Ice cream sex from “Bill Nye Saves the World”

No comment needed, except this may be from the same show that featured “My vagina has its own voice“. You can judge whether it’s appropriate for the show.

p.s. I don’t really understand what this is about; maybe I’m dim. But i’m pretty sure it doesn’t have much to do with science.

56 Comments

  1. Anshul
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    I don’t see the big deal with this?

    • chaim
      Posted April 25, 2017 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      The problem is that the vanilla ice cream (heterosexuals) is not accepted for who he is. He has to “mix” with others.

      It’s one thing to say we should accept all sexualities. It’s another to say that something is wrong with being heterosexual (aka normal).

      • zugzwanged
        Posted April 25, 2017 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

        The vanilla ice cream feels that he is the ‘most natural of the ice creams’. Of course, the vanilla ice cream stands for the cisgender male gynephile. Yet the claim that cisgender male gynephiles and female androphiles are the ‘most natural’ forms of sexuality is not an obviously irrational one, although it is clearly contentious. It is certainly not a fact that depends purely upon some irrational and fearful religious conviction. That is just insulting to the billions of people who hold this position.

        The belief that such identities are the ‘most natural’—note, not even the only natural—forms of sexuality is, at least prima facie, a very well founded one. Such sexualities are ordered towards reproduction in ways and to degrees that other sexualities are not. Reproduction is ultimately the natural biological reality that our sexuality serves. Even if we deny that this natural biological reality should be the prison of our sexuality, it would seem that sexualities that are congruent with it are the ‘most natural’. This is obviously not a claim that will make you popular in the current environment, but it certainly seems to be true.

        It seems to me that Nye’s show is merely inverting the appeal to nature fallacy. The appeal to nature fallacy states that something is good because it is natural. The inverse fallacy insists that, because something is deemed by society to be good, it must be regarded as every bit as natural as anything else. That’s bullshit, of course, as is most of the rest of the ‘science’ that the SJWs’ herd of sacred cattle tends to produce.

        Now, Nye’s show could have offered an argument against the prima facie case I mentioned. However, in not registering its true logic and engaging with it, choosing rather to caricature and ridicule it, he embarrassed himself and insulted the intelligence of his viewers.

        • Sebastian
          Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:08 am | Permalink

          SUB on insulting the intelligence of his viewers…

        • Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

          It seems to me that Nye’s show is merely inverting the appeal to nature fallacy…. The inverse fallacy insists that, because something is deemed by society to be good, it must be regarded as every bit as natural as anything else.

          a.k.a., the Moralistic Fallacy. (An SJW favorite.)

    • Posted April 28, 2017 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      The message of this grating animation was crystal clear: deep down, every person with a ‘vanilla’ taste in sex secretly wants to engage in pansexual orgy.

      Who’s engaging in the conversion therapy now?

  2. Randy schenck
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Sesame Street maybe, but not science.

  3. Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Watched first episode of this show on Netflix and hated it. I kind of like Bill Nye but he’s too pretentious.

  4. Geoff Toscano
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    I thought that was quite a neat way of tackling the ‘do you choose to be gay’ debate.

  5. Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    This one was not about acceptance of science, but was about acceptance of sexual orientation. It was not bad, imo.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted April 25, 2017 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, that one was quite good, and at least it was funny. Not entirely sure what it’s got to do with science, and Bill Nye himself ruins it a bit. But, yes, it was otherwise well done.

    • Jonathan Wallace
      Posted April 26, 2017 at 1:47 am | Permalink

      I agree.

  6. Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps I am a millennial at heart (supposedly that who is his show is trying to reach) as I thought it was wonderful. Lick, lick, lick. 🙂 As for Nye himself, he is goofy enough for the young’uns not to feel threatened by someone from an older generation.

  7. Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Again, the creepy old dude is displaying inappropriate enthusiasm for childhood sexuality.

    I mean, is not the very caricature of a predator the guy who lures kids into the back of the ice cream truck? And if there was anything in that cartoon targeted to adolescents and older, I completely missed it….

    I should add: I’m firmly in favor of childhood sex education, and it’s clear that our society has gone way overboard in regards to taboos turned into laws regarding underaged people and sex. It’s horrific to think of teens “sexting” each other and subsequently having to register as child pornographers, just for starters.

    But…this…this cannot be healthy.

    b&

    • BobTerrace
      Posted April 25, 2017 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      Well said, Ben.

      • Craw
        Posted April 25, 2017 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

        Indeed.

    • Posted April 25, 2017 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

      Maybe I missed it some context, but I did not see it directed at children younger than teenagers.

      • Tom
        Posted April 25, 2017 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        I don’t see how this has anything to do with children either.

        • Posted April 25, 2017 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

          Me neither. I think people need to wind back the ‘creepy old dude with inappropriate enthusiasm for childhood sexuality’ shit. I think the implication of paedophilia is crossing the line.

        • Posted April 26, 2017 at 9:23 am | Permalink

          It’s not a children’s show – it’s aimed at adults.

      • Posted April 25, 2017 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

        Teenagers are into dancing animated ice cream cones playing out overly simplified stereotypes of behavior for moral education?

        I’m far from a childhood development expert, but my understanding is that teenagers are going to be much more interested in comic book types of animations. This reminds me much more of the sophistication of a Spongebob, or a crude version of Sesame Street.

        But, still. Are you not creeped out, even a little bit, by Nye getting all hyper encouraging teenagers (if that really is the target audience) to participate in orgies?

        I mean, you do realize that that’s exactly what the “jump in the bowl” metaphor unapologetically is?

        There’re ways to teach human sexuality to children of all ages, and to do so in ways that validate all consensual forms of expression without indulging in the mega-creepy vibe this thing has going on. It’s just that this is pure mega-creepy “Hey, kids, jump in the sex bowl with my vanilla-coated nuts!”

        Cheers,

        b&

        >

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted April 25, 2017 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

          I’ve always found Nye a little creepy. He just has that vibe to me.

          • JonLynnHarvey
            Posted April 25, 2017 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

            In some photoes of him on line, his expression reminds me a tad of Anthony Perkins (not the right-wing guy with Family Research Council but the actor who played Norman Bates). But the real Anthony Perkins was genuinely good human being, who dealt well with his inner demons.

            That said, this video just does not strike me as age appropriate, and Nye is already well-known to a younger set of viewers.

        • darrelle
          Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:55 am | Permalink

          Hey now! Sponge Bob is sophisticated!

  8. Posted April 25, 2017 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    I think this is damaging to the image and understanding of science. He should have sent these ideas through some kind of peer review.

    • Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

      What, Phil Plait doesn’t count?

    • Anna
      Posted April 28, 2017 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      Bill Nye himself is damaging to the image and understanding of science!
      Bill Nye isn’t a scientist…he just plays one on tv.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Two posts on BNStW is a schadenfreude surfeit.

  10. FuzzyPuffin
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    They are making fun of gay conversion therapy people. It’s right in the sign: “Ice Cream Conversion Therapy.” There were a lot of dumb things on the show, but this was an odd one to highlight.

  11. Posted April 25, 2017 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    The ending was basically Sausage Party. 😉

  12. S.K.Graham
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Gotta say I don’t see the objection to this. It’s maybe trying to hard, and not as funny (or cool) as it wants to be, but the message is fairly clear: “conversion therapy” is unscientific. Science has pretty much settled the questions of whether people are born with their sexual preferences.

    • chaim
      Posted April 25, 2017 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

      “Born with it” can encompass many things genetic causes, unintended genetic causes (genetic load), genetic causes as a side effect of something else (like sickle cell), in-utero epigenetic modifications, and response to pathogens (like narcolepsy).

      Heritability of homosexuality is a pathetic 20% for men.

      http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf

      For reference, heritability of homophobia is 54%

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037293/pdf/nihms-582647.pdf

      We don’t know why people are homosexual. No model fits perfectly. Jumping to conclusions doesn’t help either.

    • Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

      It’s incontrovertible that sexual preference is largely fixed by the onset of puberty. What happened to get it that way, from conception on, is not resolved.

      I’m still waiting for the explanation of how everyone in ancient Sparta was born gay.

    • somer
      Posted April 26, 2017 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

      There seems to be pretty good evidence that many homosexuals are genetically inclined to homosexuality – also that the genetic difference can either be caused by conditions in the womb creating, or inherited directly..

  13. Posted April 25, 2017 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    I’d tag it social commentary about sex using a cartoon as well as using reason rather than religion for justification. There are many flavors to sexuality (an empirical claim).

    As for his animated personality, well, he has always been like that. It’s his brand, if not his true character. Some are implying he should not behave as such because he is older now. Maybe. Look at Paul McCartney though. He is as goofy as ever on stage, in interviews and now into his seventies.

    Mike

  14. jrhs
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Who watches the show?

    I want to save the world too.
    Repeat after me:
    “TV is not for kids.”
    “Math is sexy.”

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted April 25, 2017 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

      Math is hard – Barbie.

      • Jeff Chamberlain
        Posted April 25, 2017 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

        I think the actual Barbie saying is “Math class is tough” (he says pedantically, if one can be pedantic about Barbie).

  15. zugzwanged
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    None of the show had to do with science.

    If you want to learn about the science of sexuality, you don’t go to cultural anthropologists, comedians, and gender theorists. If you want to learn about the science of sexuality, you will have better ways of going about it than researching androgyny in K-Pop. If you want to learn about the science of sexuality, having lots of preachy segments on prevailing SJW rthodoxies isn’t the way to do it either.

    The most telling fact in all of the show? Reproduction was never once mentioned.

    It seems to me that, if you want to understand sexuality, reproduction—and the way evolution serves and is driven by reproduction—would seem to be one of the first places you would go.

    The problem is that reproduction is the very last fact such a SJW-friendly show would want to mention. Why? Because the fact of reproduction is the great spanner in the works of the whole SJW vision of sexuality. The fact of reproduction reveals that not all sexualities and identities are ambivalent or equivalent in significance on the biological level. Men are overwhelmingly gynephiles who are at home in their own bodies and who have predictable forms of gender expression for a reason, and that reason is a biological one. Human beings have sex for a reason and that reason is a biological one. Indeed, sexuality, gender expression and identity, sex, and gender all exist for reason and that reason is a biological one. Certain forms of sex have a significance that other forms of sex don’t have for a reason and, yes, that reason is also a biological one.

    Reproduction, arguably the most significant human biological reality of all, doesn’t settle the questions of how society should treat people whose identities, orientations, and bodies exist in degrees of tension with it. However, it does undermine the SJW project of reducing differences in these areas to the level of mere ambivalent diversity. It is also the fact in terms of which any scientist worth their salt will understand the various phenomena of the range of sexuality.

    • BJ
      Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:47 am | Permalink

      I mean, like, reproduction is soooo heteronormative, you know? Ugh.

      (I’m glad to see that spellcheck doesn’t recognize the word “heteronormative,” although i’ve noticed it also doesn’t recognize a lot of other real words)

    • Ken Elliott
      Posted April 26, 2017 at 8:27 am | Permalink

      So, in a nutshell this silly show is counter-preaching against those close-minded stances of the right, instead of simply walking through topics of true science in an honest, respectful, and hopefully understandable manner? That’s kind of how I see it, but I haven’t watched very much of the show. I am repulsed by Nye as well, due mainly to his arrogant demeanor.

      • zugzwanged
        Posted April 26, 2017 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        That’s pretty much it. Science is not helped by being commandeered as a platform for ideologies of the left or right. The actual science of sex and sexuality presents problems and challenges for both sides.

        The thing that is most offensive about the episode is that Nye is giving one of the virulent and powerful anti-scientific movements of our day the patina of unassailable scientific respectability. However, the actual science of sex and sexuality profoundly unsettles much of the progressive ideology of feminism, transgenderism, and queer theory as the movements to advance the interests of women and LGBT people in society and overcome marginalization and oppression have regrettably been strongly drawn to deeply anti-scientific claims.

        And most people with sense know that the ‘science’ of social justice ideology is as bullshit as much ‘creation science’. They are polite and also fear their social ostracization or the loss of their employment, so they don’t always say it how they see it. However, when someone insists that there isn’t such a thing as biological sex they know they are dealing with a liar, even though that opinion may be increasingly protected by institutions and laws. Likewise, when the last person to comment in the panel discussion before the ice cream segment on Nye’s show remarked that he didn’t know whether or not his son was a ‘boy’, most sensible viewers will know that they are dealing with someone whose brain has been addled by politically correct ideology.

