Can you differentiate sexual preference?

[Makalakumu]

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]

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

 

[Lisa]

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]

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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...

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...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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?