Homophobia, Homosexuality and Men

Nevyn

Becuase again it's an assumption people make, people often like to think of sexuality and gender as being binary and that is not always the case.

Herbal Deity

I'm not sure if that's the best example, nor is it very on topic.

Also, I could be pedantic and say it's not ternary either Perhaps we should abandon the labels "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" and instead people could identify with coordinates on the sexuality continuum

Nevyn

so you think it's off topic, so should there be a thread then entitled
Biphobia, Bisexuality and Men?

CDfm

Stop confusing me.

I am totally fine with the homosexual community.

I even had two college friends now with female partners who had a fling.

I dont think anyone has ever said to me " I'm bisexual" and I'm probably better off.Too much for my little head to handle this evening.

P.C.

Boston wrote: »

I don't know what your point is? Perhaps it's that people dislike others for the most stupid and trivial reasons? Agreed.

...

If you've never met the person, never talked to them, never interacted with them in any way, then no it's not rational to dislike them. Essencially you dislike the idea of camp men. That's like me disliking the idea of people from swords.

Read the whole thread, and this post stood out.

Disliking the idea of people from Swords might not seem rational to me, but - if that is the way you feel, that is the way you feel. Who am I to tell you that your feelings are wrong?

The way somone feels is not right or wrong - appropriate or inappropriate.
It is the way they feel.

This thread seems to be about accepting gay men, or fathers accepting that their son might be/is gay.

BUT - then it degenerates into not accepting the way some posters feel. :eek:

I am not going to tell you how I feel about the topic, as I am not going to accept other telling me my feelings are wrong or inappropriate. :mad:

Boston

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Im sure as a gay man you've probably been the victim of stereotyping all your life so when you think about it you of all people should be able to avoid stereotyping others.

I've not stereotyped anyone. The only stereotyping I've ever experience has been people assuming I'm a scum bag because I my accent and where I grew up. Maybe thats why I don't like labels.

Btw, I'm not gay.

P.C. wrote: »

Read the whole thread, and this post stood out.

Disliking the idea of people from Swords might not seem rational to me, but - if that is the way you feel, that is the way you feel. Who am I to tell you that your feelings are wrong?

The way somone feels is not right or wrong - appropriate or inappropriate.
It is the way they feel.

This thread seems to be about accepting gay men, or fathers accepting that their son might be/is gay.

BUT - then it degenerates into not accepting the way some posters feel. :eek:

I am not going to tell you how I feel about the topic, as I am not going to accept other telling me my feelings are wrong or inappropriate. :mad:

By that logic you can justify any backwards belief. That one major flaw aside, I agree and it's generally how I live my life. There are worse things then being a racist, there are worse things then being a homophobe, there are worse things then being sexist. If someone is willing to tolerate me then I'll try my best to tolerate them and maybe we'll fine common ground in the middle. Some of the nicest people I've met in my life have been devout Muslims. Now I'm well aware of exactly what their view point is, and we'll never be friends, but we can certainly co-exist.

The point, which has probably been lost, is that I'm not impressed by someone who is accepting of homosexuality but has contempt for camp people. I think thats a character flaw and not something worth praise.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

A lot of the responses on here are extremely lacking in clarity.

That we should not associate homosexuality with the shrill, attention seeking, hyperactive, immature stereotype, is a good point. I don't believe, however, that it has been made coherently, and then there's this bull which has been posted about fear of feminine men.

How is it bull? A lot of guys have this idea in their heads about what exactly it means to be a man. Usually it's incredibly fuked up at the start but generally evens out in later life. Now camp effiminate males are so far outside the comfort zone of what a male should be, that little internal voices start shouting "WRONG". Hence the attitude. But it's not really very rational.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Boston, your posts are frequently condescending, and you are always looking for a fight. You're not stupid, you could be a great contributor, but you frequently go off on very angry tirades, often making assumptions and casting aspersions on other posters. I really don't understand why this is...

I grow tired of people banging a drum. Thinking if only they banged a little bit harder they could drown out the voices of reason.

iptba

Boston wrote: »

I've not stereotyped anyone. The only stereotyping I've ever experience has been people assuming I'm a scum bag because I my accent and where I grew up. Maybe thats why I don't like labels.

Btw, I'm not gay.

I'm confused.

What does this paragraph mean: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64689391&postcount=27 - I presume this is one of the reasons why people might have thought you were gay.

Boston wrote: »

I was in a pub recently enough and somehow (it sure as fuk wan't me who brought it up) the conversation went towards gays-ex-girlfriends and then onto camp gay guys. One of the lads remarked that he'd never met a non-camp gay guy at which point I leaned in, showed him a photo of me and my partner. I could see in an instance his entire perception of things had changed. I happen to be one of the most masculine guys you'll ever meet.

[..]

My mate fitted into his little box of a gay man being "basically a woman". I, on the other hand, am a bloke, no two ways about it.

Giselle

iptba wrote: »

I'm confused.

What does this paragraph mean:

Thats theres more than straight or gay.

And that some people hate labels.

Nebit

Boston wrote: »

What on earth makes you think you'd have more or less in common with a camp person then any other person you meet? You're reading too much into what type of person a guys is based purely on superficial factors.

orly. I've met a few gay guys who define themselves relative to what they are supposedly not. Being camp doesn't define what a persons hobbies are, what college course they do, where they are from, what they do. Can you honestly say that the minute you meet a somewhat camp guys you don't immediately start to tick off boxes in your head?

Depends on what the basis of the homophobia is. As I've said, I've known plenty who've been perfectly willing to accept and tolerate me, but not more effeminate gay guys. Lets be honest, it's not the campness, the shrillness or the loudness, it's the male femininity which is the issue. It might not be homophobic but it's definitely some form of hang up which people are right to call your friend on.

.

Don't assume you know me. I DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