        The fact of reproduction and the facts that derive from and are oriented towards it are fundamentally contrary to notions of a ‘spectrum’ and the natural ambivalence of the sexes, gender, sexuality, forms of sexual relation, etc. What we are seeing Nye and others engaging in is the effacing of unwelcome scientific knowledge in order to bolster social orthodoxies and play along with the ideology.

        The alternative would be an honest and challenging look at the science of sex and sexuality that unflinchingly presents the facts and doesn’t spare the feelings of either side. Such a study would almost certainly be far more unsettling for the progressive ideologies of sexuality than for the conservative counterparts. The conservatives recognize the central and orienting truth at the heart, but fail adequately to recognize the exceptions. The progressives only really see the exceptions and miss the central ordering reality.

        The underlying issue here is whether we have the courage to stand up to the lies of ideologies that are swiftly being rendered official social orthodoxy, which is what we are dealing with here. We may well believe that the liars and the ideology they advance are well intentioned and that they are acting for some greater good. However, we are seeing the formation of a new controlling ideology, an ideology that replaces the pursuit of truth with control and fear. Václav Havel’s remarks on the subject of ideology are profoundly relevant. Do we have the courage to live as people of the truth, if it means that we will be ostracized from polite society for hateful beliefs? Or will we cravenly hold our tongues or parrot things that we know to be lies, simply because it allows us to get by? Will scientists be known for its integrity in the decades to come, even if this means being left out in the cold, or will we all succumb to a new Lysenkoism?

    • Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

      Everything zugzwanged said.

      Gender theorists treat humans in a vacuum, as if we’d never descended from a long line of ancestors, each of whom – like us — were of binary sexually-reproducing species. Gender roles and expressions are obviously derived from reproductive behaviors: they did not arise arbitrarily.

      The level of insanity is at times stupefying. A couple of years back, I had a running, blog vs. blog debate with someone who denied even that there were distinct male & female gametes — he insisted that some people produced “slightly larger” gametes, others “slightly smaller”.

    • somer
      Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

      +1

  16. somer
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    This is barely watchable virtue signalling and nothing to do with science whatsoever

    • Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      + 1. Plus, it is creepy and incredibly stupid.

  17. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted April 25, 2017 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    We readers have been treated to these two segments “My vagina has its own voice“ and “Ice Cream Sexuality” with vanilla as the metaphor of heteronormativity.

    Ironically, “Vanilla” is actually Latin for “vagina” in addition to meaning “sheath of an ear of grain, hull of a plant” and sheath for keeping a sword.

    • Richard Bond
      Posted April 26, 2017 at 5:28 am | Permalink

      Thanks for that information about the meaning of “vanilla”. Vanilla pods on the vine do indeed resemble a small sheath for a sword.

      • somer
        Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        so the “Vanilla” male is hermaprodite hip after all.

  18. Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Different flavors=different colours, ethnicities, genders and sexual orientations.

    Vanilla believes the great cone in the sky is vanilla so all the other flavors need to be vanilla too. Once he gets comfortable with diversity, he’s ok with their identity.
    It’s pretty straightforward, really.

    • BJ
      Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      But how is it science?

    • Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

      He does not just get comfortable with diversity, he is engaging in an orgy.

  19. nicky
    Posted April 26, 2017 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    I dunno, I always loved lemon ice cream, but here I’m forced into the vanilla box. (yes I love the smell of real vanilla).
    I think I’m going to be offended here. Yes! I am!

  20. Posted April 26, 2017 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Ok, the new Bill Nye show is a variety show with a base in science. It’s aimed at adults and it’s meant to be a nice fluffy way of making people think about various topics in science.

    I’ve always considered Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson to be “gateway scientists”…they introduce people to science and make them want to learn more. I can count myself among those people. I never had any interest in science growing up and while I’m too old for Bill Nye’s original show, I took notice of him and NdT as an adult. They lured me in and now I wish that they had captured my attention at an earlier age as I now love reading and learning everything that I can about science, 🙂

    • Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:03 am | Permalink

      Gateway scientists. Great description.

      Mike

    • Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

      More like: gateway drug to hard-core, po-mo, anti-science addiction.


%d bloggers like this: