There's nothing morally wrong with the post. It's just a bit cringey. Like "Hey people who like my blog, does anyone want sex with me? I do very well FYI and I'm totally not gay." If Dawkins had written the same thing I've little doubt they'd be chomping at the bit to use it to paint him as a creep.
Click to expand...

This.

The problem is not with what Carrier wrote, but with how little outrage there is over what he wrote, as opposed to what the outrage would have been if, say, Michael Shermer had said it.

Shermer is already painted as a womanising creep by some people, so just imagine what he would get hurtled his way if he posted this.

In fact, I would imagine that the polyamory part would be dissected as being just a ploy to have sex with more women.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
This.

The problem is not with what Carrier wrote, but with how little outrage there is over what he wrote, as opposed to what the outrage would have been if, say, Michael Shermer had said it.

Shermer is already painted as a womanising creep by some people, so just imagine what he would get hurtled his way if he posted this.

In fact, I would imagine that the polyamory part would be dissected as being just a ploy to have sex with more women.
Click to expand...


c.f. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. Trolling for anonymous gay sex? Party on! Trolling for anonymous gay sex after repeatedly voting to deny homosexuals equal protection / rights under law? Houston, we have a problem.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Did that ever get beyond a vague allegation which PZ Myers believed because reasons?
Click to expand...

If you read through this thread, the lady in question comes forwards and supplies some details. I'm not going to go over everything, but the majority ended up being convinced of her veracity, myself included.
 
I think I'll recuse myself from the discussion. I obviously don't know as much about the subject as I thought, so I'll stop posting in this thread before I say anything else that is probably uninformed.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Did that ever get beyond a vague allegation which PZ Myers believed because reasons?
Click to expand...

And there were always rumors of his sleazy behavior that seem well substantiated by many many women. So his being a sleazebag seems pretty clear, though if his behavior crossed from sleazy to rape depends on how you define rape and what evidence you accept.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And there were always rumors of his sleazy behavior that seem well substantiated by many many women. So his being a sleazebag seems pretty clear, though if his behavior crossed from sleazy to rape depends on how you define rape and what evidence you accept.
Click to expand...

Shermer is a playa (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=playa). The Warriors hate that, because a playa objectifies women, at least for one night. We can't have that. So no one night stands are allowed in Warriorland, unless of course, a woman is the playa who objectifies men. Then it's OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom