Is a straight man who hooks up with another man really straight?

[Chrysippus]

Wait...did you just go after your own comment?

Labels are important only to the insecure. - You Ridiculous assertion, unprovable.

None of that was said by me. Maybe you should slow down a bit here. Maybe we can smoothen out this conversation to make things a bit clearer?

The rest of my comments stand.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

The rest of my comments stand.

Actually they do not. Or at least not in a logical sense. Words are just labels we use to describe things. Hell even glyphs. Symbols attached to words or images to signify or connect meaning. Same goes for straight, gay and bisexual. Yes they are labels but we use labels for...everything. From language to names, medicine to pay stubs, all the way down to ideas themselves. Your comment that they are only important to the insecure is massively...insanely and laughably wrong on so many different levels that i have to question your understanding of understanding in general.

Logically, if labels are important only to the insecure. Then every last human being who has lived, is living and will live is 100% insecure about everything and everyone around them. At all times. For all reasons. With absolutely positively no exceptions for anyone at any time in their lives. Even babies could be, according to your logic, deemed insecure the second they learn how to label their mother as mommy. Or learn the word butterfly..or learn the word bad..or learn not to drink something. I mean the possibilities are endless when it comes to how wrong you are.

And no, the irony of you calling what i'm saying both ridiculous and stupid isn't lost on me. Thats because in one fell swoop you also implied that gay and bisexual men were also insecure for using labels. Hell you even called the judicial system stupid and/or ridiculous for using labels. Food and drugs companies, science in general, social studies and etc. Really, i could go on.

I won't though. And thats because i'm guessing you didn't fully understand what your comment meant in both the grand scheme and small part of things in general. So i'll go ahead and get me a donut. Meanwhile, you really might want to rethink your stance.

 

[Chrysippus]

Actually they do not. Or at least not in a logical sense. Words are just labels we use to describe things. Hell even glyphs. Symbols attached to words or images to signify or connect meaning. Same goes for straight, gay and bisexual. Yes they are labels but we use labels for...everything. From language to names, medicine to pay stubs, all the way down to ideas themselves. Your comment that they are only important to the insecure is massively...insanely and laughably wrong on so many different levels that i have to question your understanding of understanding in general.

Logically, if labels are important only to the insecure. Then every last human being who has lived, is living and will live is 100% insecure about everything and everyone around them. At all times. For all reasons. With absolutely positively no exceptions for anyone at any time in their lives. Even babies could be, according to your logic, deemed insecure the second they learn how to label their mother as mommy. Or learn the word butterfly..or learn the word bad..or learn not to drink something. I mean the possibilities are endless when it comes to how wrong you are.

And no, the irony of you calling what i'm saying both ridiculous and stupid isn't lost on me. Thats because in one fell swoop you also implied that gay and bisexual men were also insecure for using labels. Hell you even called the judicial system stupid and/or ridiculous for using labels. Food and drugs companies, science in general, social studies and etc. Really, i could go on.

I won't though. And thats because i'm guessing you didn't fully understand what your comment meant in both the grand scheme and small part of things in general. So i'll go ahead and get me a donut. Meanwhile, you really might want to rethink your stance.

nothing to rethink--your post to which I replied is foolish and inaccurate.

 

[Chrysippus]

Actually they do not. Or at least not in a logical sense. Words are just labels we use to describe things. Hell even glyphs. Symbols attached to words or images to signify or connect meaning. Same goes for straight, gay and bisexual. Yes they are labels but we use labels for...everything. From language to names, medicine to pay stubs, all the way down to ideas themselves. Your comment that they are only important to the insecure is massively...insanely and laughably wrong on so many different levels that i have to question your understanding of understanding in general.

Logically, if labels are important only to the insecure. Then every last human being who has lived, is living and will live is 100% insecure about everything and everyone around them. At all times. For all reasons. With absolutely positively no exceptions for anyone at any time in their lives. Even babies could be, according to your logic, deemed insecure the second they learn how to label their mother as mommy. Or learn the word butterfly..or learn the word bad..or learn not to drink something. I mean the possibilities are endless when it comes to how wrong you are.

And no, the irony of you calling what i'm saying both ridiculous and stupid isn't lost on me. Thats because in one fell swoop you also implied that gay and bisexual men were also insecure for using labels. Hell you even called the judicial system stupid and/or ridiculous for using labels. Food and drugs companies, science in general, social studies and etc. Really, i could go on.

I won't though. And thats because i'm guessing you didn't fully understand what your comment meant in both the grand scheme and small part of things in general. So i'll go ahead and get me a donut. Meanwhile, you really might want to rethink your stance.

I will buy you a logic book and one on argumentation--just tell me how to get them to you and that you will read them if I send them.

 

[Hatt_101]

it's however the individual wants to self identify, I feel I'm this society, straight men are really pressured in ways that really limit exploration, I believe that if a straight guy has a blow job from a guy everyday of the year and still identifies as straight, then he's straight it doesn't matter.

self identification is all good but is only valid until certain point. I love women but i cant identify as lesbian no matter how much i would want to.

if a man did specifically what you described he can call himself anything but that wouldnt change what he actually is especially if it's was done of his own free will and enjoyment.

If I started calling myself a lesbian it would just be completely wrong because do not fit that definition because being a man I cannot be a lesbian.

I admit society is harder on males when it comes to exploration but not everyone wants to explore things with the same sex and just because I'm heterosexual doesn't mean that I am attracted to every woman out there I have a very specific type as much the same goes for everyone with their own attraction preferences.

 

[hungluso]

To simply answer the subject...

No!

What a dumb question... Lol

(And I don't care to read the pages and pages in the thread)

 

[Crimsonlurker]

I will buy you a logic book and one on argumentation--just tell me how to get them to you and that you will read them if I send them.

Highly doubt i should be taking advice from someone who not only criticized themselves emotionally but who can't even follow their own adopted rules. Yeah pretty sure you fail at that whole stoic calm thing too. Anger, envy, jealousy. Spotted a couple of those in your posts so far. What're you gonna start working on next? The seven deadly sins?

 

[Chrysippus]

Highly doubt i should be taking advice from someone who not only criticized themselves emotionally but who can't even follow their own adopted rules. Yeah pretty sure you fail at that whole stoic calm thing too. Anger, envy, jealousy. Spotted a couple of those in your posts so far. What're you gonna start working on next? The seven deadly sins?

another ad hominem attack--you do need a logic course, but you can buy the book yourself.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

another ad hominem attack--you do need a logic course, but you can buy the book yourself.

For someone who professes to be the king of both logic and debate you sure do fail at both spectacularly.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1. 1.
   (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"
2. 2.
   relating to or associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

Right. So the first thing i did was completely rip apart your asinine assumption/stance that...

Labels are important only to the insecure.

...just by stating the extremely obvious point that labels are important to everyone everywhere through out the life span of humanity. I didn't get to you personally until i said...

I'm sorry was it all labels are important only to the insecure or just the labels you don't like and/or don't notice? -Me

...and that wasn't so much a personal attack as much as pointing out your personal bias. Logically, if you rail against one "label" you should rail against them all. Since they all are just "labels". You do not do that though. You....pick and choose which label you deem un-neccessary and then try to amount what you think is a logical defense against it. And that's what i pointed out.

You could say it's slightly an ad hominem attack sinse i did imply that there were labels you just didn't like or didn't notice but since you haven't even addressed my challenge of your stance then once again it's only slight.

And by the way. You've done absolutely nothing to either defend your stance or stand above the moral fray here in the context of ad hominem. All you've tried to do is insult me every time you've replied. While i've not only challenged your stance on this issue but your personal philosophy.

Once more, if you want to call my post before this one an ad hominem attack you could but only slightly. Since your ego made your philosophy a chance my reply that you aren't even following your own rules is yet again another challenge to both your stance and emotional state.

sto·i·cism
ˈstōəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: stoicism; noun: Stoicism

1. 1.
   the endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without complaint.
   synonyms: patience, forbearance, resignation, fortitude, endurance, acceptance, tolerance,phlegm
   "she accepted her sufferings with remarkable stoicism"
   antonyms: intolerance
2. 2.
   an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Yes, without the display of feelings and without complaint. Yes, based on knowledge and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain. As in whining about ad hominem attacks is a complaint. Especially when you've done absolutely nothing but insult me in the most egotistical, arrogant and wrong way possible.

So yes. Technically speaking these are ad hominem attacks...but only slightly. Just because they are though, it doesn't invalidate what i'm saying. Not only are you wrong about the issue of labels. And i mean insanely wrong. You're also wrong on the very philosophies you've named yourself after. Which i might add explains why your wrong about labels. Pleasure and pain are natural. A person can't completely rid themselves of or ignore their emotions. They'll creep into everything we do and say. Like with you implying that i need to read up on something you yourself don't seem to know much about.

Anyway, if this is your stance...

Labels are important only to the insecure. - You

...then you are insecure about your own username.

 

[Chrysippus]

For someone who professes to be the king of both logic and debate you sure do fail at both spectacularly.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1. 1.
   (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"
2. 2.
   relating to or associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

Right. So the first thing i did was completely rip apart your asinine assumption/stance that...


...just by stating the extremely obvious point that labels are important to everyone everywhere through out the life span of humanity. I didn't get to you personally until i said...

I'm sorry was it all labels are important only to the insecure or just the labels you don't like and/or don't notice? -Me

...and that wasn't so much a personal attack as much as pointing out your personal bias. Logically, if you rail against one "label" you should rail against them all. Since they all are just "labels". You do not do that though. You....pick and choose which label you deem un-neccessary and then try to amount what you think is a logical defense against it. And that's what i pointed out.

You could say it's slightly an ad hominem attack sinse i did imply that there were labels you just didn't like or didn't notice but since you haven't even addressed my challenge of your stance then once again it's only slight.

And by the way. You've done absolutely nothing to either defend your stance or stand above the moral fray here in the context of ad hominem. All you've tried to do is insult me every time you've replied. While i've not only challenged your stance on this issue but your personal philosophy.

Once more, if you want to call my post before this one an ad hominem attack you could but only slightly. Since your ego made your philosophy a chance my reply that you aren't even following your own rules is yet again another challenge to both your stance and emotional state.

sto·i·cism
ˈstōəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: stoicism; noun: Stoicism

1. 1.
   the endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without complaint.
   synonyms: patience, forbearance, resignation, fortitude, endurance, acceptance, tolerance,phlegm
   "she accepted her sufferings with remarkable stoicism"
   antonyms: intolerance
2. 2.
   an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Yes, without the display of feelings and without complaint. Yes, based on knowledge and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain. As in whining about ad hominem attacks is a complaint. Especially when you've done absolutely nothing but insult me in the most egotistical, arrogant and wrong way possible.

So yes. Technically speaking these are ad hominem attacks...but only slightly. Just because they are though, it doesn't invalidate what i'm saying. Not only are you wrong about the issue of labels. And i mean insanely wrong. You're also wrong on the very philosophies you've named yourself after. Which i might add explains why your wrong about labels. Pleasure and pain are natural. A person can't completely rid themselves of or ignore their emotions. They'll creep into everything we do and say. Like with you implying that i need to read up on something you yourself don't seem to know much about.

Anyway, if this is your stance...

Labels are important only to the insecure. - You

...then you are insecure about your own username.

Illogical, as always...
You do realize there is more than one Greek named Chrysippus, don't you?

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Illogical, as always...
You do realize there is more than one Greek named Chrysippus, don't you?

At this point i don't care. You are about as immature as they come. Every post from you is like dealing with a five year old. You will continue to avoid the actual topic in favor of insults and dick measuring so no...i don't care to know anything about you.

 

[Chrysippus]

At this point i don't care. You are about as immature as they come. Every post from you is like dealing with a five year old. You will continue to avoid the actual topic in favor of insults and dick measuring so no...i don't care to know anything about you.

Well, alrighty then: but I can't wait to see more of your splenetic illogical posts, which are the intellectual equivalents of besmirching yourself. Have a lovely day!

 

[Crimsonlurker]

It's widely believed that sexual orientation is a spectrum not a black or white, yes or no answer.

The problem isn't the people, the problem is an outdated classification system that does not accommodate all the shades of grey in between.

No sexuality can be and is a black or white, yes or no answer. It largely depends on who you're talking to. The labels on the other hand stand the test of time. Straight will always mean no sex with the same sex. No matter who wants to muddle it up. Just like gay and bisexual. No one is forcing others to take on a label that doesn't fit them. Ok that isn't true. It would seem that many people want to force others out of labels that fit them simply because they think those labels don't work at all or aren't needed. Which is literally trying to tell others who they are.

When a straight man tells another guy he isn't straight because he sleeps with other men he isn't telling him he can't be gay or bisexual. It's that that person doesn't fit the description of straight. Which is both logical and in a way caring.

The only way to become secure in who you are is to accept who you are. So, no the labels aren't the problem. Those are just words. Words that describe someone or something. No, it's the fear, anxiety and/or ignorance tied to those words thats the problem. I don't know why bisexuality is such a taboo. Don't know why it causes such problems for men to admit but it fits most of the actions and thoughts discussed in this thread. Thoroughly.

If a guy wants to have sex with other men on accusation while regularly having sex with women then bisexual fits. If he wants to do so on a regular basis while on accusation having sex with women it still fits. Hell even if he chooses to once bi curious is still a thing. If he did it once and still wasn't sure and wants to again he can still be considered bicurious. The bi in bicurious meaning the same thing as the bi in bisexual. If he decides he no longer wants to have sex with men and he doesn't. Then he could consider himself straight again.

It isn't and never has been a situation where people were stuck with a sexual label their whole entire lives. When it comes to that area the only thing standing in their way is other people's idea of what the labels mean over time. Meaning once again, it isn't the system thats the problem but people's idea/ideals of that system.

With one person sexuality can be black or white. And another...grey. While another....fuchsia. Difference being that once people begin to dictate beyond what those labels actually mean problems arise. Unnecessary, illogical, annoying and generally destructive problems. Why? Well if it's possible to get rid of one label then logically they all should fall. Meaning labels that drive us are no longer valid. Meaning all that hard work you put into blank now shouldn't and doesn't mean a hill of beans. No one has to respect your name or status. Or give any consideration towards how much education you have. Seeing as how all those things are nothing but labels signifying something from the past.

And yeah i am writing this because i'm a tad frustrated and annoyed. So yeah, theres that.

 

[AntoGr]

Is a straight man who hooks up with another man really straight?
DOES IT REALLY MATTER THAT MUCH?
WHO CARES? DID HE LIKE IT? OK. DID HE NOT LIKE IT? WELL HE SHOULD JUST NOT REPEAT IT.

 

[Brodie888]

No sexuality can be and is a black or white, yes or no answer. It largely depends on who you're talking to. The labels on the other hand stand the test of time. Straight will always mean no sex with the same sex. No matter who wants to muddle it up. Just like gay and bisexual. No one is forcing others to take on a label that doesn't fit them. Ok that isn't true. It would seem that many people want to force others out of labels that fit them simply because they think those labels don't work at all or aren't needed. Which is literally trying to tell others who they are.

When a straight man tells another guy he isn't straight because he sleeps with other men he isn't telling him he can't be gay or bisexual. It's that that person doesn't fit the description of straight. Which is both logical and in a way caring.

The only way to become secure in who you are is to accept who you are. So, no the labels aren't the problem. Those are just words. Words that describe someone or something. No, it's the fear, anxiety and/or ignorance tied to those words thats the problem. I don't know why bisexuality is such a taboo. Don't know why it causes such problems for men to admit but it fits most of the actions and thoughts discussed in this thread. Thoroughly.

If a guy wants to have sex with other men on accusation while regularly having sex with women then bisexual fits. If he wants to do so on a regular basis while on accusation having sex with women it still fits. Hell even if he chooses to once bi curious is still a thing. If he did it once and still wasn't sure and wants to again he can still be considered bicurious. The bi in bicurious meaning the same thing as the bi in bisexual. If he decides he no longer wants to have sex with men and he doesn't. Then he could consider himself straight again.

It isn't and never has been a situation where people were stuck with a sexual label their whole entire lives. When it comes to that area the only thing standing in their way is other people's idea of what the labels mean over time. Meaning once again, it isn't the system thats the problem but people's idea/ideals of that system.

With one person sexuality can be black or white. And another...grey. While another....fuchsia. Difference being that once people begin to dictate beyond what those labels actually mean problems arise. Unnecessary, illogical, annoying and generally destructive problems. Why? Well if it's possible to get rid of one label then logically they all should fall. Meaning labels that drive us are no longer valid. Meaning all that hard work you put into blank now shouldn't and doesn't mean a hill of beans. No one has to respect your name or status. Or give any consideration towards how much education you have. Seeing as how all those things are nothing but labels signifying something from the past.

And yeah i am writing this because i'm a tad frustrated and annoyed. So yeah, theres that.

Your convoluted reply is exactly why the black and white labels don't work.

You creating a bicurious label is essentially creating a shade of grey.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Your convoluted reply is exactly why the black and white labels don't work.

You creating a bicurious label is essentially creating a shade of grey.

How about this then. If you are a guy who is having sex with guys you cannot logically call yourself straight. That simple enough for you?

 

[StillSmall]

I don't care. And I really don't get why anyone else cares, despite having read how important this is to many of us.

 

[Brodie888]

How about this then. If you are a guy who is having sex with guys you cannot logically call yourself straight. That simple enough for you?

Nope. You can't use sexual activity as a defining rule. Eg Straight people have gay sex all the time because it pays well or furthers their career. Inversely, someone who's never had gay sex can still be gay.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

Nope. You can't use sexual activity as a defining rule. Eg Straight people have gay sex all the time because it pays well or furthers their career. Inversely, someone who's never had gay sex can still be gay.

So what you're saying is...a sexual act (no matter what that sexuality is) doesn't have to actually happen for a person to be labeled as being that sexuality? If so you are very scary. And that a person who commits a sexual act (no matter the sexual act) can completely ignore what they've done and be respected for it? If so thats even scarier. I don't want to live in the same world you live in.

 

[Brodie888]

So what you're saying is...a sexual act (no matter what that sexuality is) doesn't have to actually happen for a person to be labeled as being that sexuality? If so you are very scary. And that a person who commits a sexual act (no matter the sexual act) can completely ignore what they've done and be respected for it? If so thats even scarier. I don't want to live in the same world you live in.

There are plenty of gay and lesbian people who have been shamed into marriage with the opposite sex, have a couple of kids and never been able to be themselves. Sometimes they get the courage late in life. Sometimes the lie becomes so big that they can never get out.