Hardly surprising that once you stop pressuring people to pick a team, lots more people stop picking teams. The reality is, 100% heterosexual is probably no more common than 100% homosexual.
There is another British poll I like; more believe in extraterrestrials on earth, than in God.
•52 percent believe UFO evidence has been covered up because widespread knowledge of their existence would threaten government stability. •44 percent believe in God.
I wish I could lay that one at the feet of Public Policy Polling. Alas, it was a firm called Opinion Matters:
I was sure it was something like this. That 2-3% "born that way" thing always seemed off. It's a fashionable bad habit. Unfortunately it's a bad habit that can reduce the population, exterminate families, and selectively remove the brightest from the breeding pool.
Prog assault on heteronormativity is paying dividends. Goes to show, AA, that progress is making progress.
Of course, we can't have too many people switching teams or making new teams or claiming benefits from the opposing team. How are we going to keep the younger Caits out of the Olympics?
By the way, we need a sexual diversity index for American institutions, so that we can target the holdouts. Minor League Baseball needs to show improvement, or it may be time for a little show trial there.
The British "public" school boys had a lot of exposure to homosexuality. I suspect it has always been more acceptable in Britain, especially among the upper classes. In Classical Greece, most men who had homosexual experiences in young adulthood married and had families later.
I seem to recall that a solid majority of the British believe that dogs have ESP. This habit of analysing snapshots of the public consciousness seems to focus on airy nonsense quite a bit. It's no wonder if young people might get fuzzy readings off their sexual compass. How much of this is empty virtue signaling?
Blogger CarlF said... But, but, but ... If sexuality is inborn, as is sometime argued when convenient, the percentages should not change by generation.
It's impossible to measure sexuality in that sense. What is being measured, what changes, is self identification and expression.
Ask these same people if they've ever had (or would ever have) a sexual/romantic encounter with a member of the same sex and then see what the numbers are. I imagine they'd be quite a bit different.
Much like the modern habit of claiming some sort of mental disorder, claiming to be bisexual is in vogue.
"The full scale of the hidden world of sexual assault, family abuse and stalking is revealed in official figures that show that nearly 5 million women or 30% of the adult female population have experienced some form of domestic abuse since age 16." That's another UK statistic that is thrown around over there as if it were Gospel truth. Pft.
Yes it does. Anyone who's lived long enough has seen media lead young people by the nose a hundred different ways. Utterly predictable. Give me the money and I'll save you the trouble of taking the poll.
When Titus said he didn't do anal, I guess he meant he wasn't a catcher. Otherwise how would he know about Republicans wanting to be bottoms--and being wild about it?
The dickless 46% is the future of Labour. The Tories are only slightly less dickless than the Comrades, so they'll struggle for a share of the 46%. The small virile/womanly majority will eventually propel UKIP to power.
To Hynes wrote: Have you ever had a sexual experience with a member of the same sex? 2% said "I don't know". that's probably because there is now confusion as to what gender people actually are. How can you be gay or straight if boys are the same as girls despite being biologically male. Suddenly sexual preference becomes meaningless.
So people are faking gay or falsely thinking they are gay?
Sort of how people say they a long lost decendant that is Native or African American, but are not.
You don't have to 100% gay or 50%, just 5%-10% of yourself identifying as gay. Maybe on weekends and got so drunk you made out with someone of the same sex.
Isn't this insulting to those who are actually gay and have to come to terms living as a gay individual?
B-but they told us sexual orientation is something you're born with, yet now it's presented as something far more fluid, so fluid as to be easily influenced by a little social-political nudging?
But, that was yesterday's dogma (Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia).
Yet the root biological reality remains: whatever happens, the future will belong to those who show up for it.
It may well be that by giving the gay the freedom to be gay, it will be evolution's version of "let a thousand flowers bloom." And in a few generations... gone.
So it seems about half of Britain's young people have some identity confusion issues. Or at least would if who they're attracted to had anything at all to do with who they are as people. The biggest lie of recent times is the idea that someone's sexual attractions are core to identity.
We've made up a category for gender, animals, and corpses among others, but a category could be made based on attraction to any physical characteristic, i.e. blondesexual, dwarfsexual, or afrosexual. But they're only "likes", and no more core to identity than any other "like." Throwing everything into sexual identity may seem great between the ages of 13 and 30, but as people age and usually become both less attractive and have declining libido, it can't be a great feeling as the thing that has defined their life since their teens fades (these stereotypes have been around, usually in the form of the drop-dead gorgeous woman who finds men are no longer taking interest, or the jocular guy who used to have women falling over him but is now aged, flabby, and ignored by the ladies).
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
48 comments:
Trigger Warning Myth
Coddled Students
Sexual Identity
With the problem of production resolved in first world countries we move on to the really urgent issues.
Academic tripe...
The British are fags anyway. La maladie britannique, as the French call it.
Hardly surprising that once you stop pressuring people to pick a team, lots more people stop picking teams. The reality is, 100% heterosexual is probably no more common than 100% homosexual.
The Brits just need orthodontists. Then maybe they can feel self esteem enough to become monogamous again.
And just think, every single one of the miscreants interviewed was born that way!
That's what we were told to help along the SSM movement, right?
You're sayin' it's a little more complex than that? Noooooooooooooo, do tell.
There is another British poll I like; more believe in extraterrestrials on earth, than in God.
•52 percent believe UFO evidence has been covered up because widespread knowledge of their existence would threaten government stability.
•44 percent believe in God.
I wish I could lay that one at the feet of Public Policy Polling. Alas, it was a firm called Opinion Matters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/alien-believers-outnumber-god_n_1968259.html
I was sure it was something like this. That 2-3% "born that way" thing always seemed off.
It's a fashionable bad habit.
Unfortunately it's a bad habit that can reduce the population, exterminate families, and selectively remove the brightest from the breeding pool.
Facebook has 51 gender options. I'm thinking they're going to need a few more.
Propaganda works.
Prog assault on heteronormativity is paying dividends. Goes to show, AA, that progress is making progress.
Of course, we can't have too many people switching teams or making new teams or claiming benefits from the opposing team. How are we going to keep the younger Caits out of the Olympics?
By the way, we need a sexual diversity index for American institutions, so that we can target the holdouts. Minor League Baseball needs to show improvement, or it may be time for a little show trial there.
But, but, but ... If sexuality is inborn, as is sometime argued when convenient, the percentages should not change by generation.
And even higher when polling was conducted on Republican males.
Typical lefty double talk. Shove homos forward as virtuous by reason of victim status and yet call their opponents queer. I see it a lot.
The British "public" school boys had a lot of exposure to homosexuality. I suspect it has always been more acceptable in Britain, especially among the upper classes. In Classical Greece, most men who had homosexual experiences in young adulthood married and had families later.
I seem to recall that a solid majority of the British believe that dogs have ESP. This habit of analysing snapshots of the public consciousness seems to focus on airy nonsense quite a bit. It's no wonder if young people might get fuzzy readings off their sexual compass. How much of this is empty virtue signaling?
Every British Boy now is a little bit Ziggy Stardust.
Gene Genies, DNA-wise.
I am Laslo.
RhythmicBallSucker is what the Left is all about.
Hetero, like Christianity, seems difficult to the dupes. Dupes, particularly young dupes, aren't into difficult.
I wonder what percent of those are women.
What's the poll going to show if you ask homos how many of them are 100% homo?
Can we beat up and run out of polite society any homo who doesn't claim to be 100% homo?
Some of the best sex I have had has been with repressed fag republicans.
Similar to sex I have had with muzzies.
They fucking go crazy when doing it and they are all bottoms.
70's porn stach with fag bowtie has definitely bottomed....when he was younger and fuckable.
tits.
Blogger CarlF said...
But, but, but ... If sexuality is inborn, as is sometime argued when convenient, the percentages should not change by generation.
It's impossible to measure sexuality in that sense. What is being measured, what changes, is self identification and expression.
I put it down to tight genes.
I have had a wonderful weekend and everything was super! My chakras are in alignment and then I cum here and see Michael K's pic.
Have any of you taken a good look at that fucked up pic?
The pic is so disturbing but I can't look away.
The hair, clothes, stach, are just so hideous.
Michael K is like some relic of the 1950's.
He is like totally invisible in today's world yet I want to look to see America's past.
Thank you, MIchael K, for your pic!
tits.
Oh ffs, not this Kinsey bullshit again.
Ask these same people if they've ever had (or would ever have) a sexual/romantic encounter with a member of the same sex and then see what the numbers are. I imagine they'd be quite a bit different.
Much like the modern habit of claiming some sort of mental disorder, claiming to be bisexual is in vogue.
"Michael K is like some relic of the 1950's."
Actually, the 1940s.
And I don't brag about it.
One of my students (gay so you'd love him) gave me a tie dyed bow tie about ten years ago.
"The full scale of the hidden world of sexual assault, family abuse and stalking is revealed in official figures that show that nearly 5 million women or 30% of the adult female population have experienced some form of domestic abuse since age 16." That's another UK statistic that is thrown around over there as if it were Gospel truth. Pft.
I changed my profile photo for you titus.
Save the complements. I am too modest.
"Propaganda works."
Yes it does. Anyone who's lived long enough has seen media lead young people by the nose a hundred different ways. Utterly predictable. Give me the money and I'll save you the trouble of taking the poll.
I don't see this as alarming.
Young adulthood is extended, and many adults do not see 18 -24 year olds as fully developed to ID themselves gay or straight.
I really dislike the idea of young teens coming out, but of you really are gay you would know by 18.
Calling yourself fluid is just trendy.
50 percent could not define heterosexual.
Yeah, no kidding. Everyone's always known that about the UK, it's just being officially acknowledged.
When Titus said he didn't do anal, I guess he meant he wasn't a catcher. Otherwise how would he know about Republicans wanting to be bottoms--and being wild about it?
Titus is a phony.
Have you ever had a sexual experience with a member of the same sex? 2% said "I don't know".
I like how Titus signed his last post "tits". I presume he didn't mean it.
The dickless 46% is the future of Labour. The Tories are only slightly less dickless than the Comrades, so they'll struggle for a share of the 46%. The small virile/womanly majority will eventually propel UKIP to power.
Ah, the joy of Kinsey quackery combined with a poll. What could go wrong?
Hey! I came here for sex. I was told there would be no math.
To Hynes wrote:
Have you ever had a sexual experience with a member of the same sex? 2% said "I don't know".
that's probably because there is now confusion as to what gender people actually are. How can you be gay or straight if boys are the same as girls despite being biologically male. Suddenly sexual preference becomes meaningless.
So people are faking gay or falsely thinking they are gay?
Sort of how people say they a long lost decendant that is Native or African American, but are not.
You don't have to 100% gay or 50%, just 5%-10% of yourself identifying as gay. Maybe on weekends and got so drunk you made out with someone of the same sex.
Isn't this insulting to those who are actually gay and have to come to terms living as a gay individual?
I admit I don't get what the hate is about in this thread.
Unfortunately it's a bad habit that can reduce the population, exterminate families, and selectively remove the brightest from the breeding pool.
I wouldn't say it removed the brightest. At all.
The only plus is that the trendy "I'm not 100% heterosexual" crowd will, God willing, not reproduce and we can be rid of them over time.
B-but they told us sexual orientation is something you're born with, yet now it's presented as something far more fluid, so fluid as to be easily influenced by a little social-political nudging?
But, that was yesterday's dogma (Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia).
Yet the root biological reality remains: whatever happens, the future will belong to those who show up for it.
It may well be that by giving the gay the freedom to be gay, it will be evolution's version of "let a thousand flowers bloom." And in a few generations... gone.
"Even men and women are changing. One thousand years from now, there'll be
no guys and no girls, just wankers."
Maybe sooner than that.
Pro-choice "religious" (amoral, really) doctrine takes a progressive toll on human viability.
So it seems about half of Britain's young people have some identity confusion issues. Or at least would if who they're attracted to had anything at all to do with who they are as people. The biggest lie of recent times is the idea that someone's sexual attractions are core to identity.
We've made up a category for gender, animals, and corpses among others, but a category could be made based on attraction to any physical characteristic, i.e. blondesexual, dwarfsexual, or afrosexual. But they're only "likes", and no more core to identity than any other "like." Throwing everything into sexual identity may seem great between the ages of 13 and 30, but as people age and usually become both less attractive and have declining libido, it can't be a great feeling as the thing that has defined their life since their teens fades (these stereotypes have been around, usually in the form of the drop-dead gorgeous woman who finds men are no longer taking interest, or the jocular guy who used to have women falling over him but is now aged, flabby, and ignored by the ladies).
Post a Comment