Imperfect classifications are nerd-bait, and that goes for political nerds (ideological-nerds, etc.) too.
Every time something comes up about dogs & wolves, polar bears and browns or some other case where classification of a taxa is grey, HN gets baited. Species are supposed to be speciated, and not supposed to breed outside of the species. When they ignore these rules, the whole concept of species gets muddled, and we get fascinated and sometimes get annoyed, resolved to create a more precise classification system. Genes are also supposed to flow from ancestors to descendants, and we have the same reaction when genes just float around and end up somewhere.
Anyway, heterosexual, bisexual, bisexual and such are fuzzy classifications. We've gone and built frameworks around them, moral frameworks and others. "Born this way" is an moral-political framework, for example. It was framed this way because it generally agrees with observed reality and because it slots into minority protection, a rights framework that is well established. An alternative framework could have been, "Homosexuality is OK because it's harmless," which works fine as a personal/moral framework, doesn't require classification of people but does not work as well as a political rights framework. What will happen to our Lady Gaga songs if our classification goes away goes away? Oh no.
Anyway, the reason all these categories are imperfect is because they're descriptions of human behaviour, and human behaviour is complicated. So yes, most people have certain patterns of sexual behaviour, desire, identity or whatnot. Some people are chaotic. These patterns are affected by things, like the complicated and shifting societal "rules" about what is good, bad, shameful or otherwise.
Now that a good portion of the political work has been done (socially sanctioning homosexuality), I think we can start to complicate the story. One bit of complexity is the difference between "sexual" behaviour types: dating, sex, relationships, cuddling in front of the telly, marriage, family.... Our current framework at it's least nuanced assumes sex is the linchpin to all these. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are gay for some of these behaviours and straight for others. I think they always have been.
There are streams and rivers of pattern, but every drop of water does what it does. The rules (when they are adhered to at all) govern streams, not water.
Thanks. Fun read. I can't wait till this guy learns about "dag-nahash" :)
A lot of bad philosophy is like this, a pointless discussion about what words mean pretending to be a discussion about something. Even "real" philosophers do this. Theology is full of it, greek philosophy too. Modern philosophers (say, marx for example) try to solve this by creating their own, precisely defined words and concepts but they still often end up in the same stupid place.
I wonder if some level of fluency in a computer language helps with this.
This. I hope some day our societies are mature enough to understand most of the labelings are just useless, restricting ways of limiting our perception of the world and the realities.
Personally, I've never liked categorizing people/things in definite groups. Even as for personality types, I find the MBTI test (16 personalities) too narrow and primitive. Yet, I find MBTI at least useful enough to give me a general idea as to what type of a person I'm dealing with.
On the other hand, when it comes to the labelings and categorizations that you mentioned, I agree with you; I don't even find them useful to get a general idea about people.
If you identify as vegetarian, then proceed to eat chicken. Then no you arent vegetarian.
If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it. Then yes you are vegetarian.
If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it, and then eat chicken after some point. Then you was a vegetarian but are no longer.
You obviously did not even open the link. First line:
"Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior fascinate both researchers and the media."
I did. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves. People have been hiding the truth about their feelings, deviations, etc since forever. I fail to see anything relevant here.
Categories are a human-defined thing, not something that is "out there". The point is to try to understand human behavior better, and that includes questioning pre-existing categories, and perhaps, defining new ones?
Quoting the abstract again:
"Latent class analysis revealed six distinctive "types" of heterosexually identified students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner.[...]"
Do we really need to use tax money on this kinda of stuff... Is it not clear that minorities would pretend to belong to the majority. Because it is more benificial?
It's relevant because we have to use terminology like MSM (men who have sex with men) in public health because otherwise we exclude people who do not identify as homosexual or bisexual. Often we don't care how someone self identifies. We do care about things they do.
Knowing why some men identify as heterosexual and refuse to identify as anything else -even though they have sex with men- can tell us about stigma and discrimination and can help us provide healthcare.
And I thought I had seen it all about sexual orientations. If you let guys fuck your butt you are a homosexual. "MSM", that sounds like a joke. And if you lie about being a homosexual to a doctor because you're ashamed of it, you won't say "well I'm a heterosexual... who has sex with men". The existence of the "MSM" denomination won't make a difference.
I identify as straight and I've had sex with a lot of women I wasn't even sexually attracted to, simply because it felt good. People masturbate and they aren't sexually attracted to their hands. I think without any social conditioning male friends might just have sex with one another because it would feel good and no one would judge them or call them gay. Like they do in some parts of the world and at many times throughout history and among other species. Just my pet theory though, and certainly one of my less agreeable beliefs.
I wonder why this is being downvoted. Perhaps I am very simple and don't get complex nuances of the matter, but for me a heterosexual person is one who likes sexual relations with the opposite sex only. Having a consensual same-sex relation implies being either homosexual or bisexual.
The OP oversimplified a bit more: for starters, one could be a woman. To get the obvious answer out of the way.
Secondly, and more to your point, one could be curious as to what the experience is like without having any specific sexual feelings for the same gender. Sexuality means you enjoy the act, just performing is not enough. See also: gay-for-pay pornstars, closeted gay people in hetero relationships, non-consensual sex. An example from the study would be "performative" homosexual relationships, where someone might kiss someone of the same gender not for their own pleasure, but to entice a third person of the opposite gender.
Yeah, but if I identify as a queen of England, I'm simply delusional. I don't get what's so unusually interesting about it. Psychiatry has been dealing with delusions for hundreds of years.
The difference between madness and experiment is the method and results.
People do not have to be consistent. Three follow up study could try to determine how they identify themselves later and what kind of sex life these people have. The study is probably underpowered to detect any mental issue if any exists whatsoever.
Whether you're the Queen of England is a factoid. It can be either right or wrong.
Whether you're sexually attracted to men or women is entirely subjective and not mutually exclusive. You can have a preference, which is most likely what you identify as, but you won't find the other sex entirely sexually unattractive as a result of that.
The definition of heterosexual is "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex".
You can have sex with someone without being sexually attracted to their sex in general (with them being the exception) or even without being sexually attracted to them at all. Maybe you just want company while jerking off.
The article's use of "heterosexual" describes a person. Those two definitions that you listed describe a feeling or behaviour.
And while there are people who will call others "gay" as soon as they do anything that could be interpreted as vaguely sexual with someone of the same sex, that's hardly a scientific definition. And no one will identify themselves as this kind of "gay".
That is not at all what I am saying. I cannot explain this to you better than I already have. Your diverging definition of heterosexuality describes a behaviour or a feeling. It does not apply to people being heterosexual. This is how definitions work. It describes a thing that this word can mean. If what you want it to mean does not fit into the definition, then that's not what it means.
Just another deeply flawed, likely invalid "study".
> We analyzed the Online College Social Life Survey dataset[1]
Is there any way to guarantee that the sexual choices and attitudes are independent of the likelihood of responding to this survey?
> dataset of over 24,000 undergraduate students
Let's establish a large yet completely irrelevant sample size.
> students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner (N = 383 men and 312 women).
So, our actual universe is at most 2.9% of the original self-selected group of individuals who chose to respond to this survey. If the OCSLS is representative, then this means at most 2.9% of all undergraduate students at U.S. colleges hooked up with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone.
> significant minority of these students (12% of men and 25% of women) who labelled their sexual orientation "heterosexual"
So, now we are down to 46 men and 78 women for a total of 0.52% of the original "over 24,000 undergraduate students". Again, if the original OCSLS is representative, this means at most 0.52% of all undergraduate students who identify as heterosexual had a hookup with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone.
> Latent class analysis revealed six distinctive "types" of heterosexually identified students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner.
So, now we are able to split those 124 students into six separate groups. 75 of them engaged in "private sexual experimentation". There were 15 women who were 'conforming to a "performative bisexuality" script of women' and 34 of them had "strong religious practices and/or beliefs".
So, 0.14% of undergraduate students in American colleges have strong religious beliefs that may preclude homosexuality and their last hookup was with a same-sex partner.
> including 7% who exhibited "internalized heterosexism."
That corresponds to about 9 people out of the 24,000 whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner who also exhibited internalized heterosexism.
I am making no statement about the behavior of anyone other than the "researchers" who like to mention one-large number, and use percentages the rest of the way. This effectively creates the impression of more practically significant results than warranted, especially since the survey and responses on sensitive questions like this are subject to selection bias in the first place.
And I point these out, because I know how these kinds of "academics" sell these kinds of "studies"[1]. Here is what the title and subtitle of the Marie Claire story on this research says:
> What’s a Label Anyway?
> New research shows same-sex hookups are pretty common.
In fact, the research used an existing data set which presumably is being mined to the Nth degree, and actually shows the opposite: Only 695 out of the 24,000 reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner. Only 124 of the 24,000 respondents reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner and identified as heterosexual.
The story in Marie Claire does not contain any overt lies, but is designed to create a certain impression so that, among other things, the author can get invited on TV shows etc.
Before commenting the instinctive "the title is a contradiction, this doesn't make sense", please read the damn abstract. It is short. If you are too lazy, here is the first line:
"Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior fascinate both researchers and the media. "
The whole point is about examining current categories, perhaps come up with more fine-grained categories, and finally, understanding human behaviour better.
I guess that a hint is probably in the abstract, "people are fascinated by this" (I am speculating) in a similar way to how they're fascinated by political stuff, that speaks directly to a currently important ideological point.
That fascination, in HN-clickstream behaviour form... it looks like a "flag" to HN's flag classification system, human or machine, because the last time people were so fascinated a nasty flame ware emerged.
I don’t think the content belongs here. I come here to get away from this kind of headline and the related discussion. I don’t care about anyones sexuality, but the homosexuals of the world and other people whose sexuality defines their sense if self won’t stfu about it.
I just scanned the comments here now to judge the reaction, to see if others were annoyed.
Now I’ll probably never answer a question like this again and just flag the thing and go away like everybody else did because I got downvotes for sharing my opinion.
Well downvoters, everybody who flagged this obviously agrees with me so suck on that.
Well, being attracted only to the opposite sex while having fun researching various possible ways of having pleasurable sex doesn't seem that strange to me. If you're open to experiments in bed and don't feel any stigma attached to same-sex intercourse that seems like a natural thing to try, regardless of whether you feel that you are hetero-, bi- or homosexual.
I feel like the basic premise of this study is far too complicated, because of traditionally far too static classifications.
People have never and will never be strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual.
They have a preference, but they are never going to find the other sex entirely unattractive, even if some people would want to do your head in for claiming otherwise.
Ultimately, a butt is a butt, a nipple is a nipple and a man boob isn't that different from a woman boob either.
Certain characteristics like fitness, charisma, nurturance, intelligence, loyalty etc. can be viewed as sexy, too, and are entirely decoupled from sex.
As such, when you identify as heterosexual, you have a preference for the opposite sex, which is high enough that you wouldn't consider both sexes generally equal like with bisexuality, but it does not mean that you cannot find anyone of the same sex sexy, too.
They could have lots of characteristics that are typically ascribed to the other sex. Or they just happen to have the right combination of characteristics, apart from the sex, that you find really attractive.
You would prefer for them to be the opposite sex, but you would also prefer for that opposite-sex-person that's into you to be a top model. At some point, you just stop holding your breath and bang what's available.
> People have never and will never be strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual.
Horseshit. I am attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. Trying to redefine sexuality in terms convenient for you, is frankly offensive. I'm sure if I tried to define your sexuality, you'd have an issue with it.
Well, I'm glad you always have your dowser ready to determine the sex of a butt, nipple or whatever else you might find sexy before you actually find it sexy.
And trust me, I have no problem pissing someone off who sees any need to be offended by someone insinuating that they might find people of the same sex sexy to any degree at all.
And no, I would not have a problem with you defining my sexuality. I'm frankly not sure what that's even supposed to mean. I find things sexy that I find sexy. There's nothing to define about it.
53 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 87.7 ms ] threadEvery time something comes up about dogs & wolves, polar bears and browns or some other case where classification of a taxa is grey, HN gets baited. Species are supposed to be speciated, and not supposed to breed outside of the species. When they ignore these rules, the whole concept of species gets muddled, and we get fascinated and sometimes get annoyed, resolved to create a more precise classification system. Genes are also supposed to flow from ancestors to descendants, and we have the same reaction when genes just float around and end up somewhere.
