User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 61

  1. #41
    S Saiyan God Mace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx
    Socionics
    --- Te
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    This type thing, tell me you're meaning ['body']type in those instances...
    Huh, haven't you heard of this term? You know... types, as in you reject someone and say "you're not my type" (say). Could be the style, or personality type, or (probably) body type... or all, for that matter.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    My dear sweet uninformed child I have spent the last four years of my life reading these articles (please refer to earlier posts on this issue). I even offered to provide references twice. If you'd actually read the original study and not the one that the L.A. Times diluted down to utter garbage, you'd have seen that the study itself was based on years of others people's work on the very same issue (see references).
    This proves what...exactly? I don't think I've ever made any comment that contradicts that.

    Point please, point.

    Apparently, this is not a field of inquiry you've actually been paying much attention to.
    When you get to graduate school, you'll FINALLY learn what critical inquiry is all about. (although, I suspect a lot of it is through the lens of NOT understanding what entails scientific investigation and study, but, rather philosophy). See you on the other side, girlie!

    If you're too slow to recognize the Kiersey dimensions for what they are
    It's Kinsey. Kiersey is tempermants.

    --behavior--there's nothing I can do for you.
    I already said Kinsey asks about sexual history, experience (i.e., behaviours) BUT ALSO desires, which are, by the strictest definition, NOT behaviours.

    My whole counter re: this behaviour issue, has been to this original previous remark of yours, which is highly naive (the bolded):
    And, yes, btw the original studies were about homosexual behavior (homosexuality can only be studied by studying behavior). That's all you can look at. If you think there's any other way to assess homosexuality please take a moment to consider the meaning of the term.
    Btw, homosexuality, is the sexual attraction to, AND/OR sexual behaviours with, another of the same-sex. A guy can be a virgin and still identify himself as gay. Are you doing well in your classes?


    Other examples of your naivete:
    There were several men that had identified themselves as being involved in the "drag" community, for starters. Dressing in women's clothing and putting on full makeup with the intention of passing one's self off as a woman is one objective way to assess behavior as effeminate.
    Effeminate person = drag character

    Regardless, now, I'll ask. Prove it. That Kinsey [and the literature/field] ONLY evaluates homosexuality through ONLY behaviour.

    You clearly have a bug up your behind over this issue. No amount of reason is going to change that and you're getting boring. I'm done.
    You kept saying you were done a long time ago. My fascination now with continuing is understanding why a person would so fervently hold to their side, when they are wrong.....

  3. #43
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mace View Post
    Huh, haven't you heard of this term? You know... types, as in you reject someone and say "you're not my type" (say). Could be the style, or personality type, or (probably) body type... or all, for that matter.
    Why would selection based on type be "or" for a romantic, sexual partner? That's my question. What's your justification that people really ONLY just choose their partner on an OR type evaluation of type (versus, AND)? If a personality type is attractive to someone, what makes a person choose them NOT say, as a friend, but, romantic, sexual partner? I.e., why isn't their gender important?

  4. #44
    Senior Member Winds of Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    1%.
    "..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
    'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'

  5. #45
    Senior Member NewEra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    I
    Posts
    3,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avatar7 View Post
    1%.
    1% of what?

  6. #46

    Default

    The article doesn't surprise me and probably has a lot of validity to it. But I've never known what to make of this whole 'verbal skills' thing. I'm a straight male, and (according to others) very well spoken, especially for an introvert. And despite not being that competitive and more outwardly emotional than most guys (I cry easily, for one, but that could just be the F preference) I`m generally pretty masculine.

    I guess there's an exception to every rule, as Jung himself said...

  7. #47
    Senior Member bcubchgo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mace View Post
    I think gay males are simply confused people - probably living a life of guilt, because they fell for other males, and not realized that it was because it's not because they're attracted to 'males' but attracted to a 'person' of their type. You often find homosexual pairs sticking to the same partner (throughout). That person could easily have been a woman. In this way, I would think gay males could be attracted to females... of their particular type. Possibly then, it affects their brain chemicals that... in the long-run.
    You claim to be an NT and you don't realize how silly this post is?

  8. #48
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I'd imagine so. Even in the MBTI sense. Gay males tend more toward the Feeling preference in my experience.
    I totally disagree with that and really the majority of gay guys I know are'nt at all feminine.
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  9. #49
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Let's all ... .. revive threads from over a year ago and then hold people accountable for outdated articles and perceptions .. ?

    In any case, I'd still believe what I said to be true if MBTI actually had much merit. When facebook MBTI tests were all the rage, my dude gay friends nearly (but not universally) tested as Feelers. And that's pretty much the only validity that I have--anecdotal.

    Quote Originally Posted by bcubchgo View Post
    You claim to be an NT and you don't realize how silly this post is?
    Do go on. Please explain what you mean here

  10. #50
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Someday, someday.

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Men's Sexism and Women's Bodies
    By EJCC in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 08:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO