^^^My feelings on that is we as a society just need to accept that not everyone fits into one category and there's nothing wrong with that. Labeling people just perpetuates issues of "us" vs. "them" or "normal" vs. "other." Think of pretty much every single mental health label you can think of. If you label someone as "depressed" or "autistic" or whatever, yeah, it gives them a voice in society and makes them feel recognized, but at the expense of making them an "other." They will never fit into society being an other, no matter how recognized because they'll always be someone who isn't "normal."
Basically, I'm saying this is a systemic issue. I 100% agree with you that people can feel better about themselves if they have a label to identify with (only further proving my point that we as humans need to categorize ourselves), but my point is that people shouldn't have to embrace a label that was created by a biased society to figure out and accept who they are.
But the other point I was trying to make is that
socially constructed labels shouldn't exist, not biologically related labels. Biological is biological. Most biological "problems" are recognized around the world, but "psychological" and "social" "problems" vary from culture to culture. These are just my personal feelings, as we're all allowed to disagree. I base my feelings on theories I agree with, and they're just theories after all.
Quote:
I know all about his study.. I studied it in college, it still doesnt change the fact that a ton of people found his methods and his theories to be out there, mostly his method.
Not only do we have to look into how dated the information is. The only reason why he is still talked about now is because no one has done a study like his since then.
Not many people have touched subject really.
And sorry, but most of the information is based on responsiveness... which just means if you are a male and find a male attractive that gives you a point for homosexuality. and the fact is its just not that simple.
the study is not really taken to point in the anthropology field. However it did help open up the minds of a lot of people in sexuality.
|
I respectfully disagree. There have been many studies done to expand upon his research (most noteably by Dr. Fritz Klein in 2006), and I think you're missing the point of his scale (or at least my point). Giving you even one point towards homosexual tendencies is proving that you're not 100% straight. Maybe you're 99% straight, but not 100%. Hence, the continuum, hence the dissolve of strictly "male" vs. "female" gender categories, and hence the dissolve of "normal" and emergence of "common." And that is something almost all anthropologist agree upon (the concept of common and not normal) and have gotten from his study. It was a very important development in the field of sexual psychology and anthropology. I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.
And here I await emi's response