Anyway, heterosexual, bisexual, bisexual and such are fuzzy classifications. We've gone and built frameworks around them, moral frameworks and others. "Born this way" is an moral-political framework, for example. It was framed this way because it generally agrees with observed reality and because it slots into minority protection, a rights framework that is well established. An alternative framework could have been, "Homosexuality is OK because it's harmless," which works fine as a personal/moral framework, doesn't require classification of people but does not work as well as a political rights framework. What will happen to our Lady Gaga songs if our classification goes away goes away? Oh no.
Anyway, the reason all these categories are imperfect is because they're descriptions of human behaviour, and human behaviour is complicated. So yes, most people have certain patterns of sexual behaviour, desire, identity or whatnot. Some people are chaotic. These patterns are affected by things, like the complicated and shifting societal "rules" about what is good, bad, shameful or otherwise.
Now that a good portion of the political work has been done (socially sanctioning homosexuality), I think we can start to complicate the story. One bit of complexity is the difference between "sexual" behaviour types: dating, sex, relationships, cuddling in front of the telly, marriage, family.... Our current framework at it's least nuanced assumes sex is the linchpin to all these. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are gay for some of these behaviours and straight for others. I think they always have been.
There are streams and rivers of pattern, but every drop of water does what it does. The rules (when they are adhered to at all) govern streams, not water.
A lot of bad philosophy is like this, a pointless discussion about what words mean pretending to be a discussion about something. Even "real" philosophers do this. Theology is full of it, greek philosophy too. Modern philosophers (say, marx for example) try to solve this by creating their own, precisely defined words and concepts but they still often end up in the same stupid place.
I wonder if some level of fluency in a computer language helps with this.
Personally, I've never liked categorizing people/things in definite groups. Even as for personality types, I find the MBTI test (16 personalities) too narrow and primitive. Yet, I find MBTI at least useful enough to give me a general idea as to what type of a person I'm dealing with.
On the other hand, when it comes to the labelings and categorizations that you mentioned, I agree with you; I don't even find them useful to get a general idea about people.
If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it. Then yes you are vegetarian.
If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it, and then eat chicken after some point. Then you was a vegetarian but are no longer.
I didn't think it was that difficult.
Sure, I can say that I am, but I would be wrong and delusional.
Quoting the abstract again: "Latent class analysis revealed six distinctive "types" of heterosexually identified students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner.[...]"
Knowing why some men identify as heterosexual and refuse to identify as anything else -even though they have sex with men- can tell us about stigma and discrimination and can help us provide healthcare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
So girls who have sex with guys are not heterosexual either?
Secondly, and more to your point, one could be curious as to what the experience is like without having any specific sexual feelings for the same gender. Sexuality means you enjoy the act, just performing is not enough. See also: gay-for-pay pornstars, closeted gay people in hetero relationships, non-consensual sex. An example from the study would be "performative" homosexual relationships, where someone might kiss someone of the same gender not for their own pleasure, but to entice a third person of the opposite gender.
In your world, if you have sex with someone but it ends up not being very good, you view yourself as having been raped?
I'm sorry, but conflating what someone "likes" with what is "consensual" is deeply problematic. I'd ask that you not do that.
Please don't assume that all readers are male.
People do not have to be consistent. Three follow up study could try to determine how they identify themselves later and what kind of sex life these people have. The study is probably underpowered to detect any mental issue if any exists whatsoever.
Whether you're sexually attracted to men or women is entirely subjective and not mutually exclusive. You can have a preference, which is most likely what you identify as, but you won't find the other sex entirely sexually unattractive as a result of that.
You can have sex with someone without being sexually attracted to their sex in general (with them being the exception) or even without being sexually attracted to them at all. Maybe you just want company while jerking off.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/heterosexuality
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homosexuality
And while there are people who will call others "gay" as soon as they do anything that could be interpreted as vaguely sexual with someone of the same sex, that's hardly a scientific definition. And no one will identify themselves as this kind of "gay".
> We analyzed the Online College Social Life Survey dataset[1]
Is there any way to guarantee that the sexual choices and attitudes are independent of the likelihood of responding to this survey?
> dataset of over 24,000 undergraduate students
Let's establish a large yet completely irrelevant sample size.
> students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner (N = 383 men and 312 women).
So, our actual universe is at most 2.9% of the original self-selected group of individuals who chose to respond to this survey. If the OCSLS is representative, then this means at most 2.9% of all undergraduate students at U.S. colleges hooked up with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone.
> significant minority of these students (12% of men and 25% of women) who labelled their sexual orientation "heterosexual"
So, now we are down to 46 men and 78 women for a total of 0.52% of the original "over 24,000 undergraduate students". Again, if the original OCSLS is representative, this means at most 0.52% of all undergraduate students who identify as heterosexual had a hookup with a same-sex partner the last time they hooked up with someone.
> Latent class analysis revealed six distinctive "types" of heterosexually identified students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner.
So, now we are able to split those 124 students into six separate groups. 75 of them engaged in "private sexual experimentation". There were 15 women who were 'conforming to a "performative bisexuality" script of women' and 34 of them had "strong religious practices and/or beliefs".
So, 0.14% of undergraduate students in American colleges have strong religious beliefs that may preclude homosexuality and their last hookup was with a same-sex partner.
> including 7% who exhibited "internalized heterosexism."
That corresponds to about 9 people out of the 24,000 whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner who also exhibited internalized heterosexism.
I am making no statement about the behavior of anyone other than the "researchers" who like to mention one-large number, and use percentages the rest of the way. This effectively creates the impression of more practically significant results than warranted, especially since the survey and responses on sensitive questions like this are subject to selection bias in the first place.
[1]: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/england/ocsls/
> What’s a Label Anyway?
> New research shows same-sex hookups are pretty common.
In fact, the research used an existing data set which presumably is being mined to the Nth degree, and actually shows the opposite: Only 695 out of the 24,000 reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner. Only 124 of the 24,000 respondents reported that their last hookup was with a same-sex partner and identified as heterosexual.
The story in Marie Claire does not contain any overt lies, but is designed to create a certain impression so that, among other things, the author can get invited on TV shows etc.
[1]: https://twitter.com/AliciaMWalker1/status/986644676353691648
"Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior fascinate both researchers and the media. "
The whole point is about examining current categories, perhaps come up with more fine-grained categories, and finally, understanding human behaviour better.
That fascination, in HN-clickstream behaviour form... it looks like a "flag" to HN's flag classification system, human or machine, because the last time people were so fascinated a nasty flame ware emerged.
I just scanned the comments here now to judge the reaction, to see if others were annoyed.
Now I’ll probably never answer a question like this again and just flag the thing and go away like everybody else did because I got downvotes for sharing my opinion.
Well downvoters, everybody who flagged this obviously agrees with me so suck on that.
People have never and will never be strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual.
They have a preference, but they are never going to find the other sex entirely unattractive, even if some people would want to do your head in for claiming otherwise.
Ultimately, a butt is a butt, a nipple is a nipple and a man boob isn't that different from a woman boob either. Certain characteristics like fitness, charisma, nurturance, intelligence, loyalty etc. can be viewed as sexy, too, and are entirely decoupled from sex.
As such, when you identify as heterosexual, you have a preference for the opposite sex, which is high enough that you wouldn't consider both sexes generally equal like with bisexuality, but it does not mean that you cannot find anyone of the same sex sexy, too.
They could have lots of characteristics that are typically ascribed to the other sex. Or they just happen to have the right combination of characteristics, apart from the sex, that you find really attractive.
You would prefer for them to be the opposite sex, but you would also prefer for that opposite-sex-person that's into you to be a top model. At some point, you just stop holding your breath and bang what's available.
Horseshit. I am attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. Trying to redefine sexuality in terms convenient for you, is frankly offensive. I'm sure if I tried to define your sexuality, you'd have an issue with it.
And trust me, I have no problem pissing someone off who sees any need to be offended by someone insinuating that they might find people of the same sex sexy to any degree at all.
And no, I would not have a problem with you defining my sexuality. I'm frankly not sure what that's even supposed to mean. I find things sexy that I find sexy. There's nothing to define about it.