I used to be gay. I had this fling with this boy who lived a block away from sixth to eighth grade. It was good. A few years later, I finally got a taste of pussy, and I decided, fuck this penis business, this vagina thing is way better. It's personal preference, I suppose.
Now, I only date girls. I don't deny that I still find some guys (O.K., a lot of guys) attractive, it just isn't to my taste. I suppose that this makes me heterosexual.
But I refuse to believe it.
The main problem that I have with the term 'heterosexual' and sexuality in general is that it presupposes idealist gender binaries. This means that it assigns a gender cast of 'masculine' or 'feminine' to any given person based on one's sex. However, there are plenty of men who act 'feminine' and women who act 'masculine.' However, this gender swapping makes a man have no less of a penis and a woman have no less of a vagina.
As well, there are varying degrees of masculinity and femininity based upon what characteristics of the social construct stereotype one exhibits. It is perfectly possible (theoretically, of course) for a person (male or female) to embody a certain amount of traits from each classification to completely toe the line, and also possible for another person to embody a non-correlative set of traits to do the same thing. Thus, there is no one thing that defines one as masculine or feminine, nothing for gender binaries to stand on, and thus they don't exist except as a social construct.
Another problem I have with the idea of sexuality is a notion that somehow one's sexuality hinges solely on what bit of genitalia a person prefers. This is about as intelligent as defining one's sexuality based upon a tendency to be attracted to Asian women or men with dark hair. And what about those who decide to (physically) change their sex? Do we consider a whole new sex based upon genital operations? You can change your penis into a vagina just like you can change your brown hair blonde.
So, if gender is relative and genitalia is transient, what do we have to define our sexuality? My answer is nothing. Defining one's sexuality is about as intuitive as trying to define one's musical tastes. Sure you like rock, but every so often, there's this one hip-hop song that comes along that's so catchy that you're compelled to watch it synched up to clips of Spongebob Sqaurepants over and over again.
I do not deny that it is possible (and oftentimes, quite easy) to observe tendencies in one's sexual tastes; however, to define oneself as heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or whatever reduces people to their genitalia. Because do you honestly think "[insert genitalia preference here]? Let's fuck it!"
I see what you're saying. However, I also think that way too much attention has been given to the issue of sexual orientation in the last few years. You have a right to your own actions and opinions, but you wouldn't have to defend them if people weren't so critical and assuming in the first place. Because of people's ignorance, others find the need to clarify and defend to an extent that wouldn't be necessary otherwise.
I am in no way criticizing you for speaking your mind. You bring up a great point. I just wish that people were more accepting and open minded and that the point didn't need to be made in the first place
People tend to presuppose things based on social norms. It's up to us to make clear, logical arguments to counter various normatives often taken for granted which don't logically follow.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Hi, I'm straight. xD But I do see your point of view. I do think, however that sexuality has a bit to do with social standards but, however, there is a fundemental basis for social standards. Biologically, men aren't suited to be at the recieving end in sex. The action produces tears in the lining of the anus and in some instance require stitches to repair. I would draw the conclusion that the apparent sexual function of either sex is enough to provide a base toward a societal taboo
The same thing is true of vaginal sex. Either way, you've missed my point. I'm not discussing homosexuality at all, but rather the futility of attempting to assign sexuality in general.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
You don't seem to have much of an imagination for all the possible types of sexual activity if you assume that men having sex with men are automatically having anal sex or that men with women do not do so.
To frame your comment in terms of "gay sex" indicates that you are either misinformed or inconsistent.
I do, however, at the time I thought it pretty inappropriate to go into detail. Turns out, I have to go into detail here. :P
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
"The main problem that I have with the term 'heterosexual' and sexuality in general is that it presupposes idealist gender binaries. This means that it assigns a gender cast of 'masculine' or 'feminine' to any given person based on one's sex. However, there are plenty of men who act 'feminine' and women who act 'masculine.' However, this gender swapping makes a man have no less of a penis and a woman have no less of a vagina."
Claiming you are a heterosexual (or any other preference) does not impose gender ideals. People naturally assume that boys are tougher, faster, play with trucks, gi joes, like blue, hate pink, etc. These characteristics are projected on everyone based on their sex (male or female) from the time they're born. I was in a sociology class a few semesters ago, and we went over gender and whether it had anything to do with sexuality-which it does not. By all means, if it did, I should be a full blown lesbian. I grew up with a majority of males, hated barbies and dolls, loved trucks, trains, legos, lincoln logs, hotwheels. I played football in high school, took auto and welding. I can't cook or sew or anything like that. I'm definitely more of a tomboy than a girly girl. But I'm straight. Because of society's standards and norms I get looked oddly at when I can explain something like a 4 stroke combustion engine and what happens, but that's just who I am. On the outside though, I don't look like any of those things- Most times i get mistaken for a dumb blonde. Gender today isn't about how society defines you by your sex, it's how you define you. I don't feel that there are any set genders- it is different for everyone.
Great post though... it's something to get people thinking.
I going to have to agree. Seeing this opinion makes the problem alittle more clear, perhaps you feel guilty for having once been gay. Perception is powerful in producing guilt related paranoia, clearly in another's head, there are no lines in sexual preferences. Just individualism. One's own reason for producing a set of habits, actions, and memories, may be squeezed through your perception of your history of memories and associated feelings.
The question I pose is:
Is it possible to overcome sex related societal standards and bias though your own personality?
No, I don't feel guilty for having once been gay. If anything, I see it as a badge of honor -- land once conquered.
To answer your question, I'd have to say only in part. It's possible to do it for one's self, but not for the rest of society. That's why I felt it was necessary to write this.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
That is well-said. The blog is very interesting indeed but I have to agree more with what abthomas51. You are focusing too much on the biological aspects of homosexuality. It's all about how one define him or her self. If you're going to focus who's gay and who's not by who they prefer to have sex with...it's completely unreliable. A man can have sex with another man all the time while he is a heterosexual. A woman can have sex with a man all the time while she is a homosexual. Sexuality is unpredictable most of the times. Maybe we should focus on something else that is more important than trying to tell the differences between homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and everything else in between.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
Clearly {homo, hetero, bi} are a set that exist for classification purposes. Hearing your opinion, TrueLife90, I guess I need to pull back farther to attempt to provide understanding for myself, However, still noting that these are labels, I must say that you are incorrect. Homosexuality refers to anyone who is attracted to the same sex. A man cannot be homosexual and straight at the same time as the two label are set to describe two sexual extremes.
You described, for instance, that a man can have sex with another man while he is heterosexual. This is untrue. If, 1, then, 1 (1=1) Thinking more, that man is now a bisexual having performed sex or demonstrated sexual attraction. (2=2, 1not equal to 2)
We know the differences already, I think that the question is, should it be socially acceptable?
I am just going to play with what you said a little. But I just need to ask, are you afraid that one day people will not be able to distinguish between homosexuality and heterosexuality? Are you afraid of being label as gay even if you're not?
"Homosexuality refers to anyone who is attracted to the same sex." - From what the society define homosexuality, yes...this statement can be true. Which way do you mean by attraction though? Romantically or sexually? Perhaps both?
"A man cannot be homosexual and straight at the same time as the two label are set to describe two sexual extremes." - Is that how you define bisexuality then? Personally, I do believe one can be both homosexual and heterosexual depend on his or her sexual preferences. For example, you can be sexually attracted to men but romantically attracted to a woman. How would you know that this is not possible since you've never felt that way before? There are some who feel that way but surpass their feelings for the sake of their reputation or even marriage.
"You described, for instance, that a man can have sex with another man while he is heterosexual. This is untrue."- How do you know that it is untrue? Have you talked to married men who occasionally have sex with another man behind his wife's back? We grow up with the idea that perfect sex should be between a man and a woman, especially if they are married. Is that really true? How do we prove that? Why do men like Craig does not categorize themselves as homosexuals if they have sex with other men then? Are they lying?
Sexuality is flexible and bendable depending on the person and how she or he identifies him or her self. If I tell you, "I'm straight"...are you going to question me, "Are you really straight?"
"We know the differences already, I think that the question is, should it be socially acceptable?" - Deep in my heart somewhere, a voice tells me people still do not know the true meaning of their sexuality. If you're talking about America, it is becoming more clear that homosexuality is socially acceptable...just not to the point where homosexuals can legally marry each other yet.
That was the longest comment I ever wrote. lol I hope at least one person finishes reading it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
Ok... You DID write alot! lol. I read it all -you are a convincing person. Sorry I couldn't post right away -I had classes today.However I don't believe you are right. (For this, I will address each paragraph accordingly.
Paragraph#1: No, I detach myself from the argument to provide answers outside of my own biases. The result: the writing style demonstrated here.
Paragraph#2: Attraction = Romantic and sexual.
Paragraph#3: To put it clearly, homosexuality and heterosexuality are mutually exclusive. Assuming that you (or the common public) don't know the meaning of this, A homo can't be straight, and vice versa.
Definitions
Homosexuality: Attraction to the same sex only.
Heterosexuality: Attraction to the opposite sex only.
Bisexual: Attraction to both sexes.
These definitions are not set by society, but are the definitions set in etymology. The word homo, greek and latin, meaning "same" in Greek and, "human" or, "man" in Latin. So, by definition, homosexual means "same sex". Therefore, because Homosexuals only like the same sex, they cannot like the other.
Think dynamically, if a homosexual suddenly liked a women, he is then bisexual until he stops liking one or the other. If he stops liking the male, he is then heterosexual. "Hetero" comes from the greeks, meaning, "different". It is then that he prefers the other sex and not the same sex. Since there are only two sexes, then on can only like one or the other, or both, giving a total of three outcomes.
Paragraph#4:
The definitions of the words are set in stone, whether people use them wrongly or not. "Craig" you described, can have sex and still call himself a heterosexual. I can explain.
Craig is lying.
People are fooled easily by words, which is why companies pour so much into advertisement. You see, These sexual labels state what the person is doing, not what they say they are doing.
Perfect sex is based on what the individual views as perfect. The sexual label attached is not derogatory, only explainatory.
Paragraph#5
If you told me, "I am straight" I would ask, "Do you romance or have sex homosexually?" If, "No", then I agree, you are straight. If "Yes", then I could assume that you are not telling the truth.
"Attraction = Romantic and sexual."- Just because you like someone, it doesn't mean you want to have sex with that person. Just because you have sex with someone, it doesn't mean you have to like that person. What is attraction then?
"A homo can't be straight, and vice versa."- How do you explain when gays and lesbians settled themselves down with the opposite sex and have a normal heterosexual life style? I think I've said it before many times...but if someone experiences a homosexual activity, does that mean that person is gay? If someone experiences a heterosexual activity, does that mean that person is straight? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Even if we label homosexuals and heterosexuals, the truth is...the definition cannot be 100% accurate. It gives us the idea what the subject is. But it does not fully explain the whole picture. If you take English classes, you'll see how words can be manipulated. People will be too confused about their sexuality if the boundary between homosexuals and heterosexuals breaks. And I think that's one of the thing people are so afraid of so they need to come up with explanation how we're different.
"Think dynamically, if a homosexual suddenly liked a women, he is then bisexual until he stops liking one or the other. If he stops liking the male, he is then heterosexual."- How do you know if one stops liking the opposite sex or the same sex? It is not something that you can turn a switch on and off. It's about identification and how one would label oneself.
How do you judge a person if they are lying about their sexuality? If you support labeling on people then you should support whichever categorize the person wants to label him or her self. By simply assuming if they're lying or not...you are too gullible. Do you actually go into their bedrooms and watch who they have sex with? Or do you simply take their words and other people's words for it? If so, you are easily influenced by words.
"These sexual labels state what the person is doing, not what they say they are doing."- This state does not sound right to me. Who has the privilege to label themselves? It's the person saying it, isn't it? If everyone starts labeling you as a homosexual while you label yourself as a heterosexual, who is right? I would say you are more accurate due to the fact that you should know yourself better than anyone else.
"If you told me, 'I am straight' I would ask, 'Do you romance or have sex homosexually?' If, 'No', then I agree, you are straight. If 'Yes', then I could assume that you are not telling the truth."- You see, by asking me "Do you romance or have sex homosexually?", you are already assuming I'm lying about being straight. If I tell you from the beginning that I'm heterosexual, why do you feel the urge to question me further? Doesn't the term "straight" or "heterosexual" speak for itself?
I am not trying to prove you wrong, but simply to point you to look at the other side of the coin. I understand that your mind set is focused on fixed definitions of homosexuals and heterosexuals. But even those definitions are made up of more words that need clarification. Obviously you are very determined to have things in order that they will fit into every word or category we have set up. Sometimes, things cannot be fully explained or fitted into those groups.
What you see can fool you. What you think you know can mislead you. I can only offer so much onto the table. The rest is up to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
I see... To begin, I will say, "What I think I know can mislead me." This is exactly true. That's why my learning system is flexible. For instance, My mistake in this debate: "Gender". Notice how I didn't fight it. There's no reason to. I was wrong, and I am a bad lyer, so in turn I accept truths that are provable and change the subsequent knowledge that stems under that truth. This ensures future accuracy for me. (Ever messed up an equation and got a different answer? Correct the mistake; make the answer accurate.) In short, I'm aware that being wrong is a flaw to me, and everyone around me. Socrates had the same idea.
That said, please understand that I argue not to force my idealisms upon you, but to refine the debate community.
Just as someone corrected me in this debate, I seek to correct others in tiny flaws that affect the accuracy for their understanding of reality. However, doing so is dangerous, as I am human. What drives me now is only my self efficacy.
"The integrity of human sight is determined in the land of humans, where the blind lead the blind" - Rashid Ellis
To begin my defense, I'll go by paragraph.
Defense
Paragraph#1
Attraction: (n) attraction, attractiveness: the quality of arousing interest; being attractive or something that attracts, the force by which one object pulls another.
I conclude that in humans, attraction is clearly the pull of another human's interest. Attraction is too broad to use. This is why it wasn't used directly in my argument. I tried to narrow down the specifics for attraction. How you are attracted; what you are attracted to is up to you.
Paragraph#2
Whether you understand it or not, I answered this question many times over the course of this debate.
Google: Kinsey+Scale*
Ask: Altrough he is married to a male, does he like the female also? If he does, Google: Bisexuality
Paragraph#3
Opinion: I do not worry about line and boundaries. The labels have their definitions. Since homosexuals only like the same sex, then they don't like the other, if they do, they are bisexual, because they like both sexes. You can call a bisexual a homosexual, but you'd just be wrong.
Paragraph#4+
You'll never know, until you investigate, no? There's no switch, just an action. If I could read minds I would have said "just thoughts" right? But even then what are the validity of thoughts? Clearly actions solidfy the intention.
Again, you don't. In fact, scientist study the mind and try to see if there is some sort of interface, or loophole they can invent a device to read minds or tell intentions. If a person lies to you, how do you tell if they are lying? If you watched a video of their entire life, don't you think you could determine if they are lying? These questions prove that what a person does is more likely to prove that persons intentions. However, we can't do that. You have to use your trust in that person, and your own deduction methods.
As for the question, I'm not suspicious, the question is a verifier. I asked you the inverse. By answering the inverse, I know your sexual preference. Basically, the conversation would imply this:
"I like the opposite sex, so I'm straight"
"Do you prefer the same sex too or only?"
"No."
"Then you are truly straight"
-or-
"...yes"
"You aren't straight, you are either bi or gay."
Which, of course, is a successful conversation only if you tell the truth.
If I support labels I support labels. If you label yourself, you can whether you are right or wrong.
To answer this, I call upon a different subject: "Human Beings and Language."
A language stays consistant to ensure that all participants can communicate.
i.e.:
BabblingMan: "Bibs babble al be teem."
You: What?
Truly, the meaning of consistacy in labels through language shows itself here.
You can call youself anything. Another example is if you suddenly changed your name. If your friend know you by your old name, and someone says in another conversation that you were hur, referring to your new name, do you think they would understand the severity of the conversation?
Another example:
(In this scene a battleship is parked outside the city, ready to fire on the unsuspecting public, most unfortunately, guess who sees this? None other then the babbling man!!)
Babbling Man: "General! There is a bunch of seagulls outside the city! They look really nice!"
General: That's nice, BabblingMan
Can you see now? Is it clear that labels, being apart of a classification system important to the language is inexclusive because of it's role in determining subjects syntaxed into the meaning of the sentence describing the purpose, action; meaning of that subject?
I'm sorry, I did it again. In short, labels keep their meaning so it is understood by everyone.
To conclude, yes, I agree however, there are things we haven't categorized. However, until there are 4 or 5 sexes, this remamins accurate.
Subsequently, I add this: Clearly I understand the limits of my truths. I know that I don't know, I only try to understand. After thinking incessantly on the issue of homosexuality, the apparent biological function of the human which is a result of the evolutionary path of our species declares the meaning of the purpose of the sex. Humans have reached an age where they can change their purpose. Thinking further, I concluded that "gay" or "lesbian" is neither right or wrong, but a mistake of the individual.
For example I write this story:
While walking through the mountains, I come across a bridge. The bridge is rigid and strong. I decide it is easier to cross then climbing down. Once I get to the middle of the bridge, I jump off the bridge.
This is an example of free will. Yet it is a flaw of free will. A sex apart of a species that reproduces sexually is supposed to be heterosexual. Animals demonstrate homosexual activities too but to fulfill gut feelings. In other words, to them, it is no different than emotional masturbation or just masturbation for that matter. The term, "Homosexuality" and other labels is a result of our ability to consciously decipher our environment. In simple language, the terms are there because we can comment on it.
Ask yourself, Just how [blindly] primitive are we? Are there ascended humans and what do they think of us? Where do we take ourselves with our decisions?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
"How you are attracted; what you are attracted to is up to you."- Yes, it is what I've been saying for the past two o three comments. But then we will have a problem if my definition of attraction is different from yours. I can be heterosexual to me while I can be what you'd consider as bisexual...or even homosexual.
"You can call a bisexual a homosexual, but you'd just be wrong."- Then why do you keep on putting bisexual into the gay category? I am not gay and I am not straight, therefore I am bisexual. I am gay and I am straight, therefore I am bisexual. Which one is it?
I feel that you are going in circle. Obviously, we put bisexuality to define those who attracted to the same sex and the opposite sex. Like you said, it is a term that is used so people can easily understand. But do they really understand it? What I and you think of sexuality may be different and none of us can be wrong or right...so that sort of kill the whole purpose of this debate.
"You'll never know, until you investigate, no?"- Why do we even need to investigate this? Why do we even have to investigate other people's sexuality? We should investigate ourselves first. I wonder how one would know that they're straight if they have never been with a same sex before. Who knows, maybe if you get close enough...you'll be surprised at how much you like it. haha
"I like the opposite sex, so I'm straight"
"Do you prefer the same sex too or only?"
"No."
"Then you are truly straight"
Once again, you questions my sexuality weirdly. Why do you even need to ask further "Do you prefer the same sex too or only?" Prefer means to choose one over another. If I already stated I am straight, it can be assumed that I already chose being a heterosexual. If I prefer to be with the opposite sex but I am attracted to the same sex, what am I? If I am bisexual, why don't I just tell you I'm bisexual instead of stating I am straight. If I already told you I'm straight, how can I prefer the same sex ONLY? Your last sentence is really awkward. "Then you are truly straight"- Are you implying someone can be falsely straight? Why are you or anyone else judge the person identifying their own sexuality. It's like race. You see a Asian, do you always assume she or he is Chinese?
My point is why do you need to justify certain actions. Can't you do it just because you want to? If you base everything on Human language, then nothing is accurate or true because we can manipulate language. You think you know a definition to a certain word, but when you look it up...it turns out that a word has more than one definition.
There will always be new word and category. That's why we need to explain the new word to them. Sure, I will look at you in a confusing way first if you say a vocabulary word that I don't know. Then you would explain it to me what that word means to you right? How do you think Oxford manage to add new words to the dictionary each year? Where do these words come from? Just because it's not in a dictionary, does it mean that word does not exist?
"Thinking further, I concluded that 'gay' or 'lesbian' is neither right or wrong, but a mistake of the individual."- By saying it is a "mistake", you've already concluded that being "gay" or "lesbian" is wrong. I would have like this sentence between if you say, "Thinking further, I concluded that 'gay' or 'lesbian' is neither right nor wrong, but an identity of the individual." This would've made more sense.
I do not see how your story is relevant to the argument being presented. You're viewing free will as a destructive force by giving that story as an example of freewill. "A sex apart of a species that reproduces sexually is supposed to be heterosexual."- How is it scientifically proven? Honestly, sexuality is out of science field. Sexologists should be the ones who study about sexuality. I don't think the whole purpose of sex is only to reproduce. That's such an ancient belief. lol
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
We would argue alot in public if we met. We should get married.
I've something to do today (GROAN- My ride's outside) but I definition am getting back to this question later on, or when I get near a computer.
Thx for replying back!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
To begin, I'm not an English major.
Paragraph#1
The definition of attraction was not created or manipulated by me. If you want to dispute the defintion go to webster, or another organization.
For the last sentence, I explained this already (Scroll down toward the end of the page). You can think anything of yourself; it doesn't mean that it is true.
I.E.: "I am a rockstar!!"(I am not, in fact, a rockstar.)
Paragraph#2
"I am not gay and I am not straight, therefore I am bisexual."
"I am gay and I am straight, therefore I am bisexual. "
"Which one is it?"
It is the first one. Only the first one implies a possible answer. Reason being, In set {hetero, homo, bi}:
1=1
2=2
3=3
Hetero=Hetero
Homo=Homo
Bi=Bi
Hetero not equal to {Homo, Bi}
Homo not equal to {Hetero, Bi}
Bi not equal to {Homo, Hetero}
So if:
Not Homo, Not Hetero, than Bi.
I never put "Bi" into the gay category. Bi not equal to Homo.
Paragraph#3
The circle you are experiencing is my argument's consistancy. There's no need for me to say anything different. The argument agrees with itself. This debate is unless not because of opinons, but because of it's simplicity.
Bisexuals like both sexes.
Homosexuals like the same sex only.
Heterosexuals like the opposite sex only.
"Only" is the keyword here.
If, you like both sexes, then you are bisexual.
I.E.:
Of the two, [Chocolate, Vanilla] I like chocolate only.
This implies that I like chocolate and not vanilla.
Of the two, [Chocolate, Vanilla] I like both chocolate and vanilla.
Paragraph#4+
I wasn't requesting you to investigate. The idea was for you to realize that people can lie easily - even while they know they are telling the truth. (Google: Knowledge)
It never was about trust, it was about truth.
You got it wrong. "Or" and "And" mean two different things.
I said, "Do you prefer the same sex too or only?"
"Google: Define Or"
Furthermore, for the last paragraphs a mistake is neither good or bad. It's just a mess-up, whether it's results are bad, good, or anything.
Freewill is as destructive as the individual endowed with it.
The concept of heterosexuality stems from the apparent function. I know that naturally, a female cannot impregnated a male.
Read my other statements below. It all holds on.
I've school tommorrow.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm correcting. I give evidence for every correction. You've yet to give evidence there... Just alot of questions that don't spark meaning.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
I'm sorry I posted at 2-3 am. I think I sound rather grumpy.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
"You described, for instance, that a man can have sex with another man while he is heterosexual. This is untrue. If, 1, then, 1 (1=1) Thinking more, that man is now a bisexual having performed sex or demonstrated sexual attraction."
He hasn't necessarily demonstrated sexual attraction.
Some men who are attracted only to men can have sex with a woman by, for example, turning the lights off and fantasizing that she's a man, and likewise a man who is only attracted to women may in some cases be capable of being turned on (during sex with a man) by physical sensations alone while fantasizing that he is with a woman.
Not all men can do this; it may have something to do with the degree to which they are affected by fantasies and by physical sensations compared to aspects like actual attraction, love and bonding with a particular partner.
Why is everyone asserting that I drew the opposite conclusion than the one that I did?
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
lol Sorry if I misunderstood you. Perhaps you should use...easier vocabulary. Maybe my head just cannot put the pieces of your blog together right. How would you sum your blog in one or two sentences then?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
Since gender and sex is so transient (that is, subject to change), the idea of defining one's sexuality in terms of these things is counter-intuitive.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Please read my reply to truelife90.
Also, here is a link to a newer post, which applies directly using a different variable.
http://progressiveu.org/132010-labeling-as-i-dont-know
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
Also, Differences in human anatomy between sexes do imply and produce behavior trends in that sex. Men, are muscular, and are expected to be more gruff. This is natural. Your mind has declared it iconically. Same for women. It also has alot to do with the production for hormones. (Yes they DO affect behavior)
reading your blog.. you make quite a few points.
If any of you have read my blog.. i don't fall for the bisexual term. I don't think that "masculine" and "feminine" traits really have anything to do with sexuality.<-- this opinion may change.. you are really the 1st person to bring this to me! I thinks that gender traits are developed social norms. They change over time.. just like in the 1800's women didn't work.. it was a feminine thing to do!
The recent case of Michael Glatze who had decided at the age of 13 that he
was gay and eventually founded Young Gay America, a nonprofit
media outreach project. Through a series of incidents,
however, Glatze slowly began to realize that he was not gay at
all but was dealing with fears about his own masculinity. He
has since rejected his gay identity.
From an enterview with Mike:
Michael Glatze: Well, I think maybe the first thing that comes to mind is just that I
began noticing the nature of my desires, and the fact that I was able to change them.
J.N. That’s an interesting phrase: “the nature of desire.”
M.G. Although when I look back on my life in the gay community, there was always a
sense that “You don’t question your same-sex desires.”
J.N. Yes. That’s a very big rule in the gay community.
M.G. Right. In fact -- it’s rule number one.
J.N. Rule number one: “Don’t ask why.” People “just are.” No questions about why.
M.G. As soon as you join the club, that’s the first rule. You can go ahead and examine
any other thing’s cause, except for homosexuality.
J.N. I can explore the foundations of my alcoholism, my overeating, my depression--
but not my homosexuality.
M.G. Right. And ironically, it’s even OK for straights to question their heterosexuality.
I hate you for that link. That song, as much as I dislike it, will remain in my head all damn day.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I considered myself bisexual for a long time, until I realized that didn't accurately describe me. The words homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual are too rigid to define anyone really. What would you call me, a woman who is attracted to mostly women and transsexuals anyway? I wish people would see that those words are meaningless, just like "gender" and "race".
