51 responses

  1. Shofixti
    April 21, 2011

    Hi Dan,

    Welcome and thanks for sharing, I am very edified by your openness. I hope that you will stick around.

    The first social norm that you should be aware of is the frenzy of coherence, perhaps you can already detect this theme? It is objectively rational that everything should fit snuggly into a category, and we do not question the motivation or urgency behind categorisation – because there is none.

    The second is that it is normative to talk about sexual identity as something that cannot explain sexual behaviour and conversely, evidence of sexual behaviour cannot be used as an indicator of sexual identity. That appears to be the logic applied to your history.

    Pursuant to points one and two: If some aspect of your capacity for sexual attraction was mutable, that would only create dangerous incoherence. Any mutability suggests that Religiously Mediated Change might secretly be gaining credibility (even when it isn’t).

    It could be then that bisexuality becomes a catch-all category for anyone who cannot produce normative homosexuality to a satisfactory standard.

    The third, is that while EA has “virtually” the entire life sciences behind him, we virtually have to take his word for it. EA is loathe to reference an idea, but I do accept that it may be that those journals are in German.

    They are a good bunch. My personal interests are about understanding people who are different to me, Queer theory, and how our use of identity regulates pleasure and knowledge and conformity.

  2. Load More Comments…

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop