Orientation vs. behavior

[maxcok]

I would add, probably most important, is whether you are open to new experiences.

Often equally important, whether you can keep it on the 'downlow'.

 

[mitchymo]

I do. And here is what you said: You never mentioned anything about sexual behavior. However, even assuming that is what you meant, you are still wrong, since that would indicate that masturbation or exhibitionism (which is sexual behavior) is a part of a person's sexual orientation, which it isn't.

Firstly, i would have assumed that considering the nature of the thread topic, an intelligent enough person would be able to figure out quite easily that i was talking about sexual behaviour. Secondly, if you've been paying ANY attention at all, you would already know that i associate both orientation and behaviour (sexual) with sexual identity. Masturbation does'nt effect orientation because its an asexual act.

Saying what you yourself would do in a certain situation is an opinion. Going ahead and saying that anybody else that does this or that must be this or that is not an opinion. See the difference?

No, both are opinions, the difference is that one is based on experience and the other on thoughts which are often not applicable personally or a sign of little or no experience. Such a topic as sexual orientation allows by its nature everybody to have a valid opinion because we all have some sense of sexuality. You cannot nullify MY opinion simply because I would'nt engage in physical attractionless sexual acts because for a 100% orientation either way it is nonsensical to ever want to.
Your opinion CAN be scrutinized more because it complicates the labels that define sexual identity in relation to gender preferences. If you're not 100% (or 99% for those who are being open minded on future potential) then i woul'nt see a definitive label, straight or gay, to be a truthful reflection on orientation if sexual acts are involved with genders that are opposite to the label one takes.

So if there is sexual gratification involved, there must be physical attraction involved? Sorry but that makes no logical sense. There are other ways to be sexually aroused other than physical attraction.

I'm not saying there has to be physcal attraction involved. It is YOU arguing that physical attraction is key to determining sexual orientation.
What I am saying is that there is more to it than just physical attraction, thus it is irrelevant whether you are physically attracted to the person you are engaging in sexual acts with. On some level there is an attraction which is definately sexual.

1. The fact that you still haven't provided any factual basis for thinking the way you do is proof that you think you're correct. If you think you're correct, then there is no reason for you to look at your own faulty argument. Therefore, it is up to someone else to force you to look at your faults, hence why I'm attacking your "logic".

There is no factual evidence to be displayed by you either. The only facts which we can agree on are base facts which can support either argument. I am not attacking your logic however. I am explaining how i interpret sexual orientation. You are doing the same but trying to superiorise your theory by attacking the logic of your opponent at the same time. There is NOTHING illogical in the way either of our ways of thinking work, we just have a fundamental difference of opinion on what sexual orientation represents so there is no justifiable reason why you should be trying to critique my logic. I don't hold a unique view on this, that is why the topic is a controversial one to debate.

2. - There is no reason to assume they aren't separate, therefore, whether or not they are 'different', is irrelevant.

If there is no reason to assume they are'nt seperate, why are you arguing that they are? That is what you are doing, arguing that sexual behaviour and sexual orientation are seperate.

3. - That was before I found out that you assumed that because you wouldn't engage in that behavior because of boredom, that no one else would either. I didn't want to assume that you were arrogant enough to think this so instead I assumed that you had a more privileged life and just didn't know any better.

Oh PLEASE, you do far too much assuming for the both of us.
My assumptions are on topic at least.

Exactly. So why do you insist on assuming that there must be a physical attraction involved just because you're not alone?

I'M NOT!!!!!
I am saying an orientation is based on a number of factors which i have already explained at least twice before. Physical attraction,emotional attachment,behaviour. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

You are the one fixated on associating physical attraction with orientation, not me.

Well, that's basically the impression that I'm getting at this point.

I make a comment explaining that i gain insight and learn through debate (even if you don't) and then backhand insult you by referring to what i would be if i did'nt learn from debate (i.e. you)
You then come along and insult me directly, the same insult i just threw at you. Too funny!

OK, obviously what I said earlier went completely over your head. Let's see if I can make this clearer for you. Orientation and behavior are objective. They are what they are whether or not you want them to be. Identity is subjective. It could be anything under the sun for no particular reason. This thread is about people being able to separate their behavior from their orientation. In other words whether they can engage in sexual acts (sexual behavior) with a gender they are not oriented to. What they 'identify' themselves as, is completely irrelevant to this argument as it has nothing to do with actual orientation or behavior for that matter. This thread isn't about people calling themselves (identify as) straight 'because they're in the closet'. It's about actual (oriented as) straight guys who fool around with other guys (or conversely gay guys who fool around with girls etc. etc.).

This is meaningless, any persons of such would NOT be gay or straight by my view. (the view that i represent rather)
This debate really can't continue. Our fundamental views prevent anything other than circles in our conversation.

I'm emotionally attached to many people and many things, that doesn't mean I'm going create new orientations to describe all of them. This is why orientation is used to describe who you're physically aroused by. If you use orientation for some other descriptive purpose than you're probably the only one who does so.

I'm talking about emotional attachments which are related to sexuality. Not the emotional attachment one might have with their comfort blanket or such! You're being fickle with some of the most easily understandable meanings i'm making.

I would think most people would naturally assume that you engage in gay behavior if your orientation is gay. However, that doesn't automatically mean you don't engage in non-gay behavior.

Yes, it does, that is exactly why i consider myself gay! Otherwise i would be bi.

As I pointed out above, there are no valid points as to why it would mean more. Adding more descriptors to the definition of orientation only leads to unnecessary confusion.

There is no confusion when it is the basis for the determination. The confusion that exists is being injected by those who say they are gay or straight but clearly are'nt.

LoL! all you're doing is agreeing with me while still being able to 'label' people how you want to label them. Sorry but there simply isn't a reason to assume that sexual orientation means anything more than physical attraction simply because you view it that way.

Now add 'not' after the word reason, there you have my equally valid and purposeless reponse to you.

Strange. You never mentioned this till now and now that's all you keep saying. Not that it matters since what you believe hardly represents the majority and is most likely made up on the spur of the moment to stop a failing argument. Too bad it didn't work.

I really ought to be laughing right now except its tiresome. I am not the one fixated on physical attraction, you are.
The fact that it has been mentioned when it has, is the result of an advancing debate.
And how exactly do you know who's view represents the majority? considering we established earlier in the debate that there were as many voices supporting my view as yours. Sounds like the epitomy of arrogance!

Unfortunately for you, this is probably the most sensible thing you've said during this entire debate.

I'll rise above this pathetic attempt to win an unwinnable argument.

 

[invisibleman]

Labels. Labels are good as long as they aren't becoming stereotypes that define a whole group of people for the behaviors of the few.

I am essentially homosexual but I do respect other men's sexuality whatever that may be. I can admire a guy that sexy but that doesn't mean that I am entitled to have my way with him.
I may be camp at times. I may be hood at times. I may be a regular fuddy duddy of a man. But if people or one person tries to tell me who I am and they do not know me or goes according to stereotypes or have incorrect assumptions about who I am...I will let them know that they are indeed wrong. I will let them know where they are wrong. But people will believe what they want even after telling them they are wrong. What can one do? :biggrin1:

Maybe people don't want a label so that they don't have to defend themselves even if what you do may go against societal acceptance. Having no labels defeats the purpose of defense.

Example: There is a porn star named Diesel Washington. He doesn't really like the label "gay-for-pay"...he wants porn actors (the straight ones who get paid to fuck gay men) to say
"play-for-pay" because he happens to hate the term "gay for pay". But I think that it is all bull. Peeps are still getting straight men fucking gay guys in porn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtVjH_PKoAs&playnext_from=TL&videos=qMDLR1crLbg

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

There has been a lot of psych studies lately about 'sexual orientation' being different and separate from 'sexual behavior', meaning, if you engage in sexual acts with a member of the same sex, it doesn't have to mean that you're gay or bi.

To me, orientation means 'what I'm sexually attracted to' and behavior is simply an act that is sexual in nature. For example, if I engage in a sexual act that involves a shower nozzle, it certainly doesn't mean that I'm nozzlesexual (sexually attracted to shower nozzles) nor does the act of masturbating mean that I consider myself sexually attractive.

So how about you guys? Are you comfortable performing sexual acts with a gender you're not sexually attracted to (note, this doesn't mean you're repulsed by that gender, just that you're not aroused by them)? If so, under what circumstances?

Prison would seem to be the obvious example for straight guys. Either you're going to let another guy suck you off or you're going to go without sex for the next 30 years. Getting sucked by another guy seems the lesser of two evils in that case.

 

[LSebastien]

I disregarded most of your post since it all basically revolved around the same tired point (noted below) in a last ditch effort to save your failing argument.

It is YOU arguing that physical attraction is key to determining sexual orientation.
What I am saying is that there is more to it than just physical attraction

What you're describing is identity, not orientation. You're confusing orientation with identity.

"" sexual orientation n.
The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary""

Orientation is who you're physically attracted to. Identity is all the other stuff that goes with it, such as emotions etc. etc. I'm specifically referring only to orientation and sexual behavior in this debate, not identity or emotions or anything else. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[mitchymo]

What you're describing is identity, not orientation. You're confusing orientation with identity.

"" sexual orientation n.
The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary""

Orientation is who you're physically attracted to. Identity is all the other stuff that goes with it, such as emotions etc. etc. I'm specifically referring only to orientation and sexual behavior in this debate, not identity or emotions or anything else. Is that clear enough for you?

I am not doing any confusing at all thank you very much. I know exactly what i am talking about when making my argument on this particular subject.

Sexual identity includes a wide range of things. They all connect to sexual identity. Some are related to others and some are not. Sexual behaviour and sexual orientation ARE.
Your argument is seeking to seperate the two which it cannot becuase they are linked. Your sexual behaviour is governed by your sexual identity and your sexual orientation is the label that best fits the description of your identity.

Notice that the bolded section which you quoted confirms two things that support MY argument whereas it supports yours with only one thing which does'nt count for much seeing as you read it rather than understood it.

Firstly, it says 'especially physiologic forces'. This does not say ONLY and in fact by its very use implies that more than physical attraction is a determining factor.
Secondly, the reason it is 'especially', is because the vast majority of people indulge their sexual habits with those who they are in some way physically attracted to.
This suggests that guys and gals who fall into the situational criterium of your first op are a very small minority who can be most accurately described as bisexual.

Your view of bisexual may be the conservative 50-50 'feel-the-same-about-both' definition. Mine is the broader one where 100% and nothing less makes gay or straight. This is because both these labels are the black and white of sexuality. You are just trying to create a grey area where one already exists. BISEXUALITY.

I provide some links also for you to read. You will clearly see behaviour being used as a key component in determining sexual orientation amongst these articles.

frontline: assault on gay america: who's gay? what's straight?: how do you define sexual orientation?
Definitions of the term "sexual orientation"
http://www.share.uwa.edu.au/sexuality/sexuality_definitions

In short, this argument is unwinnable because of fundamental disagreements on what best defines sexual orientation. You can say i'm wrong and that my argument is failing all you like, the same is true for you.

 

[LSebastien]

In short, this argument is unwinnable because of fundamental disagreements on what best defines sexual orientation.

Except my definition is what most people refer to. When you hear someone ask if so and so is gay, there's a 99.99% chance they're referring to whether or not he/she is physically attracted to a member of the same sex. Where on Earth you got your definition from is anyone's guess. If you're using religion as a basis for your view on things, then you don't really have a place in a logical debate.

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=LSebastien;2859659

Except my definition is what most people refer to.

This is not YOUR definition, this is a base fact, a shared definition, we both agree on this already. This is not where are argument differs. Your view is that physical attraction is the SOLE identifier of sexual orientation whereas i say it is one of the factors. Yes, the biggest factor, that is obvious, but not the only factor.

When you hear someone ask if so and so is gay, there's a 99.99% chance they're referring to whether or not he/she is physically attracted to a member of the same sex.

I agree. The problem is that your argument is not strengthened with that point because a simple rephrase will explain why.

"excuse me, is such and such physically attracted to members of the same sex?"

"yes, yes he is!"

"great, but is he gay or bi?"

You see, physical attraction does'nt identify sexual orientation on its own. Though it plays a major role, it is not alone in determining sexual orientation.
This is because, like i have explained several times in various ways for you to see the logic, is because orientation is based on identity and not physical attraction.
Thus, it is not essential for physical attraction to be present as a factor because there are emotional and behavioural factors that play a part too.

I am more convinced than ever that MY argument is the stronger of the two. (for now, until something more convincing can be offered)

Where on Earth you got your definition from is anyone's guess. If you're using religion as a basis for your view on things, then you don't really have a place in a logical debate.

You have (again) confused the key component of where our difference lies.
And i'm agnostic, so no, religion plays no part in my view. My view is a widely accepted one as i proved in the links i posted for you to read.

Clutching at straws by chance?

 

[LSebastien]

This is not YOUR definition, this is a base fact, a shared definition, we both agree on this already.This is not where are argument differs. Your view is that physical attraction is the SOLE identifier of sexual orientation whereas i say it is one of the factors. Yes, the biggest factor, that is obvious, but not the only factor.

What is the point of adding more stuff to something and muddling it up for no reason? All this does is make orientation more easily confused with 'identity'.

"excuse me, is such and such physically attracted to members of the same sex?"

"yes, yes he is!"

"great, but is he gay or bi?"

You see, physical attraction does'nt identify sexual orientation on its own.

The above makes no sense whatsoever (as usual). Here's a more realistic conversation.

"Is so and so gay (physically attracted to men)?"

"No, he's bi (physically attracted to men and women)."

So yes, physical attraction does identify sexual orientation. It's the whole reason why terms like gay, bi and straight have been invented in case you're not from this planet.

Clutching at straws by chance?

No, since I'm not the one adding definitions to terms for no apparent reason.

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=LSebastien;2862046

What is the point of adding more stuff to something and muddling it up for no reason? All this does is make orientation more easily confused with 'identity'.

No it does'nt. Understanding a person's sexual identity is not easy because people are so different. As such, attributing a label is equally difficult. In order to simplify things, gay, straight and bisexual exist where the first two are black and white labels where NO sexual interaction takes place with members of the same/opposite sex respectively under ANY circumstance. (gay-for-pay and psychological conditions excluded)

The above makes no sense whatsoever (as usual). Here's a more realistic conversation.

"Is so and so gay (physically attracted to men)?"

"No, he's bi (physically attracted to men and women)."

So yes, physical attraction does identify sexual orientation. It's the whole reason why terms like gay, bi and straight have been invented in case you're not from this planet.

Ok. PMSL. Firstly i'm narrow minded, then my logic is illogical, then i may be arguing from a religious viewpoint and NOW i may be from another planet!!!
Wow, you got a rock solid case for proving my way of thinking is wrong.
(perhaps you want to strengthen your argument again by suggesting i'm senile next time...)

I did'nt give you the realistic conversation, i gave you the 'other way of thinking' which you have failed to acknowledge.
If you had, you would have understood pretty clearly that knowing a person is sexually attracted to women does not automatically identify them as straight, you have to know that they are also NOT attracted to men.

Gay, bi and straight are just labels that make things easier to understand, if you wish to use the terms to represent physical attraction only then so be it, but i'd rather know that a person uses the label they adopt to accurately reflect their behaviour and desires also.

 

[concupisys]

dang.... i want to reply to this thread again, but there's so much copy and paste text on everyone's replies i have no idea who is saying what to who what when and why.... maybe when the words stop moving around on my screen...

 

[mitchymo]

dang.... i want to reply to this thread again, but there's so much copy and paste text on everyone's replies i have no idea who is saying what to who what when and why.... maybe when the words stop moving around on my screen...

No need to reply mate. You just stand there and look pretty. :tongue:

 

[LSebastien]

No it does'nt. Understanding a person's sexual identity is not easy because people are so different.

Which is why it's so important to have the correct definition of terms instead of just using terms subjectively however you want to use them.

As such, attributing a label is equally difficult.

Only if you make them that way, which is exactly what you're doing. If you define orientation the way everyone else does, then there is no need for confusion.

In order to simplify things, gay, straight and bisexual exist where the first two are black and white labels where NO sexual interaction takes place with members of the same/opposite sex respectively under ANY circumstance.

That doesn't simplify things, that just makes things more confusing because not all people that engage in same sex behavior are physically aroused by members of the same sex.

In your effort to make things more simple (by erroneously lumping orientation and behavior together) you're actually making things more confusing. As I have logically pointed out numerous times before, not all causes lead to the same actions and not all actions are derived from the same cause, so it's illogical and actually impedes clear and concise communication to just lump things together. Just because you want the world to be a simple place doesn't mean it is, which is why it's all the more important that proper terminology and communication is used.

I did'nt give you the realistic conversation, i gave you the 'other way of thinking' which you have failed to acknowledge.

There is no reason for me to acknowledge it because conversations like the one you presented never happen. Why? Because the majority of people view orientation the same way I do.

If you had, you would have understood pretty clearly that knowing a person is sexually attracted to women does not automatically identify them as straight, you have to know that they are also NOT attracted to men.

Which is why the term bisexual exists. If they're not bi, then they're either straight or gay, DUH. Again, this is why terms like straight, bi and gay have been invented, to avoid confusion. Apparently, it hasn't helped you though.

Gay, bi and straight are just labels that make things easier to understand, if you wish to use the terms to represent physical attraction only then so be it, but i'd rather know that a person uses the label they adopt to accurately reflect their behaviour and desires also.

I'm not saying that you can't view it that way, only that there is simply no logical reason to. All you'll end up doing is creating unnecessary confusion. And to be frank I honestly don't believe you view orientation that way. I believe you're simply just saying that to justify why you don't have to admit that you're wrong.

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=LSebastien;2881314

Which is why it's so important to have the correct definition of terms instead of just using terms subjectively however you want to use them.

The correct definition does not exist in answering this question though, if it did, then it would'nt have such divided opinions. Look in more than one dictionary, more than one psychology paper, more than one encyclopedia and you see that many use the basic 'based on physical attraction to....' whereas many more acknowledge a different definition where physical attraction is the biggest role in determining the answer to a persons orientation, but NOT the only.

Only if you make them that way, which is exactly what you're doing. If you define orientation the way everyone else does, then there is no need for confusion.

Yeah right, like your way of defining is not leading to confusion.

"mum, i think i'm gay"

"oh why is that son?"

"because i like to be deepthroated by huge cocks"

"oh, well do you want to have a relationship with other men, do you find them attractive?"

"no, not at all"

"oh, well not to worry then, you're obviously still straight"

"but how can that be?"

"well son, perhaps i gave you too many lollipops as a child and now you just enjoy sucking things"

"so i'm definately not gay then"

"that's right son, you're 100% heterosexual that indulges in occasional homosexual behaviour"

"so i'm bisexual then?"

"oh no son, bisexuals are physically attracted to both male and female so you cannot be bisexual either"

"but how come my other straight friends don't like it when i ask to suck their cocks?"

"well son, its because they don't find you attractive, otherwise there is no reason why they would'nt"

"but, but, but, they don't have to be physically attracted to me to indulge in the occasional homosexual behaviour that i do, you said so"

"hmmm, well perhaps they have narrow little minds and picked up some bad religious opinions after they landed from Mars, they just don't think like we do son."

"but they cannot all be wrong about what being straight means, it must be me who is the odd one out"

"oh son, you're not odd, you're unique!, maybe we can call you a heterodickosexual, someone who is straight but likes doing gay stuff"

"or, maybe i could just use the term bisexual like everybody else does because its much more simple to be grey in a grey world than trying to be grey in a black and white one"

"but son"

"but mum"

"but son"

"but mum"

On and on goes the argument. You agree with mum, i agree with son. Only one is thinking properly.....and it aint mum!!!

That doesn't simplify things, that just makes things more confusing because not all people that engage in same sex behavior are physically aroused by members of the same sex.

It is always and forever going to be confusing for you if you stick to the narrow definition that physical attraction is the be all and end all.
By such a belief, i could say i'm not gay even though i am physically attracted to men and not women on the basis that i only find 1% of men physically attractive and even find some women to be more physically attractive than some men. My behaviour helps to clarify things because people don't behave in ways which (without being payed, bribed etc) are of no interest to them. If there is an interest in having your mate give you a no strings blow job (for whatever reason), on some level, that erodes your 100%....i.e. you are not straight.
Its all about exclusivety as far as gay and straight go.

In your effort to make things more simple (by erroneously lumping orientation and behavior together) you're actually making things more confusing. As I have logically pointed out numerous times before, not all causes lead to the same actions and not all actions are derived from the same cause, so it's illogical and actually impedes clear and concise communication to just lump things together. Just because you want the world to be a simple place doesn't mean it is, which is why it's all the more important that proper terminology and communication is used.

After all this time and countless telling, you STILL don't understand that i am not lumping them together, they are seperate, i've explained that, but they are still linked to each other through a persons sexual identity.
Please hear that and understand, its becoming a bore to keep repeating.

There is no reason for me to acknowledge it because conversations like the one you presented never happen. Why? Because the majority of people view orientation the same way I do.

The majority, myself included actually, agree with the most simplistic use of the definition, its the use we all use. But that certainly does'nt mean that the majority would agree that you can still be straight whilst performing homosexual behaviour.
The majority would call that bisexuality, physical attraction present or not.

Which is why the term bisexual exists. If they're not bi, then they're either straight or gay, DUH. Again, this is why terms like straight, bi and gay have been invented, to avoid confusion. Apparently, it hasn't helped you though.

No mate, it has'nt helped those who are in denial about their sexual identity. Too afraid to admit they are bisexual, they claim to be straight, and use all kinds of excuses to justify it.

I'm not saying that you can't view it that way, only that there is simply no logical reason to. All you'll end up doing is creating unnecessary confusion. And to be frank I honestly don't believe you view orientation that way. I believe you're simply just saying that to justify why you don't have to admit that you're wrong.

There is no confusion that i see AT ALL in my way of looking at it. Principally because its not MY way but a common way, as evidence across the net suggests. You're way is basic and fails to tie up loose ends.
Two guys who are straight, one of which indulges in gay behaviour does not two straight guys make!

I can assure you also that if i felt i was wrong, even the slightest, i would not have carried on responding, i would have walked away.

Now, as you believe your definition to be correct, and you fail to see any clues as to the confusion THAT causes, then there is no point carrying on this debate. My last post on trying to explain to you ends now.

 

[LSebastien]

The correct definition does not exist in answering this question though, if it did, then it would'nt have such divided opinions. Look in more than one dictionary, more than one psychology paper, more than one encyclopedia and you see that many use the basic 'based on physical attraction to....' whereas many more acknowledge a different definition where physical attraction is the biggest role in determining the answer to a persons orientation, but NOT the only.

Judging from what you just said, every definition uses physical attraction as a criterion, so I'm not seeing any 'divided opinions'. Since that is the criterion that most definitions use then that is what we should assume people are referring to when asking about someones sexual orientation.

"because i like to be deepthroated by huge cocks"

"oh, well do you want to have a relationship with other men, do you find them attractive?"

"no, not at all"

"oh, well not to worry then, you're obviously still straight"

"but how can that be?"

It's called a fetish. Just like some people might have a sexual attraction to footwear or certain types of material. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation but rather sexual arousal from an idea or object.

"hmmm, well perhaps they have narrow little minds and picked up some bad religious opinions after they landed from Mars, they just don't think like we do son."

A smart mom would simply explain that there has to be a reason other than physical attraction for someone to engage in sexual behavior with a gender they're not normally aroused by so not every friend he propositions will be interested. An unintelligent mom would insist that her son is bisexual even though he told her that he doesn't have an attraction to guys, thus confusing him unnecessarily.

"but they cannot all be wrong about what being straight means, it must be me who is the odd one out"

Actually, no one in your little scenario is wrong about what straight means.

By such a belief, i could say i'm not gay even though i am physically attracted to men and not women on the basis that i only find 1% of men physically attractive and even find some women to be more physically attractive than some men.

That's correct. If you're physically attracted to both men and women then you are bisexual, not gay.

My behaviour helps to clarify things because people don't behave in ways which (without being payed, bribed etc) are of no interest to them.

No, it doesn't, because behavior is a choice, whereas orientation is not. Just because you choose to be exclusive with men doesn't mean you are no longer physically aroused by certain women, therefore, you would still be considered bisexual.

After all this time and countless telling, you STILL don't understand that i am not lumping them together,

Oh really? Here is what you said earlier:

In order to simplify things, gay, straight and bisexual exist where the first two are black and white labels where NO sexual interaction takes place with members of the same/opposite sex respectively under ANY circumstance.

Using this narrow minded definition, orientation and behavior are essentially lumped together. If a straight person can't be considered straight if they engage in homosexual behavior, then the only behavior they can engage in is straight behavior, which, again means that, using your erroneous definition, they are lumped together.

But that certainly does'nt mean that the majority would agree that you can still be straight whilst performing homosexual behaviour.
The majority would call that bisexuality, physical attraction present or not.

Since homosexuality has been widely accepted only in recent years, the majority of people have yet to make a distinction between orientation and behavior, erroneously thinking they are lumped together, just like you. Forward thinking people have already thought about this and now studies have been done on it (as per the links I gave earlier) and are generally in agreement that they are different things.

No mate, it has'nt helped those who are in denial about their sexual identity.

Except this topic isn't about people who are in denial.

You're way is basic and fails to tie up loose ends.

What loose ends????

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=LSebastien;2889218]

Judging from what you just said, every definition uses physical attraction as a criterion, so I'm not seeing any 'divided opinions'. Since that is the criterion that most definitions use then that is what we should assume people are referring to when asking about someones sexual orientation.

I already answered this, i did not disagree with this point. I pointed out basically that the social understanding is not always the definitive one.

It's called a fetish. Just like some people might have a sexual attraction to footwear or certain types of material. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation but rather sexual arousal from an idea or object.

A big cock fetish makes you bi. Care to admit it or not, claiming that you are not physically attracted to men but just have a fetish does'nt wash. The attraction to cock is indicative.

A smart mom would simply explain that there has to be a reason other than physical attraction for someone to engage in sexual behavior with a gender they're not normally aroused by so not every friend he propositions will be interested. An unintelligent mom would insist that her son is bisexual even though he told her that he doesn't have an attraction to guys, thus confusing him unnecessarily.

There is no confusion and i stick to that. This guy could be referred to as bi-curious and therfore differentiate between himself and a straight guy who does not have sexual relations with members of a sex they're not interested in.

No, it doesn't, because behavior is a choice, whereas orientation is not. Just because you choose to be exclusive with men doesn't mean you are no longer physically aroused by certain women, therefore, you would still be considered bisexual.

Orientation is a label which you choose to apply rightfully or wrongly. The sexual identity is what is not chosen. The sexual identity guides your behaviour so 2 + 2 =.....

Oh really? Here is what you said earlier:



Using this narrow minded definition, orientation and behavior are essentially lumped together. If a straight person can't be considered straight if they engage in homosexual behavior, then the only behavior they can engage in is straight behavior, which, again means that, using your erroneous definition, they are lumped together.

Essentially they are, yes, but we already established fairly early on that there are exceptions to the rule and furthermore that they are linked by identity not directly associated, if they were, then people would argue an equally dumb point that physical attraction plays no part because its all down to behaviour. See were i'm going with this? Probably not.

Since homosexuality has been widely accepted only in recent years, the majority of people have yet to make a distinction between orientation and behavior, erroneously thinking they are lumped together, just like you. Forward thinking people have already thought about this and now studies have been done on it (as per the links I gave earlier) and are generally in agreement that they are different things.

I AM NOT LUMPING THEM TOGETHER. I have shown how i can see their linking to each other, this is not the same as lumping them together. Its like saying ice is water, technically yes but actually no (or vice versa).



Claiming that you can be straight whilst indulging your sexual interests with gay behaviour is DENIAL. Bisexual or Bi-curious are far more suitable orientations to adopt in their accuracy. So yes, it actually is about denial.

 

[LSebastien]

I already answered this, i did not disagree with this point. I pointed out basically that the social understanding is not always the definitive one.

Which is irrelevant since, in this case, the social definition is the definitive one. And if you're not disagreeing with me, then stop arguing with me about it.

A big cock fetish makes you bi. Care to admit it or not, claiming that you are not physically attracted to men but just have a fetish does'nt wash. The attraction to cock is indicative.

The fact that you are arrogant enough to make such a statement shows how ignorant you are to anything outside your own personal experience. A fetish for big cock isn't 'indicative' of an attraction to men any more than a fetish for leather is 'indicative' of an attraction to cows. That's what a fetish is, a sexual attraction to something that lies outside of orientation.

There is no confusion and i stick to that. This guy could be referred to as bi-curious and therfore differentiate between himself and a straight guy who does not have sexual relations with members of a sex they're not interested in.

No, bi-curious is for people who think they might be attracted to members of the same sex but need to think about it more or have an experience to be sure. In this scenario, the son clearly stated that he isn't attracted to other boys, so no, he is neither bi nor bi-curious. He simply has a fetish for sucking cock.

Orientation is a label which you choose to apply rightfully or wrongly. The sexual identity is what is not chosen.