____________________________________________________________________-
It Changes
I Dance Naked Around A Tree At Midnight
______________________________
The Opposite of Equality is Equality
Transsexuals prefer being the other race. Gender is a label that makes a distinction. Race isn't credible but is there for classification purposes.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
Transsexuality has absolutely nothing to do with race. I has to do with sex. hence the word sex in transsexual. And everything you said is pure bullshit.
____________________________________________________________________-
It Changes
I Dance Naked Around A Tree At Midnight
______________________________
The Opposite of Equality is Equality
Typo - race/sex. I'm on Skype having a debate about race.
For the typo, I'm sorry if I've offended anyone.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
However, though you may believe that my credibility has dropped for that typo.
Gender makes a biological distinction, as there are differences, and you cannot deny that.
Race however, isn't important and remains for classification purposes.
If the goal is to cause me to make a mistake, it has succeeded. It doesn't change my views.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
Sex makes a biological distinction, not gender. Gender is a social assumption. And race is so pointless.
____________________________________________________________________-
It Changes
I Dance Naked Around A Tree At Midnight
______________________________
The Opposite of Equality is Equality
"Gender makes a biological distinction, as there are differences, and you cannot deny that."
Besides the fact that you seem to have made a common error about the sex/gender dynamic, I would actually like to draw your attention to the fact that biologically there is far less than 1% difference biologically between physical sexes.
If a female is to take testosterone before puberty then she will inherit a majority of the physical characteristics of a male (with the notable exception of a physical penis and even then the body attempts to make one by elongating the clitoris) and vice versa for a male taking oestrogen. Physical sex therefore comes down to nothing more than a small fraction of a single "rung" of the DNA ladder. The rest is simply the result of the body's interpretation of that small piece of the DNA strand.
Gender, as has already been pointed out, has nothing to do with physical sex at all. Gender is a self identifying thing which 'normally' follows along the lines of physical sex but is not confined by it.
As for sexual identity, I find it to be a bit of an illusion. The pure extremes of heterosexual and homosexual I don't believe exist. All that exists is a predetermined tendency for a predominate sexual attraction toward one sex or the other. Sexuality is a simply a sliding scale:
attraction to females only <-----------------------------> attraction to males only
.....and there are a hell of a lot of points in between each extreme......
Some people willingly place themselves at a specific place on that scale and others have their position thrust upon them. Rightly or wrongly we have manufactured the labels heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual to describe the points along that scale.
I have come to the conclusion that I am not heterosexual, homosexual nor bisexual. I am simply sexual.
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
I see... interesting. I did make mention of hormones earlier. I'm not here to know it all, only input my opinion. My argument earlier was the label. The words themselves describe a particular sexual orientation.
-Hey don't go posting on me at 1:29am! I'm defenseless!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
Embryowassap,
I think according to the usual definitions used in the social sciences for sexual orientations (based on natural attractions), you are bisexual, with a leaning toward the heterosexual side on the continuum. But then Kinsey created his definition based on recent activity, which seems to be how you are using the words for orientations.
But one problem with discussing issues like sex and sexuality is that there is no single agreed-upon and universally-used definition for anything. I've known guys who had all kinds of sex with men but insisted they are "straight" because they only kiss women. Another guy may only kiss men and have sex with women, so he'll say that means he's straight. And then what is "sex" anyway. To one person, it's one thing and to another person that same thing doesn't even count.
Personally, I'm a male who is very much more attracted to males. In a different world that is not so obsessed with gender, I wouldn't be expected to label myself for that attraction any more than I label myself for whether I prefer blonds or brunettes. And maybe someday we'll get over these labels. I guess the gay people are seen as a "community" (while "blond-o-sexuals" and redhead-o-sexuals are not) because of that gender obsession that society has and the discrimination that goes along with it.
One of my points is that sexuality defined in terms of one's genitalia (i.e. biological sex) is absurd in this age, since at this point it's variable. As well, the idea of masculine or feminine is variable. So what do we have to conclusively define sexuality, especially in Kinseyian terms?
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Good point.
The reaction is automatic. I see that a loophole is being exploited here, and yes, I suppose that a man having sex with another woman, imagining a man, is homosexual.
Word> Tendency > Getting that out of the way.
My reasoning in this stage, as always, remains syllogistic. I forced to have the elements hovering in my head.
Introspection
My Biases:
I feel uncomfortable around all homosexuals.
I feel that people play roles, just as my tools are made for their purposes.
Conclusion: I am homophobic; my logic may be a product of my distaste toward homo and/or transsexuals. My second bias supports my first, falsely, and may have no relevance. I am confused. My views construct my model of representative heuristics that govern my biases which I use to hold my logic in place; I have confirmation biases.
Biases weaken my argument. This said, I am stripped of my knowledge and will start from scratch.
What makes me right? Truth, without truth, then false. Truth is 100% true.
Ok, I need to construct a verbal algoithm here, where x= If there should be a sexual label for "abnormal" sexual behaviors, if abnormal at all.
Base
A man and a women are made in the evolutionary advantage of producing a diverse offspring. This is sexual reproduction. Man and women become specialized, naturally.
Conclusion: A man was made for a woman, and vice versa.
Safety objection to logic progression:
Is sexual preference physical or conscious? Both. Physical changes are more likely an adaptation of prolonged conscious behavior.
Sexual orientation is a conscious decision.
People respond to positive reinforcement.
People enjoy the pleasure feeling in "feeling horny"
People have different opinions.
