Le 29/12/2013 22:54, Saul Luizaga nous fit lire :
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSGd6Ojuw0Q

Far too long. Far too focused on biology and forgetting the social
pressure (at 49:.. , can you be in love with two or more at the same
time ? ... no. Go tell poly-amorous. )(btw, romantic is a social
pressure, and her definition of love need to be less tainted by social
interaction; adultery as schizophrenic switching loves... nah!)

The problem with heterosexual (that's not straight) is that they project
their sex-drive to mate with anyone of the opposite sex on the
homosexual (the hormone surge of teens left deep scares): it does not
work like that.

Usually people splits people in four categories:
* heterosexual
* homosexual
* bisexual
* non-sexual (and you'd better put children here !)

Yes, there is four categories, but the reality is that they truncated
the criteria.
It should be:
* heterosexual I'd like to be in bed with.
* homosexual I'd like to be in bed with.
* bisexual I'd like to be in bed with.
* all the others, never to be in bed with, and whose sexual conduct I do
not care about.

Next step: there is no "men" or "women" categories. There is only
individuals. But it's so convenient to put label on group of people
instead of looking at the beings themselves.

Post a reply to this message