You have that backwards. You would think, as a gay man, you would at least know the difference between the two. A man who's orientation is bi can choose to identify as straight because there is less social stigma or simply because his attraction to men is negligible compared to his attraction to woman. However, his orientation will always be bi because his attraction to both sexes is something he will never have control over.

Essentially they are, yes, but we already established fairly early on that there are exceptions to the rule and furthermore that they are linked by identity not directly associated, if they were, then people would argue an equally dumb point that physical attraction plays no part because its all down to behaviour. See were i'm going with this? Probably not.

Actually no, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Do yourself a favor and just give up already. You're trying too hard.

I AM NOT LUMPING THEM TOGETHER.

Yes, you are. You stated clearly that:

gay, straight and bisexual exist where the first two are black and white labels where NO sexual interaction takes place with members of the same/opposite sex respectively under ANY circumstance.

- or in other words, if a person engages in same sex behavior, then their orientation can't be considered straight. This means that their orientation and behavior have to be the same. Stop denying it or are you trying to say that what you said isn't what you said?

Claiming that you can be straight whilst indulging your sexual interests with gay behaviour is DENIAL.

Again, this is just your sheer ignorance showing through. Just because you would not personally engage in sex with woman doesn't mean that any straight guy who engages in gay behavior must be in denial. Such arrogance.

The fact that, throughout the course of this debate, I've had to explain to you what orientation is, how it is different than identity and what a fetish is, clearly indicates that you are fairly young and naive and not very experienced in ways of life different than your own and are at that stage in life were you think you've 'got everything figured out' and are therefore close minded about anything that challenges your preconceived notions of things, even if they're completely illogical.

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=LSebastien;2908818

Which is irrelevant since, in this case, the social definition is the definitive one. And if you're not disagreeing with me, then stop arguing with me about it.

No, according to you it is. My definition is clearly broader than yours, as such we disagree on the credibilty of the definitive definition. We ONLY agree on the social definition.

The fact that you are arrogant enough to make such a statement shows how ignorant you are to anything outside your own personal experience. A fetish for big cock isn't 'indicative' of an attraction to men any more than a fetish for leather is 'indicative' of an attraction to cows. That's what a fetish is, a sexual attraction to something that lies outside of orientation.

Firstly, i didn't say that it was indicative of 'attraction to men', i said it was simply indicative, and had you understood where i was coming from when presumably you just glanced at the text instead of reading it, you should have been able to see that i was referring to 'homosexual tendencies'.
Secondly, a fetish is classed as a mental disorder, a part of paraphillia. Always related to sex and sexual gratification, there are a few theories as to what creates a fetish. Normally the object or body part involved in a fetish is a non-sexual one. Some are however, like the penis, but such fetish is not regarded as a fetish on the basis that a sexual stimulus to a sexual organ is normal behaviour. Anyone with a fetish for cock is almost certainly sexually interested in the masculine. Whilst a person with such a fetish (which isn't really) claims to be straight, its due to denial or lack of awareness of their true sexuality.
The most likely reason for a cock fetish to exist is in homosexuals who are in denial due to upbringing where the belief that homosexuality is wrong
has been reinforced throughout their upbringing and where they believe it themselves. The fetish exists because the person knows (in their mind) that what they are doing is wrong (tho its not in this day and age) but need it for sexual gratification.
A fetish is regarded as a mental disorder and as such, the explanation lies in the mind. An explanation of what creates a cock fetish would yield the same result as tit fetishes or ass fetishes, its their representation of masculinity or femininity respectively. i.e. cock loving means gay tendencies if the lover in question is a dude.

No, bi-curious is for people who think they might be attracted to members of the same sex but need to think about it more or have an experience to be sure. In this scenario, the son clearly stated that he isn't attracted to other boys, so no, he is neither bi nor bi-curious. He simply has a fetish for sucking cock.

Bi-curious is a perfect label for describing people with interests in the same gender who might not realise their bisexuality or are just going through a phase. Behaviour (unless drunk or drugged) suggests more than a thought about it, hence bisexuality, unless said person NEVER does it again (experimentation).
A straight guy that keeps going back for cock is not straight.

You have that backwards. You would think, as a gay man, you would at least know the difference between the two. A man who's orientation is bi can choose to identify as straight because there is less social stigma or simply because his attraction to men is negligible compared to his attraction to woman. However, his orientation will always be bi because his attraction to both sexes is something he will never have control over.

Re-read!!! Clearly you have just lengthened what i had already said.

Actually no, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Do yourself a favor and just give up already. You're trying too hard.

Nope, i'm really not trying 'too' hard. Its not me throwing negatives at you in an effort to discredit your way of thinking. I am arguing the points, you are making assumptions that i am this, that, the other, and now young and naive as a means to try and discredit my thinking. The only way you can discredit my thinking though, is to argue the point to an indeniable conclusivity. But like i've already said, you can't, no more than i can convince you of my way. We just don't hold common definitions.

