Support NeoGAF

[The Mule]

If you are a man and have sex with men and identify as straight then you are doing it wrong. That's not what straight means.

There's truly absolutely nothing wrong with bisexual. If you have sexual thoughts towards other men then you are bisexual/gay. Deal with it.

Semantic arguments like this are always difficult, but I'll try to explain it as I understand it. This may not be "correct", but it's how I've heard it explained before and makes sense to me.

There's a distinction between what gender(s) you fall in love with and what gender(s) you lust for. The scenario given in the OP is about "straight" men who have homosexual sex. This is contradictory right? However, these men who identify as straight probably only feel like they can fall in love with females. That's why they identify as straight. As far as sex with other men goes, that's purely lust. They're satisfying a particular primal urge to fuck, that they may not be able to fulfil with females.

However, a man that can fall in love with AND lusts for both genders would probably identify as bisexual.

And a homosexual man probably only loves and lusts for other men.

It's semantically tricky, but the main thing is understanding the difference between love and lust.

I can't come to with a more close minded claim than that one.

Then you're really not trying...

 

[Jobbs]

I can't say anything about that book, as I've haven't read it, but I can't help but notice the complete shut-down of open-mindedness that occurs when most straight guys get this kind of stuff brought to their attention, and which has been demonstrated more than once in this very thread.

No, I'm not saying all of us straight guys should go and try sucking a cock right now just to see what it's like, but the fact that the very idea of a straight guy having some sort of sexual experimentation with another guy is so foreign and impossible of an idea that "No, that guy can't actually be straight, and I know this because I'm so 100%, completely, without-a-doubt-straight and would never even fathom doing that in the million years!!" is the type of language a lot of us resort to when this gets brought up is embarrassing.

Like the idea that male heterosexuality, and male heterosexuality alone, has to be so god damn rigid and bullet-pointed that this type of stuff is a threat to one's own heterosexuality even when you're not the one participating in this sort of experimentation, and that there can't be even a nuance of a difference in identity of being a heterosexual male, and the only proof one has of that is their own personal perception of it... THAT's what's stupid.

Nothing's a threat to anything. I've just never experienced the phenomenon of being attracted to someone of my own sex, so I can't agree with the idea that we all experience it. I'm sorry that I am this way.

Semantic arguments like this are always difficult, but I'll try to explain it as I understand it. This may not be "correct", but it's how I've heard it explained before and makes sense to me.

There's a distinction between what gender(s) you fall in love with and what gender(s) you lust for. The scenario given in the OP is about "straight" men who have homosexual sex. This is contradictory right? However, these men who identify as straight probably only feel like they can fall in love with females. That's why they identify as straight.

As far as sex with other men goes, that's purely lust. They're satisfying a particular primal urge to fuck, that they may not be able to fulfil with females.

However, a man that can fall in love with AND lusts for both genders would probably identify as bisexual.

And a homosexual man probably only loves and lusts for other men.

It's semantically tricky, but the main thing is understanding the difference between love and lust.

Then you're really not trying...

I'm fine with all of that, but what I can't go along with is the sentiment I detect that there is no such thing as a man who is simply not interested in any way in other men, either romantically or lustfully. If you allow that this classification of man exists, what would you call him? I have always thought this phenomenon was called "straight" or "heterosexual", but if those terms can't be used anymore, then we need a new term for what I am. Just let me know what it is and I'll remember it.

 

[Sianos]

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm very open minded. I'm just trying to analyze what some people are saying intellectually. I clearly don't care who thinks I'm gay by the amount I wear pink/purple.

A lot of people are saying a lot of straight guys like to have sex with men. That doesn't compute. If you are a man and like to have sex with men, you're bi or gay. By definition. I'm not bi or gay, so I have less than zero sexual interest in other men. Sometimes the world seems like it's going crazy right here on neogaf.

by definition

oh no, we're arguing by definition! good thing i wrote a relevant post about this just now (on the end of the last page qq)

why do we always try to fit the humans into the labels and not fit our labels to the humans

It is so sad to watch people attempt to compress their emotional spectrum to match up with a flat, arbitrarily constructed label or archetype. There seems to be some pervasive belief that labels and their definitions along with categories and their boundaries are immutable and intrinsic. I often see people trying to shoehorn something into a category defined by a label as if being identified under that label will change the properties of said thing to be prototypic of that which the category's label supposedly represents, and vice-versa trying to exclude something from a category as if that will make said thing no longer exhibit the qualities of the category. Identifying a dolphin as a fish does not make the dolphin suddenly more fish-like*.

The recent proliferation of a much wider range of gender identity labels seems to be a pragmatic solution for this - we haven't fixed the way we irrationally regard labels, but if we can make enough labels to satisfy and include everyone while minimizing homogenization** then I suppose for all intents and purposes the problem is solved. I fully support the usage of as many labels as it takes to make everyone feel properly represented - and perhaps on a societal scale we must interpret "fitting the labels to the humans" on a metaphysical level as well: perhaps on a societal scale we must fit our conceptual representation and organization of the world to human shortcomings, at least for now.

Basically, my belief is that these "new" gender identities have always existed regardless of whether we had a proper label for them, and would have continued to exist even if we continued our improper ignorant labeling. But properly labeling them is still important for people to not feel marginalized and to express themselves, even if it does continue the pervasive attitude that labels define people as opposed to the correct inversion.



*An unsavory person might use this line of thought to be dismissive of transgendered people, but this line of thought actually supports transgendered people: misgendering a transgender person is again like trying to say that because you keep calling dolphin "fish", they will become more fish-like. To an uneducated person, that dolphin may appear to be fish-like based on a limited understanding of what defines fish-ness, but that doesn't make them right. Gender is defined based on self-identity and brain-wave studies support this notion.

**No, homogenization sadly doesn't mean "to inoculate people to be more open to having homosexual relations" [/joke]

To add, attempting to distill something down to a prototypic representation of a definition by claiming that something fits a broad, common use definition so that you can then attach a ton of assumptions and common features of things identified by that definition or obscure relevant differentiating information is very disingenuous.

a woman engages in both same-sex and opposite-sex relations, with a heavy preference for same-sex relations indiciating probable gynephilia -> simple definition of bisexuality is engaging in both same-sex and opposite-sex relations -> that woman is, by definition, bisexual -> they are referred too only in a broad manner as bisexual -> they are simplified down to the simple definition of bisexuality -> relevant information about their gynephilia is lost

Also arguing by definition is super common and something I am guilty of too (often without realizing it, sometimes for "defense against the dark arts" style rhetoric against people with hateful ideas (not you again, don't worry)) so don't take this as an attack or accusation or anything.

 

[M3d10n]

I'm just acknowledging reality. People telling me all straight guys are sexually attracted to other men to some degree doesn't compute. I haven't experienced that at all. So, from my perspective as someone who is over 30 and has never experienced this even once, people who do experience this, to me, meet the description of bisexual/gay.

If you told me I could take a magic pill and be attracted to men for a day, I'd probably take it. It's not a matter of being open or closed minded. I've just never experienced the same sex attraction phenomenon in my life. I'm sorry that I haven't experienced it, that it makes me a jerk or a joke or a bigot or an over defensive bro or whatever, but I just haven't.

Wait, when was that said? AFAIK the argument was that same-sex occurrences happen among men who identify as straight. It didn't say "all" nor even "most".

Nothing ever applies to all. Only death. Nobody is saying you're a liar or your life history is a fabrication.

 

[Mr. X]

I'm just acknowledging reality. People telling me all straight guys are sexually attracted to other men to some degree doesn't compute. I haven't experienced that at all. So, from my perspective as someone who is over 30 and has never experienced this even once, people who do experience this, to me, meet the description of bisexual/gay.

If you told me I could take a magic pill and be attracted to men for a day, I'd probably take it. It's not a matter of being open or closed minded. I've just never experienced the same sex attraction phenomenon in my life. I'm sorry that I haven't experienced it, that it makes me a jerk or a joke or a bigot or an over defensive bro or whatever, but I just haven't.

The topic isn't about romance. It's about straight men for whatever reason ending up having sexual relations with another male. The reason can be boredom, sexual urges and no women available, curiosity, and so on. These men are straight (romantically and sexually attracted to women) but had/have sexual relations with men.

 

[Common Knowledge]

Nothing's a threat to anything. I've just never experienced the phenomenon of being attracted to someone of my own sex, so I can't agree with the idea that we all experience it. I'm sorry that I am this way.

Who's saying that? (If the book is, then the book is wrong.)

I'm attacking the claim that because one particular straight guy has never experienced something like that, then ALL straight guys must be that way too, and if they don't fit that classification exactly, then they aren't straight.

That might not have been a sentiment demonstrated by you specifically, but it's definitely in this very thread.

 

[Jobbs]

Who's saying that? (If the book is, then the book is wrong.)

I'm attacking the claim that because one particular straight guy has never experienced something like that, then ALL straight guys must be that way too, and if they don't fit that classification exactly, then they aren't straight.

That might not have been a sentiment demonstrated by you specifically, but it's definitely in this very thread.

If this is all the discussion is, then we're just having kind of a big pointless semantic argument. To me, straight means only attracted to people of the opposite gender. If for some reason you want to allow for it to mean "mostly attracted to the opposite gender", to me that seems pointless, since the bisexual definition covers that already, but whatever, I don't really care either way. It's just a word.

 

[The Mule]

If you allow that this classification of man exists, what would you call him?

Straight and heterosexual are still fine terms to use. Neither category of man needs a term to specifically refer to them. Language is a messy thing. You could call men who identify as straight, but have sex with men as, "straight men who have sex with men" or "heteroflexible".

I have always thought this phenomenon was called "straight" or "heterosexual", but if those terms can't be used anymore, then we need a new term for what I am. Just let me know what it is and I'll remember it.

I wouldn't worry about having a new term to refer to your sexuality. Straight or heterosexual is fine. You're getting too caught up in having language all neat and clean.

 

[KibblesBits]

If you are a man and have sex with men and identify as straight then you are doing it wrong. That's not what straight means.

There's truly absolutely nothing wrong with bisexual. If you have sexual thoughts towards other men then you are bisexual/gay. Deal with it.

again, LOL

 

[M3d10n]

BTW, even jerking off in the same room fits the criteria for homosexual act. It's not just about 1-on-1 passionate penetrative sex.

Heck, even being able to tolerate hardcore porn could be argued to move the needle a notch or two, because the view of another man's erect penis didn't disgust the person enough to prevent arousal.

If this is all the discussion is, then we're just having kind of a big pointless semantic argument. To me, straight means only attracted to people of the opposite gender. If for some reason you want to allow for it to mean "mostly attracted to the opposite gender", to me that seems pointless, since the bisexual definition covers that already, but whatever, I don't really care either way. It's just a word.

You keep saying "attracted", when it's not the only factor to drive a sexual act.

 

[Jobbs]

Straight and heterosexual are still fine terms to use. Neither category of man needs a term to specifically refer to them. Language is a messy thing. You could call men who identify as straight, but have sex with men as, "straight men who have sex with men" or "heteroflexible".

I wouldn't worry about having a new term to refer to your sexuality. Straight or heterosexual is fine. You're getting too caught up in having language all neat and clean.

And you're caught up in it being messy. What is wrong with the "bisexual" definition that it can't be used to describe someone who occasionally engages in homosexual acts? Bisexual pretty easily covers that already, so what's the problem with the term?

again, LOL

Productive

 

[And_Gignac]

Our Helenistic roots never left us.

 

[Common Knowledge]

If this is all the discussion is, then we're just having kind of a big pointless semantic argument. To me, straight means only attracted to people of the opposite gender. If for some reason you want to allow for it to mean "mostly attracted to the opposite gender", to me that seems pointless, since the bisexual definition covers that already, but whatever, I don't really care either way. It's just a word.

It's not just a semantic argument, though. Because for some people, there's a lot more factors than just physical attraction that causes them to want to experiment in such a way.

Why is there a common sentiment that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's, and that a woman can be considered straight despite having experimented in such a way?

I don't know if you personally believe that, but there's definitely more at stake here than just terms and definitions if we're going off a societal level.

 

[User 73706]

I've never known any straight men who had sex with other men. I think the author is either deeply confused, or has a book she wants to sell

 

[Cereal KiIIer]

Alright, lets get this over with.

Anonymous Survey


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jhK7S7cxEQ9v0kr7T5eW56srfpTW0jHRgw7Up1L0nuE/viewform?usp=send_form

 

[Jobbs]

It's not just a semantic argument, though. Because for some people, there's a lot more factors than just physical attraction that causes them to want to experiment in such a way.

Why is there a common sentiment that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's, and that a woman can be considered straight despite having experimented in such a way?

I don't know if you personally believe that, but there's definitely more at stake here than just terms and definitions on a societal level.

I never viewed women that way. If a woman has sex with other women sometimes, I consider her bisexual. A straight woman is one who would tell me she has no interest in other women -- And I have met women like this in my life. So you've lost me.

 

[RDreamer]

It's not that they don't exist, it's that three buckets is still way to few. Depending on the strictness of the definition you end up with the vast majority of the population in the bi bucket, which accomplishes nothing.

I think that would help actually. At least if we had only one "bucket" we'd have to use a lot more nuance to describe how we actually are, and suddenly that one bucket becomes many more.

These buckets really only help on dating sites to describe what you want. Other than that it just leads to people censoring themselves. Sexuality is a lot more fluid than most people want to accept.

 

[Supermanisdead]

its 2015; head is head

 

[Eidan]

It's not just a semantic argument, though. Because for some people, there's a lot more factors than just physical attraction that causes them to want to experiment in such a way.

Why is there a common sentiment that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's, and that a woman can be considered straight despite having experimented in such a way?

I don't know if you personally believe that, but there's definitely more at stake here than just terms and definitions if we're going off a societal level.

It's because homosexual sex involving two women arouses many heterosexual men. Believing a woman is capable of getting it on with a woman, but truly needing the D, is the very definition of having your cake and eating it too.

 

[You Know Nothing]

its 2015; head is head

T B H.

It's because homosexual sex involving two women arouses many heterosexual men. Believing a woman is capable of getting it on with a woman, but truly needing the D, is the very definition of having your cake and eating it too.

Preach.

 

[hiex_]

If you're fucking another guy... you might be gay. Or bi.

 

[botty]

As long as nothing is going up my ass hole... I don't give a fuck... do I look like I give a fuck? Because I don't.

 

[The Hermit]

I'd like to point I'm not condemning people who engage in that. Same sex masturbatory experiences are somewhat common in the early teens, for example.

It's the "one drop" rule used to put people into one of mere the buckets that I'm calling out on, which sadly is very common as shown by the "100% straight" reactions of many posters on this very thread.

This whole labeling thing and "purebred straight" mentality causes all sorts of suffering and problems. Like people who are forever haunted by "that one time at the camp" and decide to counter it by becoming staunch homophobes.

your post is more enlightening than the article at the OP.

 

[Brakke]

So many posts in this thread are like two inches away from people having the major revelation that the language they think is prescriptive is actually descriptive (and imprecisely so).

 

[Common Knowledge]

It's because homosexual sex involving two women arouses many heterosexual men. Believing a woman is capable of getting it on with a woman, but truly needing the D, is the very definition of having your cake and eating it too.

Yeah, which kind of is the fundamental point of mine. The perception of human sexuality seems to be so intertwined with our (patriarchal) culture, and it isn't correlated with the reality of human sexuality.

@Jobbs: Please don't think I'm attacking you in particular. It's just something that I've always been irked by on a general level. You seem to be pretty consistent in how you define heterosexuality across sexes, so your views aren't really what I'm taking issues with for the most part.

 

[Idontknow]

If you are a man and have sex with men and identify as straight then you are doing it wrong. That's not what straight means.

What exactly are they doing wrong? Since, having sex has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation, how is a man that is not sexually attracted to other men, that has sex with another man, doing it wrong? Here, you imply that two men having sex means they can't be straight, but in another post you say, "To me, straight means only attracted to people of the opposite gender."

There's truly absolutely nothing wrong with bisexual. If you have sexual thoughts towards other men then you are bisexual/gay. Deal with it.

This topic is about men that are not sexually attracted to men, that for whatever reason, have sex with other men.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

But sex kind of defines your sexuality... right?

Heh. But sex.

 

[Nerokis]

Heck, even being able to tolerate hardcore porn could be argued to move the needle a notch or two, because the view of another man's erect penis didn't disgust the person enough to prevent arousal.

I agree with the thrust of your argument, but the word "disgust" is unnecessary. There's this tendency to invoke the feeling of disgust when discussing sexual orientation, when the two aren't really intimately connected. Disgust has more to do with boundaries, insecurities, and other things along those lines, and using it as a measure of how straight/gay you are is almost always misleading. There are women out there who might be willing to experiment with other women, but who are uncomfortable staring at vaginas. There are men out there who haven't the slightest desire to experiment with other men, but find straight porn more satisfying than lesbian porn.

"Disgust" is a feeling a lot of straight people latch onto to guard their sense of straightness. Ironically, it's also a feeling some very closeted gay people latch onto for exactly the same purpose.

 

[FUME5]

So many posts in this thread are like two inches away from people having the major revelation that the language they think is prescriptive is actually descriptive (and imprecisely so).

The first two or the last two?

 

[The Mule]

What is wrong with the "bisexual" definition that it can't be used to describe someone who occasionally engages in homosexual acts? Bisexual pretty easily covers that already, so what's the problem with the term?

People feel it doesn't sufficiently describe the full spectrum of sexuality because of the history of the term and pre-conceived notions.

 

[leadbelly]

This topic is about men that are not sexually attracted to men, that for whatever reason, have sex with other men.

Again, I don't think this is what she is arguing. I think she is arguing that there is a genuine fluidity to sexual attraction, and that it is culture that shapes us to be either one or the other.

It is supposedly common for instance for children around puberty to experiment sexually. And that wouldn't necessarily be because they are sexually attracted to those of the same sex, but rather because of being sexually curious. I don't think she is arguing this though.

 

[Cereal KiIIer]

Alright, lets get this over with.

Anonymous Survey


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jhK7S7cxEQ9v0kr7T5eW56srfpTW0jHRgw7Up1L0nuE/viewform?usp=send_form

So far :

 

[Jobbs]

People feel it doesn't sufficiently describe the full spectrum of sexuality because of the history of the term and pre-conceived notions.

Then don't we need a new term for people who are only attracted to the same sex? Hard straight, maybe, since being attracted sexually to both genders now inexplicably inhabits the terms bisexual as well as heterosexual?

This whole thing is striking me as kind of ridiculous.

 

[woolley]

I don't get what's so hard to understand that sometimes sex can be just sex without any attraction involved. You can have sex with someone and not have any feelings towards them.

 

[leadbelly]

So far :

Maybe put the survey on the front page.

 

[Jobbs]

Maybe put the survey on the front page.

Why would you have a consensual sexual encounter with another man if you're heterosexual? I'm experiencing one long processing error as I participate in this thread. My brain isn't equipped to compute this, but the take away is that the term "bisexual" means "attracted a lot to both sexes", and the term "heterosexual" means "attracted usually to one sex but not necessarily only to one sex". As yet there's no term anymore for someone who is only attracted to one sex. It would be simpler if "heterosexual" were that term as many thought it was, but apparently that's stupid because close mindedness and bros and threatened homophobes and stuff.

 

[Brakke]

The first two or the last two?

This guy the champ:

Why would you have a consensual sexual encounter with another man if you're heterosexual? I'm experiencing one long processing error as I participate in this thread. My brain isn't equipped to compute this, but the take away is that the term "bisexual" means "attracted a lot to both sexes", and the term "heterosexual" means "attracted usually to one sex but not necessarily only to one sex". As yet there's no term anymore for someone who is only attracted to one sex.

Honey. You're so close. Why are you trying to understand the world on the basis of what words exist?

 

[You Know Nothing]

Why would you have a consensual sexual encounter with another man if you're heterosexual? I'm experiencing one long processing error as I participate in this thread. My brain isn't equipped to compute this, but the take away is that the term "bisexual" means "attracted a lot to both sexes", and the term "heterosexual" means "attracted usually to one sex but not necessarily only to one sex". As yet there's no term anymore for someone who is only attracted to one sex.

Sexuality really is not as rigid as society would lead you to believe.

That is where the discrepancy comes in.

 

[pa22word]

Why would you have a consensual sexual encounter with another man if you're heterosexual?

Sexual attraction most likely isn't binary. We like to apply binary labels on things because it helps us make sense of them, but the reality of things is that often times things tend to fall into various shades of grey rather than fall neatly into predetermined lines that we like to draw in the sand.

 

[DJKhaled]

Holy crap there are some people in this thread that are clueless how sexuality works, having sex with men does not mean you are gay, sexuality is fluid and changes continuously, some men would sleep with any gender but only have romantic feelings for females, others are the opposite, some fit the stereotypical heterosexual image but a lot don't. Gay and straight are arbitrary terms.

 

[Jobbs]

This guy the champ:



Honey. You're so close. Why are you trying to understand the world on the basis of what words exist?

I'm only interested in the academic side of this. I don't care who has sex with who. I can't understand why "heterosexual" has to allow for some attraction to members of the same sex, when I thought we already had a perfectly good term for that. And as I work my way through this, trying to understand, I get a lot of people condescending to me and acting like jerks for reasons I can't fathom.

Sexual attraction most likely isn't binary. We like to apply binary labels on things because it helps us make sense of them, but the reality of things is that often times things tend to fall into various shades of grey rather than fall neatly into predetermined lines that we like to draw in the sand.

..But isn't bisexual the term that catches all those shades of grey? Isn't that what it's for?

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

Maybe put the survey on the front page.

Maybe don't, as any doofus gaf or not reading this page can access the survey.

 

[Condom]

Well, in the case of my office, everything they say at any specific moment in time, they twist it as a joke so it always has to do with doing gay stuff (except when we deal with higher-ups of course). 9 AM monday, Wednesday lunch break, or crunching for stuff on a saturday, it's all gay jokes at every possible turn. It's an all-dude team of five, btw.

Menial, every day stuff like "can I please have you send me those files I requested?" "can I schedule you for a one on one?", etc., are conveyed with such body language and puns afterwards that it really becomes obvious it's gay innuendo in exactly the way you are imagining right now: not very cool at all. Before you think I'm delusional, they literally hit on each other, and me as well, afterwards.

I've noticed that this trend of thought is also present in any group of mostly-male or male-only productive groups, and even more with nerds. A group of geek friends I have also does it. I take it as just banter in practice, but there wouldn't be so much smoke if there wasn't fire, perhaps?

Meh, maybe it's just a Mexico thing.

I think it is, doing that would make you look really weird where I live.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Hot.

 

[theJohann]

If you allow that this classification of man exists, what would you call him? I have always thought this phenomenon was called "straight" or "heterosexual", but if those terms can't be used anymore, then we need a new term for what I am.

While I agree that this change of meaning is frustrating, it is also unavoidable.

To me, I'm not very interested in securing a unique word to describe myself. If I am a complex human being, like I hope many others are as well, then it should take many more words, and even many conversations over many months before a person knows who I am, and even then not exhaustively or satisfactorily. Because of this, I am not bothered by this particular conceptualisation of heterosexuality.

 

[leadbelly]

I don't get what's so hard to understand that sometimes sex can be just sex without any attraction involved. You can have sex with someone and not have any feelings towards them.

Again, I don't think she is arguing this.

Right, and it's not just sort of conventional wisdom or conservative ideology that teaches that. I think there's been a lot of sexological and psychological research suggesting that men's sexuality is more rigid than women's and that women are inherently more sexually fluid. And what I argue in the book is that even that research is situated within some long-held beliefs about the fundamental difference between men and women that are not accurate from a feminist perspective. It's interesting, because if you look at this belief that women's sexuality is more receptive — it’s more fluid, it’s triggered by external stimuli, that women have the capacity to be sort of aroused by anything and everything — it really just reinforces what we want to believe about women, which is that women are always sexually available people.

With men, on the other hand, the idea that they have this hardwired heterosexual impulse to spread their seed and that that's relatively inflexible, also kind of reinforces the party line about heteronormativity and also frankly, patriarchy. So one selling point for me in the book was to think about, Why are we telling this really different story about women's sexuality?

It is research based very much on a feminist perspective. What she is trying to argue is that male sexuality is just as fluid as women's sexuality. It seems to me the bases of her argument is gender (and perhaps biological sex) is a social construction. It is culture that reinforces heteronormative rigidity and not biology. I could be wrong but that seems to be her argument.

She mentions also psychological research that seems to confirm that rigidity. Again, this depends on what she is arguing. I'm not sure psychology denies sexual experimentation, specifically in adolescence. This seems to be the time when humans are most sexually curious, for obvious reasons. I don't think she is arguing this.

 

[pa22word]

..But isn't bisexual the term that catches all those shades of grey? Isn't that what it's for?

It's too limiting as a descriptor.

Would you label someone who had one homosexual encounter in their teens a closeted bisexual? Or what about a man who had consensual homosexual encounters in prison, left prison, and never again had any want nor desire for another homosexual encounter after that? Are they strictly "in the closet"?

 

[Idontknow]

I'm only interested in the academic side of this. I don't care who has sex with who. I can't understand why "heterosexual" has to allow for some attraction to members of the same sex, when I thought we already had a perfectly good term for that. And as I work my way through this, trying to understand, I get a lot of people condescending to me and acting like jerks for reasons I can't fathom.



..But isn't bisexual the term that catches all those shades of grey? Isn't that what it's for?

Who's arguing this point? Heterosexual doesn't allow for some attraction to members of the same sex, but it also doesn't prohibit a heterosexual to have sex with members of the same sex.

 

[Jobbs]

While I agree that this change of meaning is frustrating, it is also unavoidable.

To me, I'm not very interested in securing a unique word to describe myself. If I am a complex human being, like I hope many others are as well, then it should take many more words, and even many conversations over many months before a person knows who I am, and even then not exhaustively or satisfactorily. Because of this, I am not bothered by this particular conceptualisation of heterosexuality.

It's not frustrating so much as it is stupid. Sure, sexuality is fluid for many people. I understand that. I accept it. But this idea that it's so fluid that mere words simply can't contain is fuckin' ridiculous.

Here's how it can be, so it's really simple:

Straight: Only attracted to the opposite sex. I know this exists because it describes me.

Bisexual: Can be attracted to either sex to varying degrees. I know this exists because I've met people like this (and a lot of them participated in a recent survey designed for heterosexual respondents).

Homosexual: Only attracted to the same sex. I know this exists because I've met people like this.

--

Can someone explain to me why these definitions are flawed? Why are they incapable of handling our complex reality and why am I worthy of mockery for thinking they are perfectly capable? Talk real slow so a buffoon like me can follow.

 

[Sianos]

I'm only interested in the academic side of this. I don't care who has sex with who. I can't understand why "heterosexual" has to allow for some attraction to members of the same sex, when I thought we already had a perfectly good term for that. And as I work my way through this, trying to understand, I get a lot of people condescending to me and acting like jerks for reasons I can't fathom.



..But isn't bisexual the term that catches all those shades of grey? Isn't that what it's for?

The problem is that the simple definition of "bisexual" is so broad it encompasses most people, making it not very useful as a qualifier, while at the same time "bisexual" and its simple definition carries implications and a common prototypic image that is not representative of what the people being defined as "bisexual" actually are.

It would be like having one word to describe every color that is not an earth tone, and the common connotation of that word being blue, yet the same word is also being applied to all the other colors as well

Sorry if my earlier post came off as a bit antagonistic, I was trying for a bit of humor because I know this is really dry stuff, but I don't think I expressed myself well.