Can you differentiate sexual preference?

[Tgace]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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".

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....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

And your point is......?

 

[raedyn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Why?

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]

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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]

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.