People are still primitive (including me)
Freedom is a concept that humans fight for.
I can conclude using convergent thinking that:
People are positively reinforced to engage in sexual activity.
People's overall opinions shape social reality.
People will try new things if positively reinforced.
I use these conclusions to form:
People are biologically and socially inclined to do whatever satisfies them.
Psychodynamics govern the decision system.
I form, from those:
People are biologically attracted to "x" sex as a result of content stored in the brain from culture related heuristics, conveyances of acceptable behavior, and personally reinforced deductions.
The body adapts to the mind, and vice versa.
In "horniness", sensitivity per individual varies. individual follows strong reinforcement(I'm relating sex to a drug)
Action determines sexuality preferences. -My original standpoint.
New standpoint:
Sexual preferences are determined by a group of factors:
Mental
Social
Physical
Part 2 is next post. will address whether social labels are relevant. (Again, my opinion)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
{Hetero, Homo, and Bi} were stated earlier. "Trans" later.
Transsexual are two sexes? One?
Analogy: Apparent function? If, male => artificial female, and
Female = Artificial Female, then [old] male is new female.
Transsexuality is defined that if:
Female (Transsexual) = new male, and male *interact function* new male, then new male = homosexual
Conversely,
Female (Transsexual) = new male, and new male *interact function* female, then new male = heterosexual
Additionally,
Female (Transsexual) = new male, and new male *interact function* male+female, then new male = bisexual
=> indicate the change.
"Interact function" is the preference of the indicated sex.
The labels are explanatory. I think, the problem is your biases. You are avoiding classification.
If you sway from one sex to the other, then you are bisexual.
e.g.: If everyone had sex with everyone, then everyone is bisexual.
(Everyone= Male, female, human and beast)
If someone can't decide, that person is excluded (undefined) until his/her first love relationship.
Sexual labels are accurate, and define the groups successfully.
Stereotypes are the problem, not the classification labels.
I do want to hear from you guy [and girls]! This is an excellence exercise for me! (getting my knowledge/beliefs shot down)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
Being an MtF pre-op transsexual I do have to point out to you that transsexuality (medically known as transsexualism) has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference.... Nothing at all.
Transsexuals are people who's physical sex is incongruent with their gender identity. Not all transsexuals opt for full lower surgery, most notably a big percentage of FtM's do not have phalloplasty due to its huge cost and the lack of perceived benefit. With or without phalloplasty an FtM individual is still a man. So how does your set of equations of sexuality deal with this outcome?
Being pre-op (ie still having male genitalia) but receiving hormone replacement therapy, having identified as female my whole life and having a sexual preference for women, how does your set of equations deal with my sexuality?
Re-reading your comments I am beginning to believe that your insistence on typing and classifying people comes down to a lack of understanding of the terms themselves. There is nothing wrong with general descriptors, but classifying me as heterosexual or homosexual comes right down to what you believe to be most correct, my gender identity or my natal sex. To me that is something that until I am post-op I prefer not to have classified.
Just to let you know, I classify myself as a human being that is sexual. Nothing more. Nothing less
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
Sorry can't really get into it - at school.
I don't think that you can deny certain things that classify physical attributes or describe certain things.
It's like me if I were to say, "I'm not really skinny, I am strong." (I am in fact skinny)
The field of philosopy teaches us what to expect when it comes to perceptions.
Although to you, you are the world. "I" am another being besides you, therefore "I" or from your perspective, "him" And so on...
If label exists that desribe you so "we" can identify you (and vice versa from your perspective), then you cannot change the label to decribe you.
E.G.: "I am not sitting in the driver's seat. I am not driving. I am a passenger."
The only way not to be a passenger is to not be in the car, or to drive.
However, doing some research, your condition originally, (Pre-OP, of course) could have resulted from androgynous bahavior when you were young. I also suspect the nature of your upbringing, and your surroundings may have swayed you to think that you should have been the opposite sex, when in fact, you were just being you. However, I do suspect you have made up your mind, and the final choice was yours. If you think it was a good choice by now, it was.
Will post again later!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
I could answer this by doing one of two things, I could run around the school flapping my arms screaming,"I'm a bird!", or more practically, I could say, that the mind is infuenced directly from the hormones, amount of neurotransmitters present at any given time. It's why we cay give drugs for certain mental conditions. Everyone isn't the same either. If you began taking estrogen, you would noticed increased sensitivity in your beasts, increased breast size, a less masculine voice, and something you yourself probably won't pick up, a different way of thinking. If you are taking testosterone, you become aggressive; more manly, etc. Someone said that I was talking nonsense when I related certain things to biological causes. Though we would all like to feel in control at all times, our present biological state influences our conscious decisions. (not the gender thing, I was wrong on that)
I will depict the emotional state with this example.
I.e.:
John has just came home from school:
John(Happy): "Hi Mom!"
John(Angry): "I'm home."
John(Sad): "..." Goes straight to room."
Going on to an older, more mature example,
John(Horny) *Never came home, instead he followed a girl who he thought was cute.*
As you can see and I really have to go on this, John's choice in words, as well as his willingness to even speak, and his actions were all affected by his emotional state, which is constantly being governed by his limbic system.
Think, can you hold back from hitting someone while you're Happy? Sad? Angry? Horny?
Clearly, you can become a product of what you feel the most.
Angry Boxer
Happy Comedian
Sad Writer
Horny Porn Star
I myself happen to be prudent for a student, however, sex doesn't interest me (At least not a giant thing) Clearly, human are products of themselves. However, man is smart enough to learn in his environment, and in moments of insight, become ordered and do things outside of our gut instincts. Of course this is a species average and individuals can differ, but generally man benefits by classifying things. Things are concepts. Things are objects. Things are invisible. Things are visible.
As I said for the bird action. I can think that I'm anything. It's is my perception. I. I am a turkey. I am a dog. I am anything I think I am. You. You are a human. You percieve me. You see human. Groups of people? You all. All of you see me. You all see human. I am human?
I leave you to think that over. Again, I can be wrong also, I am a product of my vessel. Definitely think it over in your head.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
I think as being which have clawed their way to the top of the food chain, we face a problem with not having predators. Thus, we must create our own means of population control. Homosexuality serves this purpose.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Excellent theory, however, I don't know you well, but...
...Something about you makes me think you really don't care THAT much for population control.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
As an anarcho-capitalist and moral nihilist, I have to say, yes I do.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Wow! you're an anarcho-capitalist and a nihilist?
Google: Anarchy
No,
Google: Nature of man
No,
Ahh heck, just google: Chaos
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
Not nihilist; moral nihilist. I don't believe that there is a such thing as morals or normatives in general. There is individual reason which is often mistaken for extrapolated normatives.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
So there's no right and wrong huh?
I guess that that's another argument then.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
I'm of the belief that a truly individualist populous will do what is in its individuals' best interests. People live by a mutually beneficial or no one will survive.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
"Thus, we must create our own means of population control. Homosexuality serves this purpose."
It isn't a very effective form of control.... I know plenty of lesbians and gay guys with kids. The urge to populate is still strong despite homosexuality.
Actually I have always thought that war was the ultimate and most natural form of population control.
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
xD... wow. War does keep things in check a whole lot better... ...in a morbid Friday the thirteenth sort of way...
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
"It isn't a very effective form of [population] control.... I know plenty of lesbians and gay guys with kids..."
i do too, but I don't know ANY same-sex couples with even one ACCIDENTAL kid, let alone eight or twelve of them.
I've seen opposite-sex couples on welfare with twelve kids they didn't have the means to care for and drug-addicted girls who can't take care of themselves ending up with babies who end up with physical and psychological problems. I've seen opposite-sex couples who wanted NO kids but ended up having "accidents."
Every kid in a same-sex couple household is wanted and planned, so even though gay people can have children, the control factor is automatically there.
I was talking about biologically. Biology doesn't factor in things like adoption (or right-wing fanatacism or belligerence).
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
I'd like to point our that I didn't say that transsexuality had anything to do with preference. Someone stated earlier the complication of determining whether transsexuals are gay or lesbian for choosing the same sex as their new sex.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
Also, I'm off to class now! Interesting conversation, can't wait to see the new posts!
BTW I do see the advantages of eliminating prefixes off of sexual:
No descrimination.
I can't argue with that. :)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
First off to the individual homosexuality heterosexuality and bisexuality are labels that they don't want to be stuck with. To everyone their feelings are unique, because of this someone who once had sexual relations with me, then turns to women might feel that he wasn't every gay/homosexual. But the people arguing these "labels" must remember that these labels "labels" though to them may be meaningless are a way for society to define and understand. It's a way for us as a mass to define your sexual preference not you as the individual. If we were to put the 3 labels on a continuum scale Homosexuality--Bisexuality--heterosexuality.
It is very possible to move from one side of the spectrum to the other. No one is saying that once you are a homosexual you must remain a homosexual. But before I begin to ramble let me get my overall point. As the individual your feelings of sexual attraction toward one sex or the other, you might feel proceed petty labels and don't define "you". However the labels that we give things allow us to define and understand it. so when someone is defined as a homosexual it's merely a definition of their sexual preference or attraction at given point in time. not a definition of the overall person. Atleast thats how it's suppose to be but people both use and allow labels to take on stronger meanings then their orginal purpose as a means to identify.
I know I'm late to this conversation, but this is a great post and I couldn't pass it up. When I was in high school, I struggled with trying to define the things I felt for boys and the things I felt for girls in terms of what I had heard in my health class and what I heard on the schoolyard since grade school. Straight, bi, gay, whatever.
But what I've come to realize is that it doesn't matter. For me, personally, I am not attracted to someone based on gender at all. I am attracted to the person. The genitalia reference was great, because that's always how I've seen the way I am. I'm not attracted to one physical organ. I'm attracted to the PERSON, not the BODY.
And gender roles seem to be what people focus on. A stereotypical "straight" male will not be attracted to a female that doesn't act her part, and it's ridiculous. It shouldn't matter how "butch" or "queer" someone is. Their personality isn't defined by their genitals, so why should someone be demonized for being effeminate just because they are not females?
Great post, and a really interesting view. I hope to read more from you.
PS-- Not to say that people who identify as singularly straight or gay are wrong. That's just not the way MY mind works. I'm not saying that my way is the only way. It's one of many. Just make sure you're aware that there ARE a lot of ways.
1) When to type a comment and then want to add something to it, don't write a new comment. Edit the previous one. If you're in the contest, that's like cheating. If you're going to add a second comment, reply to the first one. It makes it seem like there's a train of thought.
2) Mike doesn't blog often.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
I'm on the crew team, I have an excuse! I have a few ideas that I haven't gotten around to yet. I'll get to them. Give me time!
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
I didn't say you had no excuse, lol, only that you don't blog often.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing