A Generalization

[Male Bonding etc]

Let me make a generalization from what I have observed:

Those who insist on labeling themselves and others so that they can loudly claim NOT to be of certain labels tend to be insecure in one or more areas of their lives, most commonly relating to the area where they insist labels are important. Such individuals often believe or seek to maintain that their label is superior to the other labels or at least some of them.

While such labels may be all fine and good as long as they are part of a personal search for identity and happiness, they cause all kinds of problems when pushed at or onto others.

Let me give an absurd example. I love chocolate. I am just shy of being labeled a "chocoholic" and make a big point of saying that I am NOT one. They are a little too out there. So, I'm better than them. I may worry that those who aren't similarly nearly addicted are actually healthier in their habits than I am, but I'll quote all kinds of literature to point out how some chocolate is good for you, and ... anyway, hopefully you get the point.

 

[Bbucko]

Generalizations are generally wrong, but there is usually some truth in stereotypes, even if they are exaggerated.

I have the feeling this has to do with the virility of bisexual men, or men who consider themselves to be heteroflexible. Why not just say what you mean without allusions to chocolate?

 

[Principessa]

Generalizations are generally wrong, but there is usually some truth in stereotypes, even if they are exaggerated. Ahhh, the where there is smoke there is fire theory...

I have the feeling this has to do with the virility of bisexual men, or men who consider themselves to be heteroflexible. Why not just say what you mean without allusions to chocolate?

I think he was trying to avoid yet another thread on biphobic/homophobic men.

You bring up an interesting point though. It never occurred to me that bisexual men were less virile. Is this a commonly held belief or stereotype? It seems to me that just the opposite would be true. After all bi-sexual men don't go limp in the presence of another nude man as many straight men would.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

njqt, I was wondering if you have ever been shown how to use the 'quote' function.
I find your way of posting a bit confusing at times.
Just sayin'.

 

[q'thulu]

Those who insist on labeling themselves and others so that they can loudly claim NOT to be of certain labels tend to be insecure in one or more areas of their lives, most commonly relating to the area where they insist labels are important. Such individuals often believe or seek to maintain that their label is superior to the other labels or at least some of them.

While such labels may be all fine and good as long as they are part of a personal search for identity and happiness, they cause all kinds of problems when pushed at or onto others.

Let me give an absurd example. I love chocolate. I am just shy of being labeled a "chocoholic" and make a big point of saying that I am NOT one. They are a little too out there. So, I'm better than them. I may worry that those who aren't similarly nearly addicted are actually healthier in their habits than I am, but I'll quote all kinds of literature to point out how some chocolate is good for you, and ... anyway, hopefully you get the point.

Why don't you shut your cracker ass up?

La Raza FTW, nigga.

Pinche gringo FTL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111oneoneoneeleven

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Generalizations are generally wrong, but there is usually some truth in stereotypes, even if they are exaggerated.

I have the feeling this has to do with the virility of bisexual men, or men who consider themselves to be heteroflexible. Why not just say what you mean without allusions to chocolate?

Actually, no, it was not about the virility of bisexual men, but what an interesting idea!

What I meant was that there are threads on here about race, sexual orientation, genital size (no surprise of course), and any number of other things that people are either born with or choose to identify with in their lives. Time after time, one person thinks a label helps clarify something while another takes issue with the parameters of the label and still another maintains such labels are all bogus.

Somewhere in the discussion there will be someone who promotes a clear black and white definition of who fits a label, and that person or another will strongly maintain that he or she IS or is NOT of a certain label. My point was that such adamant embracing or rejection usually means someone has unresolved issues... probably an unhealthy well of anger or fear or guilt... a bit of the "methinks she [or more often he] doth protest too much."

I posted this in this category because I think many cases of discrimination and many confusions about relationships come back to these kinds of insecurities or unresolved issues.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Being labelled a chocoholic is the one label I'm comfortable with None of us can totally escape labelling, even man or woman is a label, it's trying to be free of all those other labels (sexuality, class, race) that are the ones that I dislike, some are inexcapable, I am caucasian and anyone looking at me can see that, I am a woman, I am a certain age, and we don't have so much control over those and with each of these labels come certain assumptions which are made by other people and not by ourselves. When it comes to sexuality I go with the flow, I don't label myself in real life although on here I labelled myself 100% straight only after I was approached by a number of women which was contrary to my purpose to using this site (to talk to well hung guys), I don't see the need for lots of labels to get through life, if I paint a room I don't become a painter, if I bandage someone's wound I don't become a nurse, unless we're something 24 hours a day why try to define what we are?

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Good thoughts, SP. Of course you are clearly a woman and caucasian and so on. However, I was speaking mostly of those things that are not so easily seen on the surface. Painting a room does not make make one a "painter" anymore than eating a chocolate makes one a "chocoholic" or than sucking another man's dick makes one "gay." Good point.

Furthermore, there are also, unfortunately, still those who do take the obvious (one's gender, hair color, skin color, etc.) and try to make issues of those things as well. Men and women are different in obvious and not so obvious ways; it is not better to be one than the other. It is best to be aware and accepting of the differences and comfortable in one's own skin.

Finally, while you and I are clearly "caucasian" by what is taken as common knowledge, there are many in this world whose "race" label is not so certain. It makes little sense to start defining "octoroons" and "eurasians" when we can simply choose to say it is of no real importance.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

That's how I look at it too MB, we're clearly caucasian, someone else may be clearly black, someone else cleary of some other origin, while I may ask what country someone is from I've never yet asked if someone is black, white or blue.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

I think we as a species like to label and pigeonhole things, because it gives us some way to grasp and speak about reality.

Generalising is part of that, sure a lot of generalisations are just too general (logically any that aren't tautologies have no supporting evidence), but it's how we make sense of a world that is impossibly noisey when it comes to information.

Without just slapping giant labels on things there's just too much information to deal with let alone communicate, so we filter it and generalise.

 

[RomanCandle]

Hey MB etc., you made a pretty general statement, but it's also the truth.

A lot of people who make sweeping statements based on someone's "labels" rather than judging them as individuals generally are compensating for their own insecurities or just plain stupidity.

On a related not, it's also true that many people who are violently homophobic have secret gay urges. They don't have enough courage to face up to who they are, so they overcompensate.

As Shakespeare said, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much!"

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Well, as you may have discovered, RC, I love Shakespeare quotes, even if I do paraphrase them on occasion rather liberally.

Let me add that gender is not so obvious for everyone either. I know a woman who is quite tall, not conventionally pretty in a feminine way, and who has a voice that's pretty masculine. If you hear her voice without looking at her, you might think she's a man. If she's wearing non gender specific clothes, you might think she's a guy, too. She clearly does want to be thought of as a woman, though. So, is there any point in asking if she had an operation, if she's got an unusually high testosterone level for a woman and so on? Should we try to label her as other than a woman by accident of birth, genetics or hormones? I don't think so.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Sometimes labels might also be comforting to some people, they might help them to feel they belong.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

Nowdays there's a lot of media about the topic of peeps being transsexual. This is at least true where I live here in california. This is definitely a label but it's also a truth. I know I don't feel any prejudice against trans peeps but at the same time I feel some confusion being around them. I think I'm pretty conditioned by the woman/man labels so if peeps aren't one of those two, it's hard for me to grasp or understand. Any thoughts about this?

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Why don't you shut your cracker ass up?

La Raza FTW, nigga.

Pinche gringo FTL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111oneoneoneeleven

I am surprised you haven't been banned yet.

 

[whatireallywant]

Well, as you may have discovered, RC, I love Shakespeare quotes, even if I do paraphrase them on occasion rather liberally.

Let me add that gender is not so obvious for everyone either. I know a woman who is quite tall, not conventionally pretty in a feminine way, and who has a voice that's pretty masculine. If you hear her voice without looking at her, you might think she's a man. If she's wearing non gender specific clothes, you might think she's a guy, too. She clearly does want to be thought of as a woman, though. So, is there any point in asking if she had an operation, if she's got an unusually high testosterone level for a woman and so on? Should we try to label her as other than a woman by accident of birth, genetics or hormones? I don't think so.

I've been mistaken for a guy before. They didn't see my face, just saw me from my shoulders down to my hips. I was wearing my work uniform (for the job I had at the time). Now, I'm not particularly curvy, but I do fit in the normal spectrum of a woman's body for waist-hip ratio (on the high end of what is still considered healthy, but normal) I think part of it is that the young women where I grew up (where this job was) all either had large breasts or wore lots of padding to look like they had. I didn't wear padding at the time, and the uniform was not particularly flattering, but it was work, so I wasn't too worried about that.

I have an alto voice but you can still tell that I'm a woman. Oh, and I also have mostly traditionally male interests, and have had all my life. But I'm very much attracted to men.

I was talking to a woman tonight about some stuff and suddenly I feel better about my own "problems" that I have talked about way too much in other threads (as recently as last night). Funny how that can happen...

I've known other women who look "masculine" but want to be thought of as women, and men who look "feminine" but want to be thought of as men. I clearly do look like a woman if you see my face, but if you see me from the shoulders down (I have broad shoulders, too) and I'm wearing loose fitting, non gender specific clothes, I might be mistaken for a guy. I try to wear more flattering clothes now! (Of course, the work uniform couldn't be helped - when they tell you to wear a certain thing at work, you wear it!)

 

[DC_DEEP]

Labels are not always necessary, but sometimes they are, and they can be very helpful.

They can be very annoying when used as mentioned in the OP, though. The "100% gay" in my profile does not mean "never had it, never will." It means that, at this time, I have no interest in women, sexually. It doesn't mean "effeminate."

On the other hand, it is also annoying when guys say "I'm 100% straight, but I like sex with men on occasion." That's what prompted my sig line.

 

[Falcon9]

One thing about LPSG, you have a lot of labeling and self-identity issues coming up as you have rightly observed. But that is kind of the cool thing about the site, it is a sounding board to air and observe airing. I have participated in this and I think the conculsion you are trying to get at which none of us have gotten to yet entirely except my friend in NY is just around the corner. I am bisexual, but now I don't even care so much to state this so definitively, to feel some need define this to others or even to myself so much anymore. (this one post excluded of course.) My friend in NY had a great way of putting things. It seemed to apply to so many things. People standing on a soap box, people arguing their points, people feeling special in their own limited view of the world. "I was here first in line (a label actually, a very special person now), so you have to get behind me. You should be more observant, and not butt in, you are very selfish." I can still hear him saying "yeah, yeah, you're so great, I'm great. You're crap, I'm crap." It is so leveling it just makes me laugh to think about it. If we are all crap, then who needs labels... same thing if we are all great. btw, I'm great, and I was here in line first.

 

[q'thulu]

I am surprised you haven't been banned yet.

Apparently none of the moderators are as slow as you. If you did not see the irony in my post then you're pretty stupid.

 

[Falcon9]

Apparently none of the moderators are as slow as you. If you did not see the irony in my post then you're pretty stupid.

Perfect place for an example of the logic from my earlier post above:

"You're really smart, I'm really smart." "You're a stupid piece of crap, I'm a stupid piece of crap."

Notice how it can apply to so many situations?