Can you differentiate sexual preference?

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Frank

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.