Whether you call yourself anything or nothing, a label won't change you, and whether someone likes you or not won't be because you or they described you with a word. Prejudice is a frame of mind, which won't change because a label can no longer be used to describe it.
I am a gay man. if i (fill in the blank) with a woman, does that make me straight?
- Thread starter AlamoSucker
- Start date
Using a label is fine. Language and words matter. That's how we communicate. I find it useful to be able to express my bisexuality with a defined term.
Holding judgment on those who use a different label than you, that's the problem.
Holding judgment on those who use a different label than you, that's the problem.
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Posts
- 10,296
- Media
- 54
- Likes
- 47,059
- Points
- 618
- Location
- New York (United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I must confess, wayyyyyyy back in college, I had sex with a lady who was a prime example of an androgenious tom boy / girl lesbian. I will not go into any details; but to this very day I still joke and consider myself a little Lesbian, though it happened only once
Lesbian and Proud
Lesbian and Proud
Exactly. If nothing and no one had labels, things would be incredibly chaotic. Does a person need to go to a restroom or a hospital? Am I open to being hit on by women, men, genderqueer, genderfluid, and the rest of the gender spectrum? Is this particular thing toxic or safe to consume? Is this person someone I'm casual with, committed with, are they my spouse? Do I introduce them as someone I fuck and live with, since labels are so bad?
Words have meaning, labels have a purpose and are fucking useful for communication.
I dare you to take all the labels off of your canned goods.. Whatever you open you have to build a meal around it.
Will it be peaches or peas?.. Only one way to find out, Fade-al attraction.
I don't keep that many canned goods, so it wouldn't be that problematic, actually
A large amount of my cooking is done with fresh ingredients. Besides, so long as the intent is not hateful I don't have much issue with labels. It's other folks who should try that experiment..
All of this can be very confusing, but but yet I understand. I am a male. If you came knocking on my door selling lawn mowers and I invited you to come in and you saw 3 naked men sitting on the couch with hard ons, what's the first thing that would come to mind? Oh and you couldn't use a label.
Is that how it works for you? It's the person I'm attracted to. It's not like choosing a can of soup based on the label. And anyone, regardless of their gender/sexuality (race, age or any other label) is welcome to show attraction to me if they feel it
In any case, the "labels are fucking useful" argument is too crude. Yes, labelling serves a necessary function in lots of ways. But it depends on context, on the connotations and values embedded in the term, who uses it and how, where it comes from, its intent, etc. Particularly when it comes to societal labelling in personal, sensitive areas like sexuality and race. That's why there's always a tussle for control of terminology in these areas. Who defines what? What's a useful label for one person may be an unwelcome brand for the labellled. And the meanings aren't fixed: the term heterosexual means something completely different now from what it did when it was first coined. Another example, you object to the label 'oriental' used for people, on good grounds. But at one time it was in common usage and acceptable. People using it at the time probably weren't even aware of its colonial connotations, it embedded values (and benefits) they upheld unquestioningly. When challenged, the argument would have been exactly of the 'labels are useful and don't be so sensitive' kind.
It still boils down to intent and context.Is that how it works for you? It's the person I'm attracted to. It's not like choosing a can of soup based on the label. And anyone, regardless of their gender/sexuality (race, age or any other label) is welcome to show attraction to me if they feel it
In any case, the "labels are fucking useful" argument is too crude. Yes, labelling serves a necessary function in lots of ways. But it depends on context, on the connotations and values embedded in the term, who uses it and how, where it comes from, its intent, etc. Particularly when it comes to societal labelling in personal, sensitive areas like sexuality and race. That's why there's always a tussle for control of terminology in these areas. Who defines what? What's a useful label for one person may be an unwelcome brand for the labellled. And the meanings aren't fixed: the term heterosexual means something completely different now from what it did when it was first coined. Another example, you object to the label 'oriental' used for people, on good grounds. But at one time it was in common usage and acceptable. People using it at the time probably weren't even aware of its colonial connotations, it embedded values (and benefits) they upheld unquestioningly. When challenged, the argument would have been exactly of the 'labels are useful and don't be so sensitive' kind.
Three guys walking down the street see three other guys coming toward them. One yells, "Hey ni**er!"
Is that how it works for you? It's the person I'm attracted to. It's not like choosing a can of soup based on the label. And anyone, regardless of their gender/sexuality (race, age or any other label) is welcome to show attraction to me if they feel it
In any case, the "labels are fucking useful" argument is too crude. Yes, labelling serves a necessary function in lots of ways. But it depends on context, on the connotations and values embedded in the term, who uses it and how, where it comes from, its intent, etc. Particularly when it comes to societal labelling in personal, sensitive areas like sexuality and race. That's why there's always a tussle for control of terminology in these areas. Who defines what? What's a useful label for one person may be an unwelcome brand for the labellled. And the meanings aren't fixed: the term heterosexual means something completely different now from what it did when it was first coined. Another example, you object to the label 'oriental' used for people, on good grounds. But at one time it was in common usage and acceptable. People using it at the time probably weren't even aware of its colonial connotations, it embedded values (and benefits) they upheld unquestioningly. When challenged, the argument would have been exactly of the 'labels are useful and don't be so sensitive' kind.
I wasn't saying "I" as in myself for that or any of that portion of my post. Like people saying "man" in a general sense for humanity as a whole. I'm not having any problems deciding how to introduce my significant other, or keeping unlabeled toxic items in my place, or confusing a restroom for a hospital. I use labels and names of things. None of the examples I gave are an issue for me. That being said, there still happen to be people out there who wouldn't take kindly to being hit on by someone of a particular gender identity. Some people on this planet may react in an outright hostile or even violent manner if hit on by a demographic they're not okay with. Some people don't know what label to use for a person they're involved with while introducing them to others. Etc.
I did not even slightly touch on the topic you so dearly seem to love to try and start shit over, of who is labeling whom. I explicitly and very specifically said "Words have meaning, labels have a purpose and are fucking useful for communication." I said not a single word about who is labeling anyone, whether themselves or others.
Heterosexual, homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, as far as general use in the USA aren't considered a slur or anything of the sort. LGBTQ and the rest of the alphabet that is intersex, asexual and so on, it's not the same kind of thing as saying negro much less the n-word, or a particular f word used some to refer to gay men. Saying I identify as queer or having a gay friend of mine want me to go to a gay club with them isn't a slur, isn't fetishizing, or anything remotely like that. Are my friends supposed to say "we're going to this great place, it's a club with a mixed gender crowd, just like pretty much every club, and yes, there may be people there attracted to the gender opposite theirs, and yes, women may be there, but it's mostly specializing in men who mostly like other men, but some women who mostly like women will be there too" and on and on? Or can they just say "hey we're going to a gay club, come hang out and dance".
You yourself in your post said "at one time". Yeah, exactly. There are words that aren't in common use anymore. Languages evolve. As it stands right now in the country I live in, the common use of bisexual, lesbian, gay aren't slurs. They're not insults. Queer used to have a much more negative tone. Now a large amount of people use it with minimal hang ups from how it was used in the past. Nerd used to be leaning towards an insult too. Now people proudly proclaim their nerdiness. Are gay pride events and such supposed to just be ambiguously called pride, and risk people getting pissed because it might be some Nationalistic racist event, instead of what gay pride events actually are?
I meant exactly what I said. I suppose I should have been slightly more specific and said "Words have meanings, though those do evolve over time. Labels have a purpose and are fucking useful for communication". Otherwise, I stand by what I wrote.
Edits were made to fix weird shit autocorrect did since I wrote this on a mobile device.
Last edited by a moderator:
You were using 'I' as in not yourself but all humanity? Okay...
The point is you can't have this discussion without considering the context, intent, and who is labelling whom. You've extrapolated too far from what I've said - I didn't suggest that the labels heterosexual, homosexual etc were used as 'slurs', but their usage does have a societal context/import, they are subject to change, and they are freighted with connotations. The word 'oriental' is not generally meant as a conscious slur, it's used descriptively as a label, nevertheless it carries connotations and values that may be objectionable to the labelled. That's all I was saying and possibly we may even agree on that.
All through the discussions about Al Franken, I has to either override the word or go back and correct....my iPad insists the former Senator is Al Frankenstein.
Labels describe, they don't define.
A man/woman doesn't become gay/straight/bi based on an action they taken. Labels are useful tools to describe someone, but no label is perfect, and, no label defines a person.
A man/woman doesn't become gay/straight/bi based on an action they taken. Labels are useful tools to describe someone, but no label is perfect, and, no label defines a person.
Gay or str8, What's the difference? You are a Human been Man! Right? Well that's what counts! The rest is just not of any significant importance, That's All !!!
Boom. End of thread.
I'd be thinking they wouldn't be buying my lawnmowers as they're already equipped with weedwackers... LMFAO!!!!
Similar threads