Yes, you are. You stated clearly that:
- or in other words, if a person engages in same sex behavior, then their orientation can't be considered straight. This means that their orientation and behavior have to be the same. Stop denying it or are you trying to say that what you said isn't what you said?

It does not mean they have to be the same, it means they are linked. Do you need the definitions of 'same' and 'linked'. They are different.
And this is the third time i have told you, at least!!!

Again, this is just your sheer ignorance showing through. Just because you would not personally engage in sex with woman doesn't mean that any straight guy who engages in gay behavior must be in denial. Such arrogance.

The fact that, throughout the course of this debate, I've had to explain to you what orientation is, how it is different than identity and what a fetish is, clearly indicates that you are fairly young and naive and not very experienced in ways of life different than your own and are at that stage in life were you think you've 'got everything figured out' and are therefore close minded about anything that challenges your preconceived notions of things, even if they're completely illogical.[

Pompous dude, pompous.

You have not HAD to explain orientation to me. You have told me that your definition is correct, i disagree, this is because my understanding of sexual orientation is broader.

I am beginning to suspect that you may actually be the guy that wrote that thesis which you speak of, basically because you seem desperate to try and 'WIN' this dead debate.

So, i'll make things a little easier for you, i'll make this my last post, you can have the last word and we'el say no more about it. Sound good?

 

[LSebastien]

My definition is clearly broader than yours

Which is why it's wrong. The broader a definition is, the less accurately it is able to define something. In order to foster proper communication, accurate descriptions of things are necessary. Here's a question. Where did you get your definition of sexual orientation? Or did you just invent it yourself?

Firstly, i didn't say that it was indicative of 'attraction to men', i said it was simply indicative, and had you understood where i was coming from when presumably you just glanced at the text instead of reading it, you should have been able to see that i was referring to 'homosexual tendencies'.

Again, here's what you said:

A big cock fetish makes you bi. Care to admit it or not, claiming that you are not physically attracted to men but just have a fetish does'nt wash. The attraction to cock is indicative.

Since you never mentioned 'homosexual tendencies' (which, according to your outlook, would make them bi anyway) You're basically saying that a fetish for cock makes a person bi. You can't keep just pretending that you didn't say what you said and expect any of us to be stupid enough to believe you. Either admit that you're wrong or give up.

Whilst a person with such a fetish (which isn't really) claims to be straight, its due to denial or lack of awareness of their true sexuality. The most likely reason for a cock fetish to exist is in homosexuals who are in denial due to upbringing where the belief that homosexuality is wrong has been reinforced throughout their upbringing and where they believe it themselves. The fetish exists because the person knows (in their mind) that what they are doing is wrong (tho its not in this day and age) but need it for sexual gratification.

And where exactly are you getting this information from? Or is this just more stuff you're inventing, like your definition of orientation?

Bi-curious is a perfect label for describing people with interests in the same gender who might not realise their bisexuality or are just going through a phase.

Except in the earlier scenario, there is no confusion. The son clearly states that he has no attraction to other boys. He doesn't mention at any point that he's 'confused'. In fact, he seems to know exactly what he likes and thinks it's perfectly normal. That's exactly how you and I expect people to view gay and bisexual people, so why can't you extend the same courtesy and logic to the son in your scenario?

A straight guy that keeps going back for cock is not straight.

Who said anything about "keeps going back"? I believe I was referring to special and specific circumstances.

Re-read!!! Clearly you have just lengthened what i had already said.

For a third time, here is what you said:

Orientation is a label which you choose to apply rightfully or wrongly. The sexual identity is what is not chosen.

How many more times are you going go back and pretend that you didn't say something that you clearly did? And if it's a case of you being unable to remember your own argument, then don't bother replying to me.

Nope, i'm really not trying 'too' hard.

Then you're not trying hard enough because what you said earlier made so little sense that I gave up trying to figure out what BS you were trying to push on me. Go back and reread what you had wrote and maybe you'll realize how incoherent it is.

It does not mean they have to be the same,

According to your own words it does. Here it is for the third time:

gay, straight and bisexual exist where the first two are black and white labels where NO sexual interaction takes place with members of the same/opposite sex respectively under ANY circumstance.

According to your own words, they are not merely 'linked', they have to be the same. Stop denying it with that pathetic, nonsensical 'they are just linked' garbage. The only person you're fooling is yourself.

Pompous dude, pompous.

Considering you're the one that is making black and white statements about people you know nothing about, I'd say you're the one being pompous.

I am beginning to suspect that you may actually be the guy that wrote that thesis which you speak of, basically because you seem desperate to try and 'WIN' this dead debate.

And that's coming from someone who keeps responding to me? That was pretty weak, even for you.

So, i'll make things a little easier for you, i'll make this my last post

I've heard that before (or are you going to deny that too?) but your desperation to win won out.

 

[deleted15807]

BUMP.

Sometimes an old subject needs a refresher course.

There has been a lot of psych studies lately about 'sexual orientation' being different and separate from 'sexual behavior', meaning, if you engage in sexual acts with a member of the same sex, it doesn't have to mean that you're gay or bi.

Exactly.