# Can you differentiate sexual preference?



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2004)

This debate has been raging on another thread and I wanted to start a new thread about it.

Can you differentiate sexual preference?  Can you clearly place another individual in groups commonly known as "homosexual", "heterosexual", or "bisexual" in ALL circumstances?  

If so, why?  If not, why not?  If you are not sure, why aren't you sure?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2004)

Like all else in the world, seldom are the answers 'black and white'.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 19, 2004)

I voted no.

 Simply stated, people can not be read that easily.  Unless they want you to know, then how possibly can you know?

 When I was growing up I had a friend who's parents split rather suddenly.  No one expected it but it wasn't really a surprise the majority of us were from divorced families.  Anyways my friend was really upset and did not want to talk about it.  Made sense to all of us, for it was a traumatic experience and something we had been through ourselves.  It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that we found out that dad left mom for another guy.  I knew this man for years and never would have guessed or read that in him.  He didn't want anyone to know so he hid it well.  Maybe if I would have been older and more mature I would have picked up on it but I don't think so.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 19, 2004)

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 7sm



Nice   

I believe someone said something about "commonly held definitions"...  :idunno: 

Maybe this is something that is undefinable in thought AND in action?


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 19, 2004)

Though I agree that we cannot compartmentalize human sexuality with regards to labelling people as this or that absolutely, I don't believe that it is a sufficient reason to erase the line in the sandbox.

I do believe that our sexuality exists on a continuum, and our "position" on that continuum is not static.  However, when discussing this, it would be inappropriate to begin to label anyone, without understanding this:

Although some may fanticize or imagine or think about or dream about others of the same gender in a sexual way, that does not make them anything other than heterosexual until they act upon it.  Dreaming about being a martial artist does not make me one.  I must first commit myself to some level of physical involvement.  Imagining that I am a painter does not make me a painter, first I must paint.

There is a clear and specific difference between one's words and/or thoughts,  and one's deeds.

It's kind of like the difference between good and bad.  It's all relative, right?  Well, I'm not a good person because I fancy myself to be so.  You would define me as one or the other based upon what you know I have done.  And the way you define me may change over time, as I have an opportunity to do other things.


----------



## Shodan (Dec 19, 2004)

Sometimes we may assume something of a person based on what they look, sound or act like, but that is not always accurate........for instance, not every effiminate, less muscular or timid male is gay just as not every manish-looking, outdoorsy or muscular woman is.  I have always been a tomboy and very active with my family in the outdoors- camping, hiking, etc.....and not really into lots of make-up, fancy dresses, etc.  Oh yeah, and my sport was the martial arts!!  Back when I started, females in the art in my area were few and far between!!  I was accused by several in highschool of being gay cuz my friends I hung out with were all outdoorsy types too.  Guess this was based on what we looked like and the activities we enjoyed as compared to some of the other girls at school, etc.  My older brother, throughout his life, has had people ask or accuse him of being gay too......and he doesn't put off any type of vibe (stereotypical vibe) in that direction at all.......he's very masculine, outdoorsy, plays sports, etc......just didn't have a whole lot of girlfriends growing up......oh, so he must be gay then was the thinking of some people!!  He is now happily engaged to be married in June of next year!!


  I've also had several friends in life that turned out to be gay......friends of both genders that I'd known for a long time and had no indication of their sexual orientation being anything other than heterosexual until they told me otherwise.  Granted, there have been people I've known that I've suspected are gay and have turned out to be just that......but in the general population.......no- I agree with Nalia.......unless it is disclosed to you- how could you possibly know for sure?

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2004)

I spent a long time phrasing this question.  I am hoping to show that defining an individuals sexuality in our current language is very difficult in, thought, words, and deeds.  We'll see how more people feel about this issue as the votes come in.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> Though I agree that we cannot compartmentalize human sexuality with regards to labelling people as this or that absolutely, I don't believe that it is a sufficient reason to erase the line in the sandbox.



In physics, we measure things and we characterize these measurements as being accurate or precise or both.  The best kind of measurements are both.  Accuracy means that the measurements are close to the predicted value.  Precisions means that the range of values is narrow.  Given the terms of these definitions, they are neither accurate or precise.  When the entire range of sexual behavior is taken into account, people scatter all over the plot and it is impossible to pigeonhole people into these three distinct catagories.  So, what use are they if they do not describe reality?



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> I do believe that our sexuality exists on a continuum, and our "position" on that continuum is not static.  However, when discussing this, it would be inappropriate to begin to label anyone, without understanding this:



Or perhaps there is a different way to talk about sexuality, rather then talking about who is sleeping with who...



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> Although some may fanticize or imagine or think about or dream about others of the same gender in a sexual way, that does not make them anything other than heterosexual until they act upon it.  Dreaming about being a martial artist does not make me one.  _I must first commit myself to some level of physical involvement._  Imagining that I am a painter does not make me a painter, first I must paint:



I disagree.  There are different gradiations of involvement.  In martial arts for instance, if I watch a MA movie and enjoy it, it shows an _interest _ in MA.  If I dream or fantasize about being in an MA movie or being and MAist that is still further showing interest.  When do these steps become action?  It depends on the amount of steps and the will to act.  All of this is included in the sexual sandbox...



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> There is a clear and specific difference between one's words and/or thoughts,  and one's deeds.



In some cases yes, and in other cases, no.  In a court of law, violent thoughts toward another person are considered _innocent_.  You can be prosecuted for violent words and violent actions.  In the case of sexuality, thoughts are very important.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> It's kind of like the difference between good and bad.  It's all relative, right?  Well, I'm not a good person because I fancy myself to be so.  You would define me as one or the other based upon what you know I have done.  And the way you define me may change over time, as I have an opportunity to do other things.



Even in the _action _ realm, sexuality encompasses an inordinate amount of material when compared to the simple definitions of who sleeps with who.  For instance, the action viewing a pornographic film depicting two women having sex indicates an increased interest in _same sex relationships_.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This debate has been raging on another thread and I wanted to start a new thread about it.
> 
> Can you differentiate sexual preference?  Can you clearly place another individual in groups commonly known as "homosexual", "heterosexual", or "bisexual" in ALL circumstances?
> 
> If so, why?  If not, why not?  If you are not sure, why aren't you sure?



The problem with this is you say "all" circumstances. When you have extrodinary circumstances like beastiality, it may be difficult to place someone in a category.

However, for "most" circumstances, it is very easy to place them into a category.

The problem is defining behavior, not preference. When you talk about "behavior," lines can get very blurred. Preference, however, is pretty easily definable except in extrordinary situations.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2004)

I am reading some of the responses here, and now I am totally confused.   

I hope we aren't talking about being able to look at someone and determine, "yea, he has gay eyebrows, so I'll put him in the homo category." I mean, come friggin' on.

There is a worlds difference between being able to categorize someone based on what they prefer, and trying to catergorize someone based on what we think they might prefer.

Among the differences, one leads to a good conversation, the other to a really dumb conversation in my opinion.

If it is a dumb conversation, then I don't think I wanna play.

So, please clarify this for me Upnorth, because either I am misunderstanding or other posters are misunderstanding what this thread is really about...

Paul


----------



## HammerFist (Dec 19, 2004)

Why does it matter what a person's sexual preference is? There are many more things that bring us together as a species why are people always pointing out the differences?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2004)

HammerFist said:
			
		

> Why does it matter what a person's sexual preference is? There are many more things that bring us together as a species why are people always pointing out the differences?



Dude, it doesn't matter, not in the grand scheme of things. But it does if your discussing something like politics, gay marriage ban, etc. 

This particular thread came from a discussion on why certian people consider homosexuality "wrong." In order to have a discussion on homosexuality, we need to be on the same page with simple terms like "homosexual, hetrosexual," etc. Upnorth felt that we couldn't define those terms because everyone is really homosexual, but only to different degrees, and that there is no black and white with this, only grey. I say that first of all, that is ridicules, and second of all, it is very easy to categorize based on what gender someone prefers.

So, now you have the readers digest version of where this came from.

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Dude, it doesn't matter, not in the grand scheme of things. But it does if your discussing something like politics, gay marriage ban, etc.
> 
> This particular thread came from a discussion on why certian people consider homosexuality "wrong." In order to have a discussion on homosexuality, we need to be on the same page with simple terms like "homosexual, hetrosexual," etc. Upnorth felt that we couldn't define those terms because everyone is really homosexual, but only to different degrees, and that there is no black and white with this, only grey. I say that first of all, that is ridicules, and second of all, it is very easy to categorize based on what gender someone prefers.
> 
> ...



Paul, you are swinging off the top rung on the ladder of inference.  Not once did I say everyone is "homosexual" and it is entirely unfair of you to mischaracterize this position like that.  The closest I ever came to saying this was when I said that people share sexual preferences that they didn't think they shared.  This is not a threatening statement.

My point has always been that our current definitions do not define human sexuality.  Whether by thought, word or deed, it is very difficult to pigeonhole someone into a catagory homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual.  You can't classify everyone by looking at them.  You can't classify everyone by just listening to them talk.  And it can even be hard to classify yourself by examining your own thoughts.

Thus explains my vote - NO.

Regarding the sandbox, you don't have to play in a section of the sandbox with someone or something else if you don't want to.  You choose based on what you like and you may be surprised to find out that other people like that kind of thing too...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not once did I say everyone is "homosexual" and it is entirely unfair of you to mischaracterize this position like that.



Oh yea? What about...



> I believe that all people are a mix of both "gay" and "straight" and that we are trying to label proportions that are different in everyone.



You said that in the other thread. If everyone is a mix of both, then everyone is to some degree, gay. Maybe your only 10% gay, the guy next to you is 20%, and I am like 65% and don't know it yet, or whatever.

But according to you, everyone is gay to a degree.

If you can't remember what you type, then I can't expect you to decifer what other people are talking about, hence this next part...



> You can't classify everyone by looking at them. You can't classify everyone by just listening to them talk.



Dude...NO ONE in the other thread that I saw said that you could classify someones gender preference by looking at them or listening to them talk! Were we even in the same conversation?   

Come to think of it, it was YOU who made assumptions on what is considered "gay behavior" and what was not. You inferred that a male putting a body building poster of their favorite body builder by the bench press was "gay behavior," or that a male not wanting to watch two women together in a porno as being "gay." Some of your statements reek of closet homophobia (or hetro-phobia, but I guess in this case the lines truely are blurred, cause I can't tell...   ).

The arguement that I and some others made is very simple: we can make broad categories for homo, hetro, and bi for the sake of a logical discussion because people fall into those categories.

And because I haven't let you muddy the waters enough so you can push some sort of wierd agenda and philosephy, the discussion has gotton more and more illogical.

I hope I can run away from this discussion now before my brain matter drizzles out of my ears... :uhoh:

Paul


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 19, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Dude...NO ONE in the other thread that I saw said that you could classify someones gender preference by looking at them or listening to them talk! Were we even in the same conversation?
> 
> Come to think of it, it was YOU who made assumptions on what is considered "gay behavior" and what was not. You inferred that a male putting a body building poster of their favorite body builder by the bench press was "gay behavior," or that a male not wanting to watch two women together in a porno as being "gay." Some of your statements reek of closet homophobia (or hetro-phobia, but I guess in this case the lines truely are blurred, cause I can't tell...  )


  Exactly! I said it in the other thread too! 

  7sm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2004)

It's funny.  We can look at visual cues.

Like 2 folks holding hands.
But what if they are just kids?  Are preteens 'gay'?

Like 2 folks kissing.
But am I gay if I kiss my father?  

We can focus on clothing....but what about certain hit TV shows?

We can focus on accents and inflections.....or can we?

You can tell by the issues they support...or can you?
I support gay rights...but am not personally inclined towards my own gender...am I or aren't I?

But surely, you can tell when 2 gals are really making out that they are.
Or can you?  
I was at an event where 2 gals, topless, frenching away, hands fondling, nipples being teased, etc. just went all out.  Neither 1 is gay...or bi.  They did however get great enjoyment out of watching 3 of the guys in attendence go catatonic.  The gal watching the store popped some popcorn, and her and I passed the time away by bouncing popcorn off the 2 making outs boobs.  
Hell, everyone insisted TATU were gay....turns out to have been little more than a sucessful gimick.

I don't believe we can tell with any certainty, unless the other party comes out and says so. Everything else, is prettymuch guesswork and fantasy and projection, IMHO.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 19, 2004)

Upnorth and Tulisan lets keep the topic civil. I realize it's hard to ascertain tonal qualities but when using statements like "YOU said" and so forth... it's not being assertive. 

Danke' 

 :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Oh yea? What about..._I believe that all people are a mix of both *"gay"* and *"straight"* and that we are trying to label proportions that are different in everyone_.



Paul, notice the quotation marks around "gay" and "straight".  I've tried to be consistent with this convention.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> You said that in the other thread. If everyone is a mix of both, then everyone is to some degree, gay. Maybe your only 10% gay, the guy next to you is 20%, and I am like 65% and don't know it yet, or whatever.



Perhaps a better way to say this is that you share preferences with different people.  Perhaps you share 10% the same preferences with a man who loves another man.  Or more, or less.  The quotation convention indicates _commonly know as_ or _traditionally designated _ - which are nothing but lines drawn in a greater sandbox and the lines aren't even drawn from wall to wall...



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> But according to you, everyone is gay to a degree.



You keep bringing this up for some reason and this is obviously not what I am saying.  This is what I'm talking about regarding the "Ladder of Inference".  For clarification, _you _ are the one making that assumption regarding what _I _ am saying.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> If you can't remember what you type, then I can't expect you to decifer what other people are talking about, hence this next part.



Paul, relax.  We are seeing this from two different perspectives.  It doesn't mean I don't remember what I write.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> _You can't classify everyone by looking at them. You can't classify everyone by just listening to them talk._
> 
> Dude...NO ONE in the other thread that I saw said that you could classify someones gender preference by looking at them or listening to them talk! Were we even in the same conversation?  .



That is correct, but in this thread, I am attempting to connect them.  I am saying that the same reason we can't classify sexual preference on site is the same thing that I've been arguing.  Sexual preference is so ambiguous that our labels don't fit.  This is a related issue.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Come to think of it, it was YOU who made assumptions on what is considered "gay behavior" and what was not. You inferred that a male putting a body building poster of their favorite body builder by the bench press was "gay behavior," or that a male not wanting to watch two women together in a porno as being "gay." Some of your statements reek of closet homophobia (or hetro-phobia, but I guess in this case the lines truely are blurred, cause I can't tell.



Paul, I am and have always been talking about different people sharing space in the sandbox.  You are the one (and 7starmantis) who are making the assumption that if you share space in the sandbox with a man who sleeps with other men then you share gay behavior (notice no quotation marks).  This is a very imprecise assumption and totally misses the point of what I am saying.  Pay attention to this concept of _shared behavior_.  How is that classified by the current conventions?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> The arguement that I and some others made is very simple: we can make broad categories for homo, hetro, and bi for the sake of a logical discussion because people fall into those categories.



These broad catagories you are talking about DO NOT DESCRIBE REALITY.  The number of exceptions rise exponentially when you take into account all of the sexual behaviors shared between the catagories.  This is very much like taking a shotgun and blasting a target 150 yards away and attempting to draw three circles around various patterns.  Yeah, you might be able to get a very general read, but the amount of pellets from each overlapping ballistic cones obviously muddy the picture.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> And because I haven't let you muddy the waters enough so you can push some sort of wierd agenda and philosephy, the discussion has gotton more and more illogical.



I am not muddying the water, it was muddy beforehand.  And it always has been muddy.  In fact, it is so muddy that we cannot classify sexual preference on site, by word, or by thought because of the lack of accuracy and the impreciseness of our current conventions.

You might get lucky once and a while, but I'd be surprised if the statistics show anything other then an attributation to random chance.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 19, 2004)

You can have sex with the opposite sex, the same sex, or either...that makes 3 choices. Isnt that differentiated enough????

Ive only had sex with the opposite sex so I guess heterosexual is the closest definition there is....I think you are trying to muddy the waters.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You can have sex with the opposite sex, the same sex, or either...that makes 3 choices. Isnt that differentiated enough????
> 
> Ive only had sex with the opposite sex so I guess heterosexual is the closest definition there is....I think you are trying to muddy the waters.



Can you be homosexual without having sex someone of your same sex?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 20, 2004)

I would say you could have "tendencies" w/o having followed up on them. I would also say that having "experimented" once or twice dosent define you. But at a certain point we can all call ourselves one of the three....


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I would say you could have "tendencies" w/o having followed up on them. I would also say that having "experimented" once or twice dosent define you. But at a certain point we can all call ourselves one of the three....



Isn't that muddying the water?  

However, I agree with you to a certain extent.  Some people can definately the catagories after a time, others cannot.  They will always remain a mix of the three.  

Take this example...



> A man is married, he has two kids. He's been in love with women twice in his life and has slept with both of those women. This man has also had more casual sexual relationships...some of them included more then one people and the sexual ratio was not always weighted in the female direction. This man has made friends with others who have formed same sex relationships. If they happen to be women, he is able to appraise other women sexually. If they happen to be men, he is able to appraise other men sexually. This man also has watched porn depicting same sex and opposite sex relationships. In movies, this man is moved by strong female roles. He is also moved by strong male roles attempted to emulate some of them at various times in his life...



And then there is Nalia's example...



			
				Nalia said:
			
		

> When I was growing up I had a friend who's parents split rather suddenly.  No one expected it but it wasn't really a surprise the majority of us were from divorced families.  Anyways my friend was really upset and did not want to talk about it.  Made sense to all of us, for it was a traumatic experience and something we had been through ourselves.  It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that we found out that dad left mom for another guy.  I knew this man for years and never would have guessed or read that in him.  He didn't want anyone to know so he hid it well.  Maybe if I would have been older and more mature I would have picked up on it but I don't think so.



Am I muddying the waters or am I just pointing out the mud in the water?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

Key word is 'preference' in this discussion.  I know that I 'prefer' heterosexual sex.  How that manifests in actual practice and function in my life may differ from someone elses tastes, but that is not to say that I shift from that 'preference.'

Scientists have been having cultural/biological discussions about this for an awefully long time for it not to be possible.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Can you be homosexual without having sex someone of your same sex?


Yes because, regardless of what you practice (social pressure, emotional necessity....) you 'prefer' same sex relations.

Prison is considered 'institutional homosexuallity' because sex is used as control, comfort, politics....and it is all same sex.  There are many cases where it is a matter of survival and when released the inmates revert back to their 'preference' if they are heterosexual.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Paul, notice the quotation marks around "gay" and "straight". I've tried to be consistent with this convention.


 C'mon, you mean to say that you agree with the statement, "everyone is *"gay"* to some extent", but not the statement, "everyone is *gay* to some extent"? You asked if you were muddying the waters, and yes I would consider that muddying the waters. Its about having a common base for us to discuss. If I call a pizza, a pizza and my brother who lives in Staton Island New York calls it a pie, we may be talking about the same things, but without some set definition the conversation would not make sense to either of us. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Perhaps a better way to say this is that you share preferences with different people. Perhaps you share 10% the same preferences with a man who loves another man. Or more, or less. The quotation convention indicates _commonly know as_ or _traditionally designated _ - which are nothing but lines drawn in a greater sandbox and the lines aren't even drawn from wall to wall...


 Yes, sharing similariteis, or "prefrences" as you said, with different people is fine, but you said that makes you more "gay". In the other thread, I said enjoying the idea of two women together doesn't make you bisexual, your reply was: 


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that it does because if you are willing to bend the opposite sex rules in that circumstance, then you are not as "straight" as you once thought.


 See its you who are attributing the sharing of prefrences with being gay, "gay", bisexual, "bisexual", straight, or "straight". 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Paul, I am and have always been talking about different people sharing space in the sandbox. You are the one (and 7starmantis) who are making the assumption that if you share space in the sandbox with a man who sleeps with other men then you share gay behavior (notice no quotation marks). This is a very imprecise assumption and totally misses the point of what I am saying. Pay attention to this concept of _shared behavior_.  How is that classified by the current conventions?


  Wait, what? You contradict yourself....



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> the ability to notice another person of the same sex "attractiveness" is a step away from the "straight ideal" on the continuum I described.


 This is what I'm talking about when I say you are "muddying the waters". Your on both sides of the argument. If sharing prefrences with some one who is gay or "gay" doesn't make you gay or "gay", then what in the world did you mean by finding someone of the same sex as attractive makes you a step away from being "straight"? I'm sorry, your confusing and it seems you even confuse yourself, not only me. 

 Let me ask a direct question. In the context of our discussion and in order to have a more productive one... You believe the action of sleeping with someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay or "gay" but finding someone of the same sex attractive does? It seems you say there is no term to describe "gay" because you dont really know what you believe about what gay or "gay" is. At some popint there has to be a deffinition, or "line in the sand" to define between gay, straight, and bisexual. Why are you so avidly trying to blur the lines and make everyone the same to some degree? Like I said before, dont take away our differences, its what makes us beautiful. Accept people who are different from you, dont try and make them not different! 

 7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Key word is 'preference' in this discussion.  I know that I 'prefer' heterosexual sex.  How that manifests in actual practice and function in my life may differ from someone elses tastes, but that is not to say that I shift from that 'preference.'
> 
> Scientists have been having cultural/biological discussions about this for an awefully long time for it not to be possible.



Scientists talked about Aristitotlean Geocentrism for 1,400 years...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Yes because, regardless of what you practice (social pressure, emotional necessity....) you 'prefer' same sex relations.
> 
> Prison is considered 'institutional homosexuallity' because sex is used as control, comfort, politics....and it is all same sex.  There are many cases where it is a matter of survival and when released the inmates revert back to their 'preference' if they are heterosexual.



It just occured to me that we are really talking about stereotypes...


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Let me ask a direct question. In the context of our discussion and in order to have a more productive one... You believe the action of sleeping with someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay or "gay" but finding someone of the same sex attractive does? It seems you say there is no term to describe "gay" because you dont really know what you believe about what gay or "gay" is. At some popint there has to be a deffinition, or "line in the sand" to define between gay, straight, and bisexual. Why are you so avidly trying to blur the lines and make everyone the same to some degree? Like I said before, dont take away our differences, its what makes us beautiful. Accept people who are different from you, dont try and make them not different!
> 
> 7sm


Nice 7sm,

I think I see what is happening on a motive level, correct me if I'm wrong UpN, but I think the idea is that there are labels that are used to simply describe where someone is going to be placed within the context of a discussion/study/observation and then there are labels that are branded on people and become 'labels' or caste society level of categories that don't account for the other contextual considerations...

if that is the case, I understand but don't agree with the approach because,as a scientist, how can you possibly have any form of theory, discussion, or make valid observations if you don't establish parameters of some kind - not as hard cast 'frames' as Janulis put it but just ways of establishing markers for the discussion topics and terms?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It just occured to me that we are really talking about stereotypes...


No, what you are doing is stereotyping anyone's use of the terms gay/lesbion/bisexual/homo-heterosexual as 'stereotyping' when it isn't.  Especially when more than one poster here has basically said that the terms need to be clear to have a reasonable discussion - for discussion's sake alone.  Not to perpetuate some narrowminded view on a gender preference.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Scientists talked about Aristitotlean Geocentrism for 1,400 years...


And your point is......?


----------



## raedyn (Dec 20, 2004)

UpNorth said:
			
		

> Can you be homosexual without having sex someone of your same sex?


Can you be HETEROsexual without having sex with somone of the opposite sex? I would venture to say that many people would say YES to this. You can know if you are attracted to someone or not. That doesn't neccisarily mean you would or would not enjoy sex with them, but it is a hint (I would say a pretty major hint)

To the original question: Can I always tell by looking? No. And anyone who claims they can is lying. I have reasonably developed 'gaydar', and I can often correctly guess gay or straight, but I've been surprised (both ways). So I try to not bother and label people. Why does it matter? To me, I don't care the gender of who yr sleepin' with, so I don't find a lot of utility of putting people in boxes. Especially cuz people don't fit in boxes very well.

Consider, for example, my mom. If you ask her (and she trusts you) she'd say she's gay. She has been in a committed lesbian relationship for over 12 years, and she hasn't had sex with a man for 20. But she was married to a man for 8 years, and she concieved me the regular way, so some people would say she isn't all gay. *shrug* She defines herself as a lesbian, so that's how I describe her, but I really don't find it important to label her. She's my mom, she's a person. She has sex with women. So what?


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Dec 20, 2004)

I think everyone I have ever met would be able to place themselves in one of these catigories.  I don't think anyone would be like "none of the above".  Not sure if that's the question your asking but that's my answer.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 20, 2004)

> To the original question: Can I always tell by looking?



(no offense for putting you on the spot, raedyn) Contrary to popular misconception in this thread, "Can one always tell by looking/interaction" is not the original question. If it was, I would have voted no. Read my previous post; of COURSE you can't tell just by looking or interaction.... 

Upnorth's original question was basically "can someone belong in a category."
"Can one differentiate between Hetro's, Homo's, and Bi's." 

This stemmed from the "When did same gender relations become wrong" thread. Upnorth hypothesises that one can't differentiate between the different sexual preferences. He also hypothesizes that everyone is gay (or straight) to some percentage. He also, in the previous thread, made a lot of assumptions on what would be considered "gay behavior." I believe that this is a simple method of obfusicating the issues to get people to question their own sexuality for one, and for two to get people to agree with this worldview that "everyone is gay to some degree, therefore how could homosexuality be 'wrong.' "

I, and many others feel that this is completely ridicules on so many levels that I've already touched on, if one reads the entire threads (this and the other, as I recommend).

As it is related to this topic, I argue that determining preference is a very easy thing to do for THE MAJORITY or the population. If your mom decides she prefers the same sex, then she is homosexual. If I decide I prefer the opposite sex, then I am hetro. etc., etc., etc.... this is not that difficult of a task (unless of course your trying to cloud the issues, as I have said).

Where it becomes difficult is categorizing sexual behavior. For example, many hetrosexual males rape other males in prison for reasons having to do with other environmental and psychological factors that have little to do with preference. 

However, we aren't talking about categorizing behaviors...we are talking about simply determining SEXUAL PREFERENCE. This is a very easy thing to do for most people.

Yet, I think that because people can't believe that anyone would argue this fact, they immediately assume that the discussion is about "determining by looking/interaction."

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Upnorth's original question was basically "can someone belong in a category."Can one differentiate between Hetro's, Homo's, and Bi's."



I believe the inability to differentiate on sight relates to an inability to differentiate in thought.  I phrased my question to address both because if you can do it in thought then you should be able to do it in practice.

I'm going to have to take a fall for not being clear though.  I'll try to clear up the mess in a little while.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 20, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. I don't feel put on the spot at all. I don't think UpNorth's intentions with the question were clear unless you read this poll with the context of the other thread. Now that I have read the entire other thread (I was offline over the weekend) I understand the intent of this thread much better.

As I have now stated in that other thread, I think UpNorth has a point. Kinsey's studies were ground breaking at the time in part because he tried to introduce the idea of a scale of sexual preference. (I actually know people who will say "I'm a Kinsey 5"). I don't think most people have a binary attraction where they only ever have been attracted to one gender or only ever had sexual desire / behaviour with one gender. I believe the lines are more blurred.

That said, I think for all intents and purposes people can be grouped into one of three categories. I think I pretty much agree with Tulisan. People can decide for themselves if they are hetero/homo/bi. Myself, for instance, I am in a straight relationship. I have only had sex with members of the opposite gender. I have fantasied about people of my own gender, and I have danced provocatively with people of my own gender and been very aroused. Some may say this makes me bisexual. If you asked me which label was most appropriate, I'd say I am straight. But I do have some homosexual feelings. I'm comfortable with that.

Labels don't tell the whole story, but they do have a place.

Scientific studies into human sexuality recognize that there is a continuum, but they still study homo vs hetero. They just don't all define those terms the same. Even in the scientific community there is disagreement as to what defines someone as gay. But that doesn't stop them from studying the topic.

UpNorth, I think your intention in saying people don't fit into those boxes is to show that "they" aren't that different from "us" is that correct? Assuming I understand correctly, I think it's a good point to make. But I also think that you aren't going to convince super-homophobic people by saying "well you probably have slight homosexual tendacies as well". Because if they do (which they might) you can bet they are repressed and there's no way that person will admit it!

I think if we were able to collectively let go of the idea of sexuality being a dicotomy of gay OR straight, that would go a long way towards acceptance. But we can't force people to accept anything. We can, however, require them to stay out of other people's way.

I think I'm rambling aimlessly now. So I'll stop. Until next time.:asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> That said, I think for all intents and purposes people can be grouped into one of three categories. I think I pretty much agree with Tulisan. People can decide for themselves if they are hetero/homo/bi. Myself, for instance, I am in a straight relationship. I have only had sex with members of the opposite gender. I have fantasied about people of my own gender, and I have danced provocatively with people of my own gender and been very aroused. Some may say this makes me bisexual. If you asked me which label was most appropriate, I'd say I am straight. But I do have some homosexual feelings. I'm comfortable with that.
> 
> Labels don't tell the whole story, but they do have a place.
> 
> :asian:


The other thing to consider is how, currently at least, there isn't a clear distinction between 'sexuallity' and 'sensuallity.' How many times have, men especially, people been mistaken for 'gay' because they happen to enjoy the 'sensual' experience of a friendly embrace (purely platonic), a touch on the arm, an emotional outburst,.... you name it.

Smack a guy on the butt on the street, GAY!  Do the same while playing football, MANLY!  Contextual acceptability is a big deal.

I was a big addict to club dancing and would hang out with guys or girls as long as they wanted to share moves, dance, cheer each other on. It was all about the dancing. You would have NO idea how often people would pull the 'gay' accusation because of that. I wasn't grinding on guys (girls...well that is a different story....) or anything, but just being there was enough for some narrow minded folks.

I loved the 'sense' experience/sensuallity of moving but to some, there was no difference between it and 'sexuallity.'

Consider the 'homophobic' response to movies like "INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE" because two men are embraced in the kiss of a vampire and the relationship that ensues.... it was NOT automatically 'sexual' but it was intimate and sensual (even if the only 'sense' experience that they craved was the kill).


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 20, 2004)

Good post, raedyne.

If we want to talk about "behavior" then the lines are going to be very grey. And I am fine with that. What I dislike about the Kinsey scale (from what I have seen, but I am reaching back to my few college psych classes) is that it makes assumption about behavior being homo or hetro to determine to what scale a person is homo or hetro. I find this ironic because many people use this information that typcasts behavior to determine that "the lines are grey, so you can't typcast someones sexuality." I think that there is too much about personal psychology and environment to be able to determine what behaviors are "gay" or not.

However, when it comes to personal preference, it is very simple to determine where one fits...its not about behavior or tendencies or psychology or whatever, it is simply about what one prefers. Furthermore, for the sake of political or historical discussions, we can certianly talk in agreed upon terms of hetro, homo, or bi.

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> C'mon, you mean to say that you agree with the statement, "everyone is *"gay"* to some extent", but not the statement, "everyone is *gay* to some extent"? You asked if you were muddying the waters, and yes I would consider that muddying the waters. Its about having a common base for us to discuss. If I call a pizza, a pizza and my brother who lives in Staton Island New York calls it a pie, we may be talking about the same things, but without some set definition the conversation would not make sense to either of us.



According to current conventions, which is denoted by " " in my prose and is demonstrated by the now struck down sodomy laws behaviors shared with homosexuals were grouped together and considered wrong.  That is the historical context and the convention I was attempting to differentiate with the quotations.  I apologize if this did not get my point across.  

I will attempt to clarify, "everyone is "gay" to a certain extent" means that people more or less share some sexual behaviors with people who sleep with people of their same gender.  The quotations are supposed to indicate an old outdated grouping that I don't believe in.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yes, sharing similariteis, or "prefrences" as you said, with different people is fine, but you said that makes you more "gay". In the other thread, I said enjoying the idea of two women together doesn't make you bisexual, your reply was: "_I think that it does because if you are willing to bend the opposite sex rules in that circumstance, then you are not as "straight" as you once thought_."



A better way to say this is that you have an interest in same sex relationships.  You share this interest with other homosexuals.  Compared to someone who is not interested at all in ANY same sex relationships, this moves you out of their part of the sandbox.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Let me ask a direct question. In the context of our discussion and in order to have a more productive one... You believe the action of sleeping with someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay or "gay" but finding someone of the same sex attractive does?



Sometimes sleeping with someone of the same sex can make you "gay" and sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes finding someone attractive of the same sex can make you "gay" and sometimes it doesn't.  Do you see why I am using quotation marks?  The current definitions classify you and that classification may be incorrect.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems you say there is no term to describe "gay" because you dont really know what you believe about what gay or "gay" is



I know what we currently believe about sexuality in our society.  I'm looking for a different way to think about it because I don't agree with the current conventions.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> At some popint there has to be a deffinition, or "line in the sand" to define between gay, straight, and bisexual.



Why?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Why are you so avidly trying to blur the lines and make everyone the same to some degree? Like I said before, dont take away our differences, its what makes us beautiful. Accept people who are different from you, dont try and make them not different!



I'm not trying to erase differences.  I am trying to point out similarities.  I am trying to look at where the tracks in the sandbox overlap.  I do agree, the differences are what make us beautiful.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification, Paul. I don't feel put on the spot at all. I don't think UpNorth's intentions with the question were clear unless you read this poll with the context of the other thread. Now that I have read the entire other thread (I was offline over the weekend) I understand the intent of this thread much better.



raedyn, I thought about linking the fact that we can't classify sexual orientation and the abiguity of our current system with the question.  I'm curious to see why people think they can classify one and not the other.



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> As I have now stated in that other thread, I think UpNorth has a point. Kinsey's studies were ground breaking at the time in part because he tried to introduce the idea of a scale of sexual preference. (I actually know people who will say "I'm a Kinsey 5"). I don't think most people have a binary attraction where they only ever have been attracted to one gender or only ever had sexual desire / behaviour with one gender. I believe the lines are more blurred.



Great point!  I couldn't remember the name of the guy who first came up with this swinging scale.



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> That said, I think for all intents and purposes people can be grouped into one of three categories. I think I pretty much agree with Tulisan. People can decide for themselves if they are hetero/homo/bi. Myself, for instance, I am in a straight relationship. I have only had sex with members of the opposite gender. I have fantasied about people of my own gender, and I have danced provocatively with people of my own gender and been very aroused. Some may say this makes me bisexual. If you asked me which label was most appropriate, I'd say I am straight. But I do have some homosexual feelings. I'm comfortable with that.



I would say that if you are personally confortable with your own classification (self knowledge) that is great!  I just wish that we had a way to take into account some of the other feelings you have without stigmatizing them or washing them away into simplistic catagories...



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> Labels don't tell the whole story, but they do have a place.



I guess I can buy into that for now.  Tulisan, 7starmantis, Loki, and Flatlander have all made very good points...



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> Scientific studies into human sexuality recognize that there is a continuum, but they still study homo vs hetero. They just don't all define those terms the same. Even in the scientific community there is disagreement as to what defines someone as gay. But that doesn't stop them from studying the topic.



I sometimes wonder if the simplistic catagories, since they are obviously part of the same old guard that created the sodomy laws, don't color the results of these studies.



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> UpNorth, I think your intention in saying people don't fit into those boxes is to show that "they" aren't that different from "us" is that correct? Assuming I understand correctly, I think it's a good point to make. But I also think that you aren't going to convince super-homophobic people by saying "well you probably have slight homosexual tendacies as well". Because if they do (which they might) you can bet they are repressed and there's no way that person will admit it!



Yes, in a way, that is my intention.  But I also feel that our terminology is damaging to people who have feelings like you and are afraid of being something they are really are not.



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> I think if we were able to collectively let go of the idea of sexuality being a dicotomy of gay OR straight, that would go a long way towards acceptance. But we can't force people to accept anything. We can, however, require them to stay out of other people's way.



I agree with this 100%.  Good Post!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Smack a guy on the butt on the street, GAY!  Do the same while playing football, MANLY!  Contextual acceptability is a big deal.



Do you think this has any sexual connotations at all?  I feel that contextual acceptability may have some basis in gradations of sexual preference.  Otherwise I agree, contextual acceptability is a big deal.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> (no offense for putting you on the spot, raedyn) Contrary to popular misconception in this thread, "Can one always tell by looking/interaction" is not the original question. If it was, I would have voted no. Read my previous post; of COURSE you can't tell just by looking or interaction....



All right, if classification in action is one thing, why is classification in thought another?  Can you classify these people?



> A man is married, he has two kids. He's been in love with women twice in his life and has slept with both of those women. This man has also had more casual sexual relationships...some of them included more then one people and the sexual ratio was not always weighted in the female direction. This man has made friends with others who have formed same sex relationships. If they happen to be women, he is able to appraise other women sexually. If they happen to be men, he is able to appraise other men sexually. This man also has watched porn depicting same sex and opposite sex relationships. In movies, this man is moved by strong female roles. He is also moved by strong male roles attempted to emulate some of them at various times in his life...



Or this person...



			
				Nalia said:
			
		

> When I was growing up I had a friend who's parents split rather suddenly.  No one expected it but it wasn't really a surprise the majority of us were from divorced families.  Anyways my friend was really upset and did not want to talk about it.  Made sense to all of us, for it was a traumatic experience and something we had been through ourselves.  It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that we found out that dad left mom for another guy.  I knew this man for years and never would have guessed or read that in him.  He didn't want anyone to know so he hid it well.  Maybe if I would have been older and more mature I would have picked up on it but I don't think so.





			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Upnorth's original question was basically "can someone belong in a category."
> "Can one differentiate between Hetro's, Homo's, and Bi's."



Tulisan, this is the question I asked.

Can you differentiate sexual preference? Can you clearly place another individual in groups commonly known as "homosexual", "heterosexual", or "bisexual" in ALL circumstances?

I phrased it like this for many reasons.  One of them was to draw out people who believed that it couldn't be done in action but could in thought.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> This stemmed from the "When did same gender relations become wrong" thread. Upnorth hypothesises that one can't differentiate between the different sexual preferences. He also hypothesizes that everyone is gay (or straight) to some percentage. He also, in the previous thread, made a lot of assumptions on what would be considered "gay behavior." I believe that this is a simple method of obfusicating the issues to get people to question their own sexuality for one, and for two to get people to agree with this worldview that "everyone is gay to some degree, therefore how could homosexuality be 'wrong.'



Which assumptions do you disagree with?  Is it wrong to rethink some of this stuff?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> As it is related to this topic, I argue that determining preference is a very easy thing to do for THE MAJORITY or the population. If your mom decides she prefers the same sex, then she is homosexual. If I decide I prefer the opposite sex, then I am hetro. etc., etc., etc.... this is not that difficult of a task (unless of course your trying to cloud the issues, as I have said).



If you decide you prefer the opposite sex and then go with the same for some reason...is it so easy?  How often does this happen?  Are you sure about the majority?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Where it becomes difficult is categorizing sexual behavior. For example, many hetrosexual males rape other males in prison for reasons having to do with other environmental and psychological factors that have little to do with preference.



I agree with you here.  I guess it could be argue as to whether this behavior is sexual at all.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> However, we aren't talking about categorizing behaviors...we are talking about simply determining SEXUAL PREFERENCE. This is a very easy thing to do for most people.



I can agree with this to a certain extent.  I think it is very easy for some people.  Yet, the way we do it leaves out the subtleties.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Nice 7sm,
> 
> I think I see what is happening on a motive level, correct me if I'm wrong UpN, but I think the idea is that there are labels that are used to simply describe where someone is going to be placed within the context of a discussion/study/observation and then there are labels that are branded on people and become 'labels' or caste society level of categories that don't account for the other contextual considerations...
> 
> if that is the case, I understand but don't agree with the approach because,as a scientist, how can you possibly have any form of theory, discussion, or make valid observations if you don't establish parameters of some kind - not as hard cast 'frames' as Janulis put it but just ways of establishing markers for the discussion topics and terms?



I think you all have me here.  I'm going to concede this point to the group as long as we can agree that these psuedotaxa aren't really good at describing reality...


----------



## Tgace (Dec 20, 2004)

What other definitions would you suggest??


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> What I dislike about the Kinsey scale (from what I have seen, but I am reaching back to my few college psych classes) is that it makes assumption about behavior being homo or hetro to determine to what scale a person is homo or hetro. I find this ironic because many people use this information that typcasts behavior to determine that "the lines are grey, so you can't typcast someones sexuality." I think that there is too much about personal psychology and environment to be able to determine what behaviors are "gay" or not.



I think in some cases, similar behavior can occur for totally different reason.  Yet, in others, the reasons can be attributed different gradiations of sexual attraction.

Can you come up with an example to describe your objection to Kinsey?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A better way to say this is that you have an interest in same sex relationships. You share this interest with other homosexuals. Compared to someone who is not interested at all in ANY same sex relationships, this moves you out of their part of the sandbox.


 See, here is where your actually making assumptions yourself. Your assuming you know what motivates the "frat jock" to enjoy watching two women together. Your trying to tie it to an attraction of same sex relationships, when it could just be a horny guy who likes to see women naked and in such cases believes "two is better than one". Your speaking about not assuming or labeling sexuality and yet you do it yourself to make your point. 

  7sm


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 20, 2004)

Some thoughts on Alfred Kinsey&#8217;s &#8220;Kinsey Scale,&#8221; as I understand it, anyways. 

Synopsis: Basically the Kinsey scale was a gradient scale from 0 to 6. that was used to measure fantasies, thoughts, dreams, sexual activity, emotions, etc.  Instead of picturing sexual orientation as an either/or issue, Kinsey developed his scale based on the degree of sexual responsiveness people have for members of the same and opposite sex. His research was done around the 40&#8217;s or 50&#8217;s. I know that he predates Masters and Johnson&#8217;s work, because a lot of their work on the subject utilized the path that Kinsey&#8217;s laid.

Basically Kinsey determined that people don&#8217;t fit into the two categories &#8220;hetro&#8221; or &#8220;homo,&#8221; but that ones orientation is more of a continuum between homo and hetro.

Things I liked about the research:

1.	It explored the &#8220;taboo&#8221; subject of homosexuality during a time when this wasn&#8217;t widely excepted.
2.	It paved the way for a lot of good research on human sexuality.
3.	It did question the black and white way in which people looked at sexuality. Most behavior cannot be looked at as being 100% gay or straight, and this brought into light the idea, at least, that their may be a gradation.
4.	It blew a lot of stereotypes out of the water.
5.	It totally pissed off homophobes, particularly the Christian right, which is a hilarious thing to do, and a never-ending fun time. :lol: Just tell any Falwell wanna-be that some of his behavior might be gay and watch him squirm! 

Things I didn&#8217;t like about it:

1.	His results were skewed. His subjects were not randomly selected; most were prisoners or volunteers. Many today have good reason to believe that his results regarding incidences of homosexuality were exaggerated because of this and other possible reasons (especially his statistics).
2.	The scale assumes that there exists a &#8220;pure homosexuality&#8221; and a &#8220;pure heterosexuality,&#8221; which so far has been totally subjective. There is no imperical way to determine what is &#8220;pure&#8221; either way. This leads to the other numbers on the scale also being totally subjective as well. What one scientist thinks is a 2, another might think a 3 on the scale, and so on.
3.	When one takes a &#8220;sexual survey&#8221; (the usual method of obtaining data), the scale doesn&#8217;t seem to take into account environmental, psychological, and other factors that I think are vitally important to the understanding of sexuality. Example, one male might perform an oral sex act on another male, and this might rate a #6 on the scale. However, that oral sex act could have been done to gain protection in a prison environment, and have little to do with homosexual motivation by &#8216;giver&#8217; or the receiver even. Then, if the researcher, through proper questioning, decides to take those factors into account, then they have to subjectively place that act somewhere on the scale; again with the subjectivity. *This is where I find the scale a bit ironic.* The hypothesis that &#8220;people can&#8217;t be placed in one exacting category or another and that orientation is more of a continuum ,&#8221; relies on very subjective data that essentially attempts to place behavior (and emotions, etc.) in an exacting category and not on a continuum.
4.	This research also tends to put many things in a sexual context that in my opinion don&#8217;t belong in a sexual context. Example, a researcher might put my studying of the male human figure in art classes in a sexual context, existing somewhere on the subjective scale. I don&#8217;t think that this would not really belong, as it has little to do with my sexuality. Yes I know that a researcher might say, &#8220;Ah, but it does&#8230;how did you feel when studying the figure, etc.&#8221; And, if I were to make the mistake of saying, for examples sake, in a nonsexual manner that the male human figure is a beautiful work of art, I might score a bit higher on the scale; when this thought might have little to do with sexuality or sexual attraction. You see, a lot of assumptions have to be made when trying to place something on a subjective scale such as this, leading to the great possibility of inaccuracies. 
5.	This last one isn&#8217;t really a critique on Kinsey, but it is on those who tend to use this research: people tend to look at this scale, and put &#8220;homosexuality&#8221; on an &#8220;even&#8221; scale with &#8220;heterosexuality&#8221; regarding population and history. This propagates very strange ideas that people are just as much &#8220;gay&#8221; as they are &#8220;straight.&#8221; This is totally false. Even according to Kinsey&#8217;s inflated statistics, he even determined that the majority of the population leaned towards heterosexuality. Homosexual behavior (or on the scale leaning towards) has ALWAYS been a minority of the populus. This doesn&#8217;t mean that all people shouldn&#8217;t have equal rights (as minority groups should). What it does mean is that one can&#8217;t use Kinsey to propigate wildly false idea&#8217;s that there is just as much &#8220;gay&#8221; behavior as &#8220;straight&#8221; behavior, or at one time everyone had sex with everyone until the evil Christians came along and spoiled the fun.



> Can you come up with an example to describe your objection to Kinsey?



Now, Upnorth, you asked for an example to describe my objection to Kinsey researchers, so I&#8217;ll give you some other then my explaination above. I have seen surveys ask questions related too &#8220;frequency of sex,&#8221; &#8220;frequency of masterbation,&#8221; &#8220;if you had difficulty with arousal&#8221; &#8220;How often you look at pornographic material.&#8221; They also ask you to rate your arousal levels with certain things, many not even nessicarily sexual. One question that blew my mind asks you to pick between liking to watch movies more then once or not. Another asks you to rate &#8220;if you worry about making mistakes or not.&#8221; Anyways, often the questions chosen by the researchers are very subjective questions that cannot possibly get deep into ones psychological makeup enough to determine the &#8216;sexuality&#8217; of the behavior as related to the question. Most of it relies, again, on subjective reasoning and assumptions. 

My personal opinion is that many people like to only accept research that fits their worldview. A Christian-right extremist may condemn Kinsey&#8217;s work as having no value at all, because the thought that the &#8220;sin&#8221; of homosexuality not being black/white is very frightening to them. A extreme gay-rights activist may want very badly to believe that everyone is &#8220;gay&#8221; to different degree&#8217;s, and that sexual preference knows no boundries; they will therefore put a lot of weight on Kinsey&#8217;s theories.  

I have no agenda in this; I am just trying to learn. From that perspective, I see a lot of good that Kinsey&#8217;s research had done. I also see that there are a lot of holes in his theories. My personal belief is that Kinsey&#8217;s theory overcomplicates the issue of &#8220;sexual preference.&#8221;  It is fairly easy for most people to determine which gender one PREFERS (or if they are Bi, or Bi with a leaning preference). One may have a history of behavior that might be considered contradicting to that preference, and one may have tendencies that lean towards a different preference, however NONE OF THAT REALLY MATTERS when deciding ones preference. At any given period of time (and for most this stays consistant) you prefer what you prefer, making it not difficult to categorize and speak in terms of &#8220;gay&#8221; &#8220;hetro&#8221; or &#8220;Bi.&#8221;

Now, anyone&#8217;s personal beliefs aside, one can still have a conversation about &#8220;history of homosexuality&#8221; or the &#8220;gay marriage ban&#8221; using generally accepted terms like &#8220;homosexual,&#8221; even if one ascribes to the Kinsey scale. Hetro would just be 0-2, Bi could be 2-4, and Homo would be 4-6. So, regardless of one ascribing to Kinsey, you can still have these conversations and debates using generally accepted terms for the sake of the discussion. &#8220;Homosexual&#8221; and Heterosexual&#8221; categories still exist, even if you ascribe to the idea that there are different degrees. Refusing to come to any agreement on terms needed for a discussion only clouds the issue so that no logical discourse can occur. This is the root of what my problem was in that last thread. 

 :supcool: 
Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> See, here is where your actually making assumptions yourself. Your assuming you know what motivates the "frat jock" to enjoy watching two women together. Your trying to tie it to an attraction of same sex relationships, when it could just be a horny guy who likes to see women naked and in such cases believes "two is better than one". Your speaking about not assuming or labeling sexuality and yet you do it yourself to make your point.
> 
> 7sm



Yes, I see your point about labeling.  Even trying to find a different way to talk about it is labeling.  Yet, the above example still demonstrates an interest in same sex relationships because there are individuals who do not like this scenario at all...

Paul

Very nice point and good post.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, I see your point about labeling.  Even trying to find a different way to talk about it is labeling.  Yet, the above example still demonstrates an interest in same sex relationships because there are individuals who do not like this scenario at all.



I wanted to add on to this but ran out of time while I was getting the kids off to daycare...I apologize for quoting myself.

7starmantis

Two girls may be better then one to a horney frat guy, but there is also something else at play.  There is a willingness to watch (or participate with) two people of the same gender as they enact an act that would be considered by all of us under the current conventions to be homosexual.  This does not mean that the frat guy wants to sleep with other men.  It means that he is more comfortable with homosexual relationships and on some level desires them (at least with the opposite sex).  

Now this may come at a shock, but some people do not desire this at all.  Two is NOT better then one and they do not desire to watch or participate in this sort of experience at all.  Their preference is one man one woman and that is it.  I would say that the above example is a step away from this.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 21, 2004)

> The hypothesis that people cant be placed in one exacting category or another and that orientation is more of a continuum , relies on very subjective data that essentially attempts to place behavior (and emotions, etc.) in an exacting category and not on a continuum.


 Paul, nice insight. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Now, anyones personal beliefs aside, one can still have a conversation about history of homosexuality or the gay marriage ban using generally accepted terms like homosexual, even if one ascribes to the Kinsey scale. Hetro would just be 0-2, Bi could be 2-4, and Homo would be 4-6. So, regardless of one ascribing to Kinsey, you can still have these conversations and debates using generally accepted terms for the sake of the discussion. Homosexual and Heterosexual categories still exist, even if you ascribe to the idea that there are different degrees. _Refusing to come to any agreement on terms needed for a discussion only clouds the issue so that no logical discourse can occur. This is the root of what my problem was in that last thread_.



Alright, I'm buying it.  Your a good salesmen, Paul. :asian: 

Here is my point...



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Can you differentiate sexual preference?  Can you clearly place another individual in groups commonly known as "homosexual", "heterosexual", or "bisexual" in ALL circumstances?



This question is designed to separate theory from practice.  The theory or the labeling that occurs in conversation so we can talk about this issue is based on a classification scheme.



> homosexual
> 
> sexually attracted to members of your own sex
> 
> ...



As a classification scheme that works in practice on the entire pool of humanity, this is an inaccurate and imprecise way of describing the reality of human sexuality.  For instance, if all of our sexual behaviors were taken into account, then most individuals would fall in a bisexual catagory.  This makes the bisexual label a broad catagory full of gradiations that the word itself does not take into account.  

In practice this muddiness translates to classification in real life.  On the street it is impossible to define someone's orientation.  Based on what someone says, it can be difficult to define someone's orientation.  And in your own thoughts it can be difficult to classify yourself.

Here are some examples...



			
				Nalia said:
			
		

> When I was growing up I had a friend who's parents split rather suddenly.  No one expected it but it wasn't really a surprise the majority of us were from divorced families.  Anyways my friend was really upset and did not want to talk about it.  Made sense to all of us, for it was a traumatic experience and something we had been through ourselves.  It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that we found out that dad left mom for another guy.  I knew this man for years and never would have guessed or read that in him.  He didn't want anyone to know so he hid it well.  Maybe if I would have been older and more mature I would have picked up on it but I don't think so.





> A man is married, he has two kids. He's been in love with women twice in his life and has slept with both of those women. This man has also had more casual sexual relationships...some of them included more then one people and the sexual ratio was not always weighted in the female direction. This man has made friends with others who have formed same sex relationships. If they happen to be women, he is able to appraise other women sexually. If they happen to be men, he is able to appraise other men sexually. This man also has watched porn depicting same sex and opposite sex relationships. In movies, this man is moved by strong female roles. He is also moved by strong male roles attempted to emulate some of them at various times in his life...



Based on the way talk about sexuality, it can be very difficult to put these examples into the above catagories.  I am very surprised that people think that it is so easy...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Deuce (Dec 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I wanted to add on to this but ran out of time while I was getting the kids off to daycare...I apologize for quoting myself.
> 
> 7starmantis
> 
> ...


I agree that "girl on girl" porn is homosexual behavior, but I think a man who watches it would be more heterosexual than a man who watches "girl on man" heterosexual porn. Some men are such homophobes, that they freak out when the see another man in the nude. I'm not saying that men who watch the "girl on man" porns are homosexuals, but maybe just more comfortable with their own sexuality. And in my opinion, a male watching the "girl on girl" porn is leaning more towards hetero and not in the other direction on the scale. Just my opinion.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 7starmantis
> 
> Two girls may be better then one to a horney frat guy, but there is also something else at play. There is a willingness to watch (or participate with) two people of the same gender as they enact an act that would be considered by all of us under the current conventions to be homosexual. This does not mean that the frat guy wants to sleep with other men. It means that he is more comfortable with homosexual relationships and on some level desires them (at least with the opposite sex).
> 
> Now this may come at a shock, but some people do not desire this at all. Two is NOT better then one and they do not desire to watch or participate in this sort of experience at all. Their preference is one man one woman and that is it. I would say that the above example is a step away from this.


 While I agree that there are some who do not actively participate, or even like the idea of two women (speaking of men here) it doesn't prove that the intentions of all those who do like two women together is that of same sex relationships. Most guys I know who enjoy or fantasize about two women together either with the guy or without is from a completely "selfish" perspective because they can receive "more" pleasure from two than one. The fact that some do not like this "fantasy" doesn't lend itself to the idea that those who do are accepting of same sex relationships. See most times a huge double standard exists within these people who like this scenario. Lesbians are "cool" while gay men are disgusting. This homophobic thought process, in my opinion, comes from these types of perceptions you are posting. See, the frat guy likes the idea of two "hot" young, beautiful women together, its not just the liking of same sex relationships, its simply that the frat guy gets to see more "hot naked chicks" in this scenario. The same person wouldn't like the idea of two women together if the women were what the guy would consider not attractive. Also remember that there are those who do not like the idea of oral sex either, but that doesn't take them away from the "straight" group either. It seems that you are relating much more "behavior" and "perception" to being gay than I do. You seem to say you do not agree with stereotypes and labels, and yet you seem to bend ideas of sexual behavior to "mean" one is more gay or straight. In my opinion that is a contradiction. The fact that human sexuality can include many, many scenarios and different actions is only proof of our diversity. Clumping a "kinky" or active (healthy) sex life into a "gay" group is incorrect in my opinion. Clumping it into a "straight" or "bisexual" one would be as well. Youre widening the boundaries of the accepted term of gay or straight to include things everyone does, so that way, everyone is still gay to some degree and therefore cannot dislike or not accept gay people. Thats simply the wrong way to approach the issue, in my opinion.

   7sm


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, I see your point about labeling. Even trying to find a different way to talk about it is labeling. Yet, the above example still demonstrates an interest in same sex relationships because there are individuals who do not like this scenario at all...
> 
> Paul
> 
> Very nice point and good post.


But, creating categories/definitions/terms for the sake of discussion is the root of a rational/topical discussion.  

By no means am I saying that my definition of 'gay' for the sake of this discussion is the only possible one.  I present it so that we can establish a common ground for the sake of discussion.

No one has said, implied or insinuated that they were more 'right' or that they were trying to impose a 'true definition' just a commonly accepted terminology for the sake of moving forward about the topic of Differenciation.

Any definitive lines/terms are arbitrary and culturally/group imposes.

Why is it 'gay/queer/fag/homosexual' and not some other terms?  No real 'natural' reason, just the terms of the day/period in history.

Applying a 'scientific' mentallity, I would say the simplest way to clarify things is to base 'preference' based on some criteria of observable behavior/statements.  Remember that 'preference' doesn't exclude the idea that there might be 'dominant' and 'recessive' preferences.

How do you know a person is a visual learner/auditory learner/kinesthetic learner?  Observable behavior and 'preferences.'  That tendency and possibly preference is a combination of nature and nurture - I would say 'preference' on this topic could be 'defined' about the same way.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> While I agree that there are some who do not actively participate, or even like the idea of two women (speaking of men here) it doesn't prove that the intentions of all those who do like two women together is that of same sex relationships. Most guys I know who enjoy or fantasize about two women together either with the guy or without is from a completely "selfish" perspective because they can receive "more" pleasure from two than one.



Two women together having sex is a same sex relationship.  Fantasizing or participating in scenario show an increased interest in same sex relationships.  The fact that they derive more pleasure from this experience is telling.  Again, this does not mean that the guy in question wants to sleep with another man.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> The fact that some do not like this "fantasy" doesn't lend itself to the idea that those who do are accepting of same sex relationships. See most times a huge double standard exists within these people who like this scenario. Lesbians are "cool" while gay men are disgusting. This homophobic thought process, in my opinion, comes from these types of perceptions you are posting.



I don't see this connection.  Can you elaborate?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> See, the frat guy likes the idea of two "hot" young, beautiful women together, its not just the liking of same sex relationships, its simply that the frat guy gets to see more "hot naked chicks" in this scenario.



If that is the case, then why doesn't it stop at the strip show?  Why do they have to perform sexual acts on each other?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> The same person wouldn't like the idea of two women together if the women were what the guy would consider not attractive.



Isn't that another matter all together? 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Also remember that there are those who do not like the idea of oral sex either, but that doesn't take them away from the "straight" group either.



I agree with this and I can see where you are going with this.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems that you are relating much more "behavior" and "perception" to being gay than I do. You seem to say you do not agree with stereotypes and labels, and yet you seem to bend ideas of sexual behavior to "mean" one is more gay or straight.  In my opinion that is a contradiction.



I think this may explain why classifying these behaviors becomes difficult.  Devining the _meaning _ behind the behavior is most always going to be an assumption.  I have a few books about some scientific research into this subject.  "Why we do it" by Niles Eldridge is one that gives a different breakdown of sexual behaviors and it puts them into an evolutionary context.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> The fact that human sexuality can include many, many scenarios and different actions is only proof of our diversity. Clumping a "kinky" or active (healthy) sex life into a "gay" group is incorrect in my opinion.



I would agree with this statement to a certain extent.  I think there are gradiations of behavior that are not being taken into account when the above is done.  For instance, I don't think a person sleeps with another person of their same sex without taking many other steps.  Could some of the behaviors we are talking about be related to those steps?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Clumping it into a "straight" or "bisexual" one would be as well. Youre widening the boundaries of the accepted term of gay or straight to include things everyone does, so that way, everyone is still gay to some degree and therefore cannot dislike or not accept gay people. Thats simply the wrong way to approach the issue, in my opinion.



I am widening the boundaries, but not to make everyone gay.  I am trying to show shared behaviors in order show similarities.  This, I think, will lead to more tolerance of the differences.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Two women together having sex is a same sex relationship. Fantasizing or participating in scenario show an increased interest in same sex relationships. The fact that they derive more pleasure from this experience is telling. Again, this does not mean that the guy in question wants to sleep with another man.


NOT if you are talking about the 'relationship' between the MALE viewer/voyeur and the FEMALES that he is watching having sex. The MAN is getting aroused watching women.

Remember the focus is on the MAN watching the WOMEN not on the two women interacting (and even there it doesn't mean that the motive is 'love' or 'violence' so much as 'pay.')

I could see where a MAN watching MAN ON MAN sexual activity and becoming aroused as an indication that there might be 'homosexual' tendencies because the gender of the viewer and the subjects being viewed is the same.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Two women together having sex is a same sex relationship. Fantasizing or participating in scenario show an increased interest in same sex relationships. The fact that they derive more pleasure from this experience is telling. Again, this does not mean that the guy in question wants to sleep with another man.


 Yes youre correct, but I think your missing the point. The "turn on" a guy would get from watching a woman on woman act isn't exciting because of the same sex relationship, its exciting because he's watching women in sexual acts. Youre just a little off. You are relating the excitement to the relationship, while the excitement is actually just the "naked women". You know they say chocolate is a substitute for sex. If I see an unwrapped chocolate bar I may want it, right? It may make my mouth water and make me crave chocolate. If I see an unwrapped chocolate bar on top of another unwrapped chocolate bar, my craving would probably increase or even double. See, I'm not craving chocolate on top of other chocolate; I'm still just simply craving chocolate. Back to the discussion, they guy watching two women isn't craving a same sex relationship or excited by theirs, but exciting because he is seeing "more boobs" if you will. I think many times the guy is thinking of himself in that situation, and that would be very heterosexual. Sorry I know that analogy was stupid, but it made my point  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't see this connection. Can you elaborate?


 Sure, what I'm getting at is that that "frat guy" we were talking about may think lesbians are "cool" because it turns him on to see naked women, and in my last analogy we see that two naked women may increase his desire. Two men together would most likely not turn him on. That shows a heterosexual "Frat guy". It doesn't show an accepting or longing for same sex relationships, otherwise the two men scenario would also excite him. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then why doesn't it stop at the strip show? Why do they have to perform sexual acts on each other?


 Many times it does stop at the strip show. Sometimes it goes to them performing acts on each other, while other times it even includes them performing sexual acts on him. This is where your human sexuality differences come into play, however they dont necessarily mean a change in preference. This is sad, I actually asked a buddy of mine about this to get an outside opinion. We agree that the attraction of watching two women perform sexual acts on each other is probably more along the lines of exciting because he gets to see a naked woman having sexual acts done while also seeing a naked woman performing sexual acts. Its not that the acts are same sex as much as it is him getting to see what he desires....women. If your post was correct, he would be just as excited watching two men perform sexual acts on each other, and in most instances that is not the case. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Isn't that another matter all together?


 I dont think so at all. It shows what he finds desirable. If it was same sex relationships that he enjoyed, it would matter what the women looked like, or even if they were women. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I am widening the boundaries, but not to make everyone gay. I am trying to show shared behaviors in order show similarities. This, I think, will lead to more tolerance of the differences.


 Ok, youre not trying to make everyone gay, but make everyone share similarities. I like women, one of my buddies likes men. There aren't similarities in our preference, they are different. I think true acceptance is recognizing that and understanding it. It seems youre almost having trouble accepting, so you need to make them more like yourself, so you can then accept them easily. I'm not trying to insult you or say this is what youre doing, but it certainly seems likely. We agree that differences are beautiful, so why strive so hard to blur those differences?

  7sm


----------



## Deuce (Dec 21, 2004)

I have to agree with 7sm on this issue. I think the word "preference" is key in this discussion. It's up to the individual to differentiate their sexual preference. I prefer women, plain and simple. I'm straight and always have been. I've never considered engaging in homosexual relationships. I'm not a homophobe but I just know that I'm straight. The way I act, dress, talk, etc. does not reflect on the fact that I prefer women. I know a guy who fits almost every stereotyped trait of homosexuals, but defines himself as straight because he prefers women. I'm sure there are peolpe who have a problem defining themselves in one group or another, but many people have no problem defining their sexual preference. 

It's interesting that most of the discussion on this thread is focused on hetero and homosexual issues. What about bisexuals? If someones preference for men and women are fairly equal, then one might consider themselves a bisexual. If they have a stronger preference for a particular sex, then they may classify themselves accordingly. From my experience when people talk about their sexuality they don't say "well, I like both sexes but I guess I'm more of a homosexual." Typically they would say bisexual. Is the term "bisexual" not sufficient to define the preference of people who fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, if they choose to define themselves that way?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 22, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think true acceptance is recognizing that and understanding it. It seems youre almost having trouble accepting, so you need to make them more like yourself, so you can then accept them easily. I'm not trying to insult you or say this is what youre doing, but it certainly seems likely.
> 7sm


We are BORG, resistance if futile, prepare to be Kinseythized......


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yes youre correct, but I think your missing the point. The "turn on" a guy would get from watching a woman on woman act isn't exciting because of the same sex relationship, its exciting because he's watching women in sexual acts. Youre just a little off. You are relating the excitement to the relationship, while the excitement is actually just the "naked women".



I talked to my brother about this.  He is a frat boy and he posed the question to his frat.  The consensus was that its not just _naked women_.  You can go and see multiple _naked women _ at any strip club and they usually have _naked women _ at there parties.  The difference the performance of sexual a sexual relationship...and my brother made a good point, among his more homophobic frat brothers, an attempt is made to make this somehow not "gay".  It's just naked women kissing and having sex like lesbians, "more boobs" if you will.  The reality is that this is a homosexual relationship in action even if the women go back to heterosexual relationships afterward and some people are just more comfortable with that sort of thing.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Back to the discussion, they guy watching two women isn't craving a same sex relationship or excited by theirs, but exciting because he is seeing "more boobs" if you will. I think many times the guy is thinking of himself in that situation, and that would be very heterosexual. Sorry I know that analogy was stupid, but it made my point



I got to "more boobs" and busted a gut.   Beyond that, though, I have to disagree and furthermore, imagining or participating in this relationship is, in a very real sense, participating in the homosexual relationship of the two women.  Even if it occurs in a heterosexual way for you...and they may even be turned on by you, but something about their homosexual acts turns you on...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Sure, what I'm getting at is that that "frat guy" we were talking about may think lesbians are "cool" because it turns him on to see naked women, and in my last analogy we see that two naked women may increase his desire. Two men together would most likely not turn him on. That shows a heterosexual "Frat guy". It doesn't show an accepting or longing for same sex relationships, otherwise the two men scenario would also excite him.



I agree, one finding erotic the homosexual relationship between two females does not mean that one will find erotic the homosexual relationship between two males.  This does not change the fact that one finds the homosexual relationship of two females erotic and I don't think that it demonstrates any homophobia per se as long as you recognize the fact that both females are participating in a homosexual act.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Many times it does stop at the strip show. Sometimes it goes to them performing acts on each other, while other times it even includes them performing sexual acts on him. This is where your human sexuality differences come into play, however they dont necessarily mean a change in preference. *This is sad, I actually asked a buddy of mine about this to get an outside opinion*. We agree that the attraction of watching two women perform sexual acts on each other is probably more along the lines of exciting because he gets to see a naked woman having sexual acts done while also seeing a naked woman performing sexual acts. Its not that the acts are same sex as much as it is him getting to see what he desires....women. If your post was correct, he would be just as excited watching two men perform sexual acts on each other, and in most instances that is not the case.



Dude, I've been doing the same thing!  And I can say that there is a clear line between finding the homosexual relationship of two females erotic and the relationship between two men.  Finding homosexuality erotic in one instance does not mean you will find it erotic in the other.  Yet this does not change the fact that one if finding erotic the same sort of thing that lesbians prefer.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, youre not trying to make everyone gay, but make everyone share similarities. I like women, one of my buddies likes men. There aren't similarities in our preference, they are different. I think true acceptance is recognizing that and understanding it. It seems youre almost having trouble accepting, so you need to make them more like yourself, so you can then accept them easily. I'm not trying to insult you or say this is what youre doing, but it certainly seems likely. We agree that differences are beautiful, so why strive so hard to blur those differences?



This may just be a personal difference between you and I.  I like to look for the common ground between me and my fellow humans and I think that ALL of us share something in each other.  Some people don't care about this sort of thing at all and that is okay.  Neither of us is saying difference is bad.  All I am trying to say in this case is that understanding the similarities in our preferences makes stronger connections between us all.  I think that this would lead to more tolerance in the end.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> We are BORG, resistance if futile, prepare to be Kinseythized......



Oh please...this coming from someone who harps about _consensus _ constantly...now that is irony.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> It's interesting that most of the discussion on this thread is focused on hetero and homosexual issues. What about bisexuals? If someones preference for men and women are fairly equal, then one might consider themselves a bisexual. If they have a stronger preference for a particular sex, then they may classify themselves accordingly. From my experience when people talk about their sexuality they don't say "well, I like both sexes but I guess I'm more of a homosexual." Typically they would say bisexual. Is the term "bisexual" not sufficient to define the preference of people who fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, if they choose to define themselves that way?



This, I think, is the major failing of the way we talk about sexual preference.  There are no shades in _bisexual_.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 22, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This, I think, is the major failing of the way we talk about sexual preference. There are no shades in _bisexual_.


 Yes, there is. Take an informal survery of people who call themselves bisexual. Ask them if they equally are attracted to people of both genders and if their attaction for each gender has remained constant throughout their lifetime. You will get different answers from different people. Just like if you ask people who define themselves as straight about their sexual histories and attractions etc.

I think you are missing the point of the labels, UpNorth. They are classifications. Catergories. Like classifying organisms. If you know an organism belongs to Plantae, that describes certain aspects and characteristics of the organism, but it is not enough towards understanding the organism completely. There is tremendous variation with the grouping Plantae. But the grouping is *still useful for describing the group in a general way*. Would you say we should do away with the catergories Plantae/Animalia/etc just because they are incomplete descriptions of the organisms that belong to the groups? Because there are organisms that are difficult to define which group they belong to? Not likely. It's a limitation, sure. But it doesn't negate the purpose of the catergories in the first place!


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 22, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh please...this coming from someone who harps about _consensus _constantly...now that is irony.


Actually, irony is a main ingredient in humor and you didn't seem to recognize it in this case... that to me is 'ironic' when the discussion at the moment isn't so much about "can you" but "how do you" define sexual preference/differentiation because you are not willing to work in a consensus way toward a base language of terms. THere must be an agenda/purpose for this blatant refusal to acknowledge, recognize or respect any terms of discussion other than yours.  I have walked in those shoes myself before, so this isn't insult so much as a desire for understanding why your doing it this time.

Besides which, consensus is about cooperation/comprimise and focusing on the goal instead of petty differences so that the main objective is accomplished instead of personal agendas/egos being satisfied...how is that wrong?

(Sidebar: The metaphor of the BORG, in ST:NG is NOT used to represent a society built on consensus. It is a metaphor, IMO, for a society that lacks any individual identity based on blind, clinical devotion to a set of objectives with no recognition for any part of the human(oid) make up other than the intellect...).


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Yes, there is. Take an informal survery of people who call themselves bisexual. Ask them if they equally are attracted to people of both genders and if their attaction for each gender has remained constant throughout their lifetime. You will get different answers from different people. Just like if you ask people who define themselves as straight about their sexual histories and attractions etc.



I think you misunderstood my point.  I am saying that there _are _ shades of gray in the term bisexual, but the term "bisexual" does not deal with them.  If you tell someone that you are bisexual, they know the barest basics of preference, but they could easily miss entirely who you might really be.



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point of the labels, UpNorth. They are classifications. Catergories. Like classifying organisms. If you know an organism belongs to Plantae, that describes certain aspects and characteristics of the organism, but it is not enough towards understanding the organism completely. There is tremendous variation with the grouping Plantae. But the grouping is *still useful for describing the group in a general way*. Would you say we should do away with the catergories Plantae/Animalia/etc just because they are incomplete descriptions of the organisms that belong to the groups? Because there are organisms that are difficult to define which group they belong to? Not likely. It's a limitation, sure. But it doesn't negate the purpose of the catergories in the first place



I'm glad you brought up biologic taxonomy.  This is a good analogy to describe what I am trying to say regarding these labels.  Imagine somebody walking through the forest with a small child.  They point at every animal they see and say "animal" then they refuse to elaborate.  Does the child ever learn very much about those animals?  I believe that our children are in very much the same boat.  Our current definitions are so broad that they are like buckets with holes.  People slip in and out of them all of the time.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Actually, irony is a main ingredient in humor and you didn't seem to recognize it in this case... that to me is 'ironic' when the discussion at the moment isn't so much about "can you" but "how do you" define sexual preference/differentiation because you are not willing to work in a consensus way toward a base language of terms. THere must be an agenda/purpose for this blatant refusal to acknowledge, recognize or respect any terms of discussion other than yours.  I have walked in those shoes myself before, so this isn't insult so much as a desire for understanding why your doing it this time.
> 
> Besides which, consensus is about cooperation/comprimise and focusing on the goal instead of petty differences so that the main objective is accomplished instead of personal agendas/egos being satisfied...how is that wrong?
> 
> (Sidebar: The metaphor of the BORG, in ST:NG is NOT used to represent a society built on consensus. It is a metaphor, IMO, for a society that lacks any individual identity based on blind, clinical devotion to a set of objectives with no recognition for any part of the human(oid) make up other than the intellect...).



I should have added a smiley.  I recognized your humor and was attempting to respond in kind.  I apologize for not being clear and I didn't mean to offend you.

There is nothing wrong with consensus and I think that it is a good _ideal_.

Regarding the discussion, "can you" is directly related to "how do you" in my opinion.  

I don't know if I have an _agenda _ per se.  I think its more of a desire to show how the ambiguity in our current language conventions makes it hard to really discuss our sexual preferences.  

I also think that there is a fair bit of the old "divide and conquer" mentality inherit in the system that makes homophobia easier.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 22, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I should have added a smiley. I recognized your humor and was attempting to respond in kind.  I apologize for not being clear and I didn't mean to offend you.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with consensus and I think that it is a good _ideal_.
> 
> ...


By 'language' are you referring to the mainstream everyday language of the masses/media/advertising or are you referring to the 'trade/internal' language that the posters here are attempting to specify for the sake of furthering this discussion?

As it stands now, my perception is that you are not differentiating between the two - and there is a BIG difference in goal, purpose and definitions - which is 'muddying the waters' as has been mentioned in the past.

If the point is to talk about the current 'popular' language usage, then the topic title is a bit in accurate for an explanation of that discussion.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 22, 2004)

First I want to say that this thread has been a very good one. Everyone has stayed calm and this has been a great exchange. Kudos (sp?) to upnorth and everyone who has contributed. That being said.... 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I talked to my brother about this. He is a frat boy and he posed the question to his frat. The consensus was that its not just _naked women_.  You can go and see multiple _naked women _ at any strip club and they usually have _naked women _ at there parties. The difference the performance of sexual a sexual relationship...and my brother made a good point, among his more homophobic frat brothers, an attempt is made to make this somehow not "gay". It's just naked women kissing and having sex like lesbians, "more boobs" if you will. The reality is that this is a homosexual relationship in action even if the women go back to heterosexual relationships afterward and some people are just more comfortable with that sort of thing.


 Yes, you forgot the part of my last post that went past just the "naked women" idea. Its not simply naked women (although that can be the attraction) I think its more (like I said in my last post) the fact that they are seeing naked women performing sexual acts. I see what your saying, and your correct, it is a homosexual relationship, but the excitement isn't the relationship. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I got to "more boobs" and busted a gut.  Beyond that, though, I have to disagree and furthermore, imagining or participating in this relationship is, in a very real sense, participating in the homosexual relationship of the two women. Even if it occurs in a heterosexual way for you...and they may even be turned on by you, but something about their homosexual acts turns you on...


  Sorry, I tend to be pretty straightforward!  I agree with you that "technically" this is participation in the homosexual relationship, but we have to remember the concept of "prefrence" here. The guys watching still prefers women not men. Like I said before, seeing a woman have sexual acts performed on her and at the same time seeing a woman performing sexual acts only increases his heterosexual desires, it doesn't bring about homosexual desires. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I agree, one finding erotic the homosexual relationship between two females does not mean that one will find erotic the homosexual relationship between two males. This does not change the fact that one finds the homosexual relationship of two females erotic and I don't think that it demonstrates any homophobia per se as long as you recognize the fact that both females are participating in a homosexual act.


 I think your just missing my point. Its not the homosexual realationship that excites the "frat guy", its the sexual actions of naked women. The relationship is not what its about. I think your making this girl on girl action alot more deep and intelectual than it is. Your assuming the relationship between the two women is what is turning the guy on, what I'm saying is; it isn't the relationship, but simply the pure sexual behavior. I mean, the "horny frat guy" isn't writing a dissertation on homosexual relationships between hot strippers. We still have to remember that this guy still prefers women, and this "show" isn't changing that prefrence. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Dude, I've been doing the same thing! And I can say that there is a clear line between finding the homosexual relationship of two females erotic and the relationship between two men. Finding homosexuality erotic in one instance does not mean you will find it erotic in the other. Yet this does not change the fact that one if finding erotic the same sort of thing that lesbians prefer.


 Exactly, that is my point! There is a clear line between finding homosexual acts of two women "exciting" and the acts of two men. Why is that? Because the watcher is a heterosexual male. Your argument is thin here. Yes the heterosexual "frat jock" is finding exciting the same thing that a lesbian prefers, but what does that mean? It simply means that a lesbian finds attractive women, which heterosexual males do as well. Your argument only increases the stereotype that lesbian women are more like men than a woman. Your still trying to make similarites between "Straight" and "gay" people in order to accept them. There are similarities (in prefrence) between a straight man and a gay women, however you will need to prove similarities in prefrence between a straight man and a gay man to say this scenario is bringing the "frat guy" closer to being gay. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This may just be a personal difference between you and I. I like to look for the common ground between me and my fellow humans and I think that ALL of us share something in each other. Some people don't care about this sort of thing at all and that is okay. Neither of us is saying difference is bad. All I am trying to say in this case is that understanding the similarities in our preferences makes stronger connections between us all. I think that this would lead to more tolerance in the end.


 This may be just that. I tend to be very different from others in my world views. I personally find differences in people to be attractive. Oops, that may make me more "Gay" than "Straight".  I needent find a similarity between me and a gay person to accpet, or love them for who they are. Your right however, finding similarities in our prefrences makes stronger connections, but your only strengthening the connection between gay women and straight men. You need to prove a similarity of prefrence between a gay man and a straight man to really show similarities in prefrence.

    7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 22, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstood my point.  I am saying that there _are _ shades of gray in the term bisexual, but the term "bisexual" does not deal with them. If you tell someone that you are bisexual, they know the barest basics of preference, but they could easily miss entirely who you might really be.


 If your relying on a good description of your sexual prefrence to make someone understand who you are, then thats just sad. Who a person is, is much more than their sexual prefrence, regardless of how well articulated it is expressed.

 7sm


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 22, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> If your relying on a good description of your sexual prefrence to make someone understand who you are, then thats just sad. Who a person is, is much more than their sexual prefrence, regardless of how well articulated it is expressed.
> 
> 7sm


Well said, and blending opinions about prejudices/trends into attempts to clarify terms only adds to the confusion during discussion when you are making assumptions about what 'They know.'

I am not concerned with examples of prejudice/stereotyping/narrowminded behavior so much as I am concerned with addressing the topic of 'can you.'

Maybe the thread needs to be clarified to "Can you differentiate....without forming negative/bigotous impressions about 'others?' If 'social trends' are going to be included in the discussion.

Is this a discussion about 'how people define/stereotype - and therefore mistreat - people based on sexual preference?' or is it 'Can you....?'

I think the intent is confused at this point.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> If your relying on a good description of your sexual prefrence to make someone understand who you are, then thats just sad. Who a person is, is much more than their sexual prefrence, regardless of how well articulated it is expressed.
> 
> 7sm



I'm not _that _ cynical.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 7, 2006)

I came to this discussion late, and haven't read the other thread that was being referred to, so please excuse me if I repeat something that has already been said.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm glad you brought up biologic taxonomy. This is a good analogy to describe what I am trying to say regarding these labels. Imagine somebody walking through the forest with a small child. They point at every animal they see and say "animal" then they refuse to elaborate. Does the child ever learn very much about those animals? I believe that our children are in very much the same boat. Our current definitions are so broad that they are like buckets with holes. People slip in and out of them all of the time.


I agree that the definitions are so broad as to resemble a net even more than a holey bucket.  

I think that sexuality and sensuality lie on a continuum, but that there is more than one continuum at work. Skewed from the continuum on which sexual preference lies is another continuum which contains libido - that is, interest in sexual activity. Some people have so little interest in sexual activity, or even the emotions that lead to sexual activity, as to be effectively neuter; others may be so interested that "insatiable" may be the only adjective that applies.  Another continuum that influences these concepts is societal acceptance - it is much hard to conceive of an idea that is as deeply buried, labelled as sin - under such conditions it is difficult to even consider such an idea, never mind others who share it.  Until recently, this latter concern was huge - and even now, it remains a taboo topic in many sections of society.

Another issue that hasn't been discussed is the idea that, while homosexuality is much more accepted, it is still, in some sense, "wrong", and therefore enticing. In my opinion, therein lies another issue that has not been raised on this thread yet: the issue of WHY a hetero male may enjoy watching two females in sex play (or vice versa, for that matter). Despite recent changes in acceptance of homosexual and bisexual behavior, especially among younger adults, there is a still a "forbidden fruit" aspect to homosexuality for many people - the hetero person watching two people of the opposite gender engaging in homosexual eroticism may be titillated as much by the "forbidden" nature of the activity as by the opportunity to see 2 (or more) members of the opposite gender naked.

Now, before I get flamed, I don't hold this opinion - my opinion is that love is hard enough to find, without society placing artificial restraints upon it - homosexuality has been around for too long, through too many societies that have outlawed it, decried it, refused to even discuss it - if it were truly free choice, why would anyone choose to put themselves through the agony that that particular "free choice" brings upon them? Many people have chosen heterosexuality because that is what is expected, only to find later, like the man discussed earlier who left his wife for another man, that society's expectations are not their preference - but until very recently, homosexuality was hidden in back rooms and never discussed, labelled a deadly sin, and, until recently, often lead to death under rather gruesome conditions: under those circumstances, how would someone even begin to explore such ideas, much less follow up on them? 

Like many other once "taboo" topics, while homosexuality and bisexuality are much more accepted than they were in the past, many people still consider them off-limits, and this topic has not been as well-researched as other aspects of sexuality. A large variety of reasons feed into this - but one, in particular, comes from society - this issue needs a long-term study, and the recent acceptance (such as it is - there is still a long way to go) did not occur recently enough to allow such studies to take place.


----------



## Fluffy (Jan 8, 2006)

I voted no.  My brother is gay, and you would never know it.  I have hung out with him and his friends.  Some I could tell, others I could not.  People are people.....everyone is different.


----------



## Henderson (Jan 8, 2006)

I voted "No", because the original question asked if you could always tell the difference.  Nothing is 100% guaranteed, except death.

Frank


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2006)

Henderson said:
			
		

> I voted "No", because the original question asked if you could always tell the difference. Nothing is 100% guaranteed, except death.
> 
> Frank


 There are no absolutes, but I haven't known someone, male of female, I couldn't spot after casual observation....not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------

