Sexuality

[Smaccoms]

Yea, we've had a ton of talk on this, but I want to talk about it more (get over it).

So I always thought the labels of straight and gay were specifically made to describe a gender one had a preference for. Obviously people are not 100% one way or the other--that's not the point. Whatever thoughts one had on the opposing gender was not a concern because the main focus was the gender one did prefer. The very point of bisexuality is to describe people who do not strictly HAVE a preference, which is perfectly legitimate.
Lately, it seems people are thinking a little different. It appears the philosophy is that straight describes a sense of revulsion for the "same-gender" (on top of a lack of preference for it).
I do not understand this line of thinking, for one's thoughts and feelings for one gender are a separate subject from one's thoughts and feelings from the other, are they not? It's why bisexuality is legitimate in the first place, right?

Another thread I was following was somewhat on this topic, but in a hostile manner. The reason for the new thread is so that the topic can be continued (or started) as a debate, rather than an argument.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I think there is a difference between 'revulsion' over the same gender and revulsion over the idea of Sex with the same gender.
many 100% straight guys have extremely close and loving relationships with other men... often spending an inordinate amount of time in the company of their male friends, drinking, gaming, partying, hunting or just hanging.

So clearly there is a difference between brotherly attractions/love and erotic love/attraction.

However... this is complicated by the well documented fact of socially re-inforced disgust with homosexual attraction or feelings.

Those with SOME level of sexual attraction for their own gender are raised in a culture where that is demonized and made out to be either indicative of being secretly totally homosexual, or monstrous and depraved.

It is not surprising that some people in this situation manifest very strong and outwardly displayed 'shows' of being pointedly NOT attracted... i.e. revulsion. But, of course, the more strongly these feelings of revulsion are expressed, the more it looks like overcompensating out of fear that their secret and disapproved attraction might be showing thru.

this can even manifest as 'gay bashing' in ways both verbal and physically assaultive. ( odd how despite their supposed revulsion, they still seek to touch them in hurtful ways... not unlike the 3rd graders who call names or pull the hair of the very girls on whom they have crushes to which they can not admit before their friends )

Even worse are those who actually engage in indulging these desires, yet act to "head off" any rumors or suspicions by becoming even more vocal in their assertions of revulsion. They end up actively supporting anti-gay agendas as a means of convincing their peers that they are above reproach.

This social schizophrenia results in a large number of men with serious issues of self loathing, either for their secret desires they believe to be vile, or for their own lack of spine in standing up to a social view they actually believe to be wrong.

And self loathing manifests as absolutism that both hides and breeds anger, fear and violence.

In any event, the only truly straight people I know really could care less about homosexuality.

And the more overt any sign of revulsion, the more likely it is that they are suffering from this national psychosis of self denial.

 

[Smaccoms]

Its funny because throughout the post, your response uses the sexual binary as a baseline. Not a criticism, just an observation.
Love is a very complicated subject. Love does not always include sex this much is clear. Part of the problem of platonic versus sexual love in men specifically, is that so many men in our society are terrified of the implications of liking it. It becomes a threat to their masculinity. Both are legitimate, both can happen without one's masculinity being torn apart, and both can happen no matter the sexual orientation of both/any parties involved. Growing up certainly is a complicated subject.
I have to go. Just to be clear (if someone else posted before I post this, this is a response to the first response to this thread (i.e. phil ayesho)

 

[paigexox]

I've always been fond of Storm's model for sexuality, as can be seen here:
http://i.imgur.com/HjCyW.png

It's an expansion of Kinsey's original Homosexual-Heterosexual continuum, and in that capacity, you can land anywhere within.

Also remember one's sexual orientation is different from your sexual identity. The first encompasses who you're actually capable of loving and feeling committed to (you can't change it), the latter being how you label yourself (fluid over time).

 

[Countryguy63]

Here are some responses I sent in Pm's....

In a perfect world, labels would be useful. The reason that I dislike labels so much, is that they are used to try and define others, and mostly in a negative way.
Just look at all the "would a Str8 guy...?" I mean, why try to define someone on an act? I recently asked on the "staight guys gettin head from guys" thread. If a gay man in a gay relationship performed a sexual act on a female, would he then be straight? To me, No, he's still gay. But with guys, everyone wants to accuse the str8 guy of being "gay" as an insult.
I also think because "Gay" has been used in such a negative way for generations, that people (mostly guys) who are struggling with their thoughts of SSA, worries more about being "that word", because of the fear of being labeled.
If the labels were used in more of a positive way of support and encouragement, I would have absolutely no issues with it.

I guess my problem is not with those that use "labels" to show that they are proud of who they are, but with those as mentioned that use it to disrespect others :frown1:

 

[paigexox]

I also think because "Gay" has been used in such a negative way for generations, that people (mostly guys) who are struggling with their thoughts of SSA, worries more about being "that word", because of the fear of being labeled.

Can you clarify what SSA means? I am familiar with the terms MSM or WSW, but not that one. :smile:

 

[Countryguy63]

Can you clarify what SSA means? I am familiar with the terms MSM or WSW, but not that one. :smile:

Same Sex Attraction :smile:

 

[Smaccoms]

Here are some responses I sent in Pm's....

In a perfect world, labels would be useful. The reason that I dislike labels so much, is that they are used to try and define others, and mostly in a negative way.
Just look at all the "would a Str8 guy...?" I mean, why try to define someone on an act? I recently asked on the "staight guys gettin head from guys" thread. If a gay man in a gay relationship performed a sexual act on a female, would he then be straight? To me, No, he's still gay. But with guys, everyone wants to accuse the str8 guy of being "gay" as an insult.
I also think because "Gay" has been used in such a negative way for generations, that people (mostly guys) who are struggling with their thoughts of SSA, worries more about being "that word", because of the fear of being labeled.
If the labels were used in more of a positive way of support and encouragement, I would have absolutely no issues with it.

I guess my problem is not with those that use "labels" to show that they are proud of who they are, but with those as mentioned that use it to disrespect others :frown1:

This was my response:

You're right, society these days have given labels a bad name. They are supposed to make life easier not harder! This is why i try to use them in a positive way, focusing on what seems to be important to the individual you're talking to. Identifying as gay has a purpose. That purpose I think is to tell people not only that you prefer the "same" gender over the "opposite", but also that you deserve respect from other people for being brave enough to openly live your life with that preference. Without giving the respect where it is due, I am going to use this identity to my advantage in order to demand that respect which I am not getting.
For example, if I am in an environment where clearly all the people wish me to "blend in" with everyone else because my identity is making them uncomfortable, I am going to use that label to blend less in order insist that my wants and needs are just as important as theirs. It is not right to demand I hide myself for their own comfort, for everyone else. I am going to be who I want to be, and that deserves respect.

 

[Smaccoms]

I've always been fond of Storm's model for sexuality, as can be seen here:
http://i.imgur.com/HjCyW.png

It's an expansion of Kinsey's original Homosexual-Heterosexual continuum, and in that capacity, you can land anywhere within.

Also remember one's sexual orientation is different from your sexual identity. The first encompasses who you're actually capable of loving and feeling committed to (you can't change it), the latter being how you label yourself (fluid over time).

I do not like it for one reason only; I do not like to think of homosexuality and heterosexuality as complete opposites. I do not agree with the interpretation that a high presence of one means a low presence of another (inverse relationship). I am not sure what to make of the connection between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but it is different from that at least.

I like to think of sexuality under three different sub-topics:
A.) Sexual Orientation
B.) Sexual Behavior
C.) Sexual Practices
A.) refers to whats going on in your head. What are you attracted to precisely and why. I love watching girls get head by straight men. Something about the desperation the men have, and how they use their tongue so actively and intensely. I do not enjoy watching women get head from other women as much.
B.) refers to how you interact with others sexually. Human beings are social creatures; everything we identify with has a social element which becomes important to that concept.
C.) refers to who you have sex with, where and when. It's a basically a list. It can be fun to fool around with, but at the end of a day it's still just a list. It's impact on A.) and B.) depends, ultimately, on the individual you're speaking with.
This is just my perspective anyway...

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Its funny because throughout the post, your response uses the sexual binary as a baseline. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Two reasons... first of all, your OP was Binary itself... in suggesting that there was no middle ground between being okay with it and revulsion.

Secondly, binary because that is a feature of the debate on BOTH the hetero and homo sexual sides... in that BOTH the straight community And the Gay community buy into the societal belief that everyone is Either One or the Other.
Either Gay or Straight... and Both communities further the marginalization of anyone claiming some admixture.
Any guy with any sexual interest whatsoever in the same gender is roundly believed by both camps to simply be in 'denial', to be in the Process of coming to grips with his 100% homosexuality...

Despite the strides made in social acceptance of the gay community, it is this very binary attitude among the majority in both that makes "straight" men so likely to make a 'show' of revulsion such that others never suspect their own unvoiced interests... or, even, to suffer such self loathing that they can not even allow themselves to think about or understand their own mixed feelings.

Most 'straight' men believe that ANY homosexual thoughts or actions makes you 'gay'.

To be quite honest, I have made no secret that I fully support the conclusions of science in this regard... namely that the vast majority of men have some level of bisexuality, falling along a spectrum only the very endpoints of which are totally straight to totally gay.

That is the fact... most of us are in the grey area between...

but the curious thing is the binary social construct that emerges, despite this fact.

It is the Belief system in the dichotomy of sexuality that creates the revulsion... not any actual physiological response to the same gender.

It will not lessen until both the straight and the gay community can accept as truth that most men are simply not wholly one nor the other, and they will remain that way their whole life long.

 

[AlphaMale]

So, it is my belief that if a "straight" guy has to act like other guys are repulsive then he is in fact either gay or bisexual himself and repressing his true feelings. I guess the same could be applied to women.

Anytime someone has to "prove" their sexuality by either downing other sexualities or genders then they are hiding something.

I've always been fond of Storm's model for sexuality, as can be seen here:
http://i.imgur.com/HjCyW.png

It's an expansion of Kinsey's original Homosexual-Heterosexual continuum, and in that capacity, you can land anywhere within.

Also remember one's sexual orientation is different from your sexual identity. The first encompasses who you're actually capable of loving and feeling committed to (you can't change it), the latter being how you label yourself (fluid over time).

I think my signature explains it a little better than that chart. :wink:

 

[Smaccoms]

Two reasons... first of all, your OP was Binary itself... in suggesting that there was no middle ground between being okay with it and revulsion.

Secondly, binary because that is a feature of the debate on BOTH the hetero and homo sexual sides... in that BOTH the straight community And the Gay community buy into the societal belief that everyone is Either One or the Other.
Either Gay or Straight... and Both communities further the marginalization of anyone claiming some admixture.
Any guy with any sexual interest whatsoever in the same gender is roundly believed by both camps to simply be in 'denial', to be in the Process of coming to grips with his 100% homosexuality...

Despite the strides made in social acceptance of the gay community, it is this very binary attitude among the majority in both that makes "straight" men so likely to make a 'show' of revulsion such that others never suspect their own unvoiced interests... or, even, to suffer such self loathing that they can not even allow themselves to think about or understand their own mixed feelings.

Most 'straight' men believe that ANY homosexual thoughts or actions makes you 'gay'.

To be quite honest, I have made no secret that I fully support the conclusions of science in this regard... namely that the vast majority of men have some level of bisexuality, falling along a spectrum only the very endpoints of which are totally straight to totally gay.

That is the fact... most of us are in the grey area between...

but the curious thing is the binary social construct that emerges, despite this fact.

It is the Belief system in the dichotomy of sexuality that creates the revulsion... not any actual physiological response to the same gender.

It will not lessen until both the straight and the gay community can accept as truth that most men are simply not wholly one nor the other, and they will remain that way their whole life long.

I believe you misunderstood me. I will attempt to clarify myself here:

I do not believe in the binary system; a philosophy to be commonplace among modern society.

I also do not believe in placing homosexuality and heterosexuality on the same scale; the idea seems foolish to me. It implies that men and women are opposites rather than complimentary. This I do not believe either.

I believe homosexuality and heterosexuality CAN be connected into the same concept, but that it is not in reality the case. Since I believe men and women are complimentary, one has a different fit with each of these two genders (we mustn't forget the other gender options now should we?). It is up to the individual to explore their fit with these two genders.
I believe it to be wrong to connect heterosexuality and homosexuality into the same scale; it prevents one from fully exploring how they fit with each gender (i.e. it forces a choice). This choice (like you said) results from social norms invented in different societies, religions, and any other groups where social norms would apply that you can think of.

I can identify myself as gay despite my attraction to women (sexually) for multiple reasons. I am currently obsessed and overwhelmed with sex with men; it is my focus mentally and physically. Thus, my attraction to women takes a backseat, for it is not the focus.
To add to that, I think of homosexuality and heterosexuality on different scales. I have put much time and effort to working on my "homosexuality" scale; I know my stance along that spectrum. On the other hand with women, I've done almost nothing. That part of myself is under a "fog of war" of sorts. Since I know my stance on my homosexuality scale, but not my heterosexuality scale, I can fully state I prefer men.
You see there is a large difference between not liking something, and not knowing your opinion at all. I only recently realized I need to explore my heterosexual scale more, for I found a small spark for that kind of sex. It deserves my full attention so that I may explore it's intricacies.

I hope all of this makes sense. If it does, I can add to that my question from my OP:

How can one come to the logical conclusion of:

Heterosexuality = revulsion of sex with the "same-sex"
AND
Homosexuality = revulsion of sex with the "opposite-sex"

It does not make sense to me. I suppose I shouldn't surprised, for society does not always have to make sense; this is the very point. Societies "alter reality" to fit their way of life, their philosophy. America is the land of opportunity, where the focus is fame and fortune. Everything else I suppose is built on that idea these days.

 

[paigexox]

I think my signature explains it a little better than that chart. :wink:

The problem I have with that is multi-faceted.

First, there's a 54% concordance rate between twins having the same sexual orientation. So while social and psychological factors obviously play a role, it's clear your biology accounts for a large proportion of the end result. In addition, offspring can be born gay because the mother forms an allergic reaction to the H-Y antigen after multiple male births. So if you were a male child who was the last in a line of male births, you are "at higher risk" of being born gay (something like 30% of gay men are thought to be born due to this). Conversely, excessively high estrogen levels in the mother, or great stress during the prenatal period has been show to have the same effect for female offspring.

Second, pose the question to any heterosexual male of when "he knew he was straight". Repeat that a very large number of times and you will find it happens at a very young age, and in less than 2% of the cases, never changes. It's certainly not something they consciously got to decide upon.

If we were born bisexual as you pose, then Freud's theories or the failed practices of Dr. John Money would have held water. I am not discounting that a person's orientation may be influenced by social factors (like in BEM's exotic becomes erotic model), or that positive and negative psychological thoughts help crystallize things. But I do think many people mistake how they label themselves and their behaviors (sexual identity) for their inner compass of who they are actually capable of loving (sexual orientation).

 

[paigexox]

I do not like it for one reason only; I do not like to think of homosexuality and heterosexuality as complete opposites. I do not agree with the interpretation that a high presence of one means a low presence of another (inverse relationship).

Erm, that doesn't apply to the model:
-You could be high/high
-low/low
-low/high (or the reverse) and so on
-it also represents a continuum; just imagine the axis are unit-length and the high & low labels are there to give you a sense of direction

 

[Smaccoms]

Erm, that doesn't apply to the model:
-You could be high/high
-low/low
-low/high (or the reverse) and so on
-it also represents a continuum; just imagine the axis are unit-length and the high & low labels are there to give you a sense of direction

I already said I do not believe homosexuality and heterosexuality exist on the same scale, did you read my previous post in full?

 

[paigexox]

lol, you're asking me if I read it when I clearly quoted:

"I do not like it for one reason only; I do not like to think of homosexuality and heterosexuality as complete opposites. I do not agree with the interpretation that a high presence of one means a low presence of another (inverse relationship)."


To me, that's the stem from which everything follows. Sorry if I got lost in the ABCABC -> B on A bit. :shrug:

 

[Smaccoms]

lol, you're asking me if I read it when I clearly quoted:

"I do not like it for one reason only; I do not like to think of homosexuality and heterosexuality as complete opposites. I do not agree with the interpretation that a high presence of one means a low presence of another (inverse relationship)."


To me, that's the stem from which everything follows. Sorry if I got lost in the ABCABC -> B on A bit. :shrug:

That's not the post I was referring to.

 

[paigexox]

VOOOOOOFFFFff, continuity gone.

I made a post, and you offered insight as to why you dislike it (above). I elaborate *directly* in response to that very post of yours, you ask "did you read my previous post in full?" which, logically, would be the post I responded to.

Now you're saying it's not that post, but one previous to it.

If you can't see why that's bewildering... blah

 

[Smaccoms]

VOOOOOOFFFFff, continuity gone.

I made a post, and you offered insight as to why you dislike it (above). I elaborate *directly* in response to that very post of yours, you ask "did you read my previous post in full?" which, logically, would be the post I responded to.

Now you're saying it's not that post, but one previous to it.

If you can't see why that's bewildering... blah

I meant to refer to the previous post which I made in the thread, not the post you were referring to. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[B_bi_mmf]

The very point of bisexuality is to describe people who do not strictly HAVE a preference, which is perfectly legitimate.

I disagree. Many bisexuals do in fact have a preference, and that in no way renders illegitimate their thinking of themselves as such.

Bisexuality does not refer to lack of a preference but to an ability to enjoy sexual experience with both men and women (or at least to find the idea of sex with some members of both genders to be exciting).