Because everybody thinks they sexually fluid now and I believe it’s a trend that’s gonna die out
Do You See Sexual Fluidity As Trend?
- Thread starter Isiahsin434
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bisexuality fluid gay
People are just being more open about not being 100% straight or 100% gay which is a good thing. Labels come and go it's not really worth worrying about.
Everybody? Let's not generalize.
Who really cares where one gets their jolly from? I have always preferred the male body but have never turned down the female form. Poly, fluid, pan, bi, homo, hetero; does it matter what as long as you are safe, sane and consenual?
windibundu
Loved Member
According to Wikipedia, the Kinsey scale (which ranks individuals on a gradient from totally homosexual to totally heterosexual) was first published in 1948. I think greater acceptance of what were always natural human drives has just resulted in an explosion of labels.
windibundu
Loved Member
apparently in the original results, ~ 10% of males 18-35 qualified as equally divided between hetero-homo and ~10% of males in that bracket were exclusively homosexual.
But when homophobic people use sexual fluidity against gay people to push they homophobic agenda That being gay is a choice
People will interpret things in ways that affirm their bias. That's not going to change. I personally wouldn't give those type of bigots the time to occupy my headspace.
From my experience, the people who think homosexuality is a choice are those who battle with their own supressed homosexual urges.
I don't even care if people think being gay is a choice. To me it's a great choice. Dual income, no risk of unwanted pregnancy, I doubled my wardrobe and I have someone with a similar sex drive. Win win.
But seriously if it was chocolate vs vanilla icecream, would people care?
But seriously if it was chocolate vs vanilla icecream, would people care?
I think the 'born this way' argument is a reaction and useful defence against bigotry/conversion therapy etc. It updates the last century's prevailing medical definition of gay as a pathology or psychosis and sits in the current orthodoxy of gay as a kind of blameless genetic variant on straight. Is it true or fake science? I'm a bit suspicious because it kind of says, ‘don't blame me, this is how nature made me' - in other words, it's still a kind of defence against the idea that gay is bad, unnatural. What if were a choice and we chose to be gay - would that be so bad? Is gay still wrong that we have to justify it by saying I was 'born this way'?
Religion has probably done more harm than good in the world. Sad really.
I do not believe that being gay is bad or a choice. I do believe that there is some credence to the genetic line of thinking, only because in my family for as many generations as I can remember there has been a gay man. I can remember my great grandmothers brother who in old age had always been single and "a bit silly". An uncle I never met who was supposedly a leather man! Progressive for the 30's!! You get the picture. Nature made me this way; I am a gay man now but have not been a gold star fag my whole life.
I think sometimes people put aside their own desires in order to satisfy family or religious expectations. My husband knew he was attracted to men as a teen, but never acted on it. Being immigrants he and his twin brother were expected to work hard, marry and have families. His father passed away when he was 17. He went to college, met someone, got married and had 3 kids. At 40 he decides that he needs to be true to himself, and here we are. His twin brother had a similar experience. It's not that he didn't love his wife. She's a lovely woman, and if she was a man, they would still be married. He got married because it was expected of him. He was never allowed to think that other things might be possible. In terms of sexuality, does that make him straight, gay, bisexual? Does it really matter these days? What does matter is that everyone involved is happy and not ashamed of who they are.
This thread asks an interesting question, but in may ways it can only lead back to dealing with the “elephant in the room”.
The central question ultimately goes back to is it “right” or “wrong” to be gay (or anything else other than heteronormative straight)?
At this point the question becomes one seem from ethical, moral, religious, political, ,,,,, perspectives.
On a larger scale we have politicians telling older people to just bite the bullet and die; telling mothers they can kill their children; while at the same time they are bending over backwards to modify human genetics in order accommodate individuals with select birth defects, diseases, or cosmetic choices.
There are lots of mixed signals being voiced about what is actually “important” (or the prime directive) governing the quality of life for both individuals and human culture.
A book, Come, Let Us Play God, was published back about 1969. Appears we may now be ready for the individual user version.
Frank and Ernie’s argument doesn’t work anymore.
![frank-ernest.jpg]( "frank-ernest.jpg")
The central question ultimately goes back to is it “right” or “wrong” to be gay (or anything else other than heteronormative straight)?
At this point the question becomes one seem from ethical, moral, religious, political, ,,,,, perspectives.
On a larger scale we have politicians telling older people to just bite the bullet and die; telling mothers they can kill their children; while at the same time they are bending over backwards to modify human genetics in order accommodate individuals with select birth defects, diseases, or cosmetic choices.
There are lots of mixed signals being voiced about what is actually “important” (or the prime directive) governing the quality of life for both individuals and human culture.
A book, Come, Let Us Play God, was published back about 1969. Appears we may now be ready for the individual user version.
Frank and Ernie’s argument doesn’t work anymore.
Brian S
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Posts
- 1,804
- Media
- 5
- Likes
- 12,275
- Points
- 333
- Age
- 44
- Location
- Nebraska (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I don't think more people feel that way, I think we just know about it more because it's becoming increasingly acceptable to not be straight. (Or fully gay, for that matter.) I don't think it's a trend any more than being gay is a trend. Personally, I think we should embrace the concept, because it helps chip away at the prudish mores we're subjected to. These people have always existed; we just have the wording to describe it now. Whenever I think of sexual fluidity, I don't immediately think of bi or pansexual people. I think of, say, the man who's almost completely straight but just really loves for gay men to suck him off. Maybe he won't go any further, but he shouldn't be expected to and he shouldn't feel like he can't express that out of fear of the moral majority. My personal jury is still out on the concept that "everyone's a little bi", but for many people, there are varying levels of sexual comfort with the same gender.
Similar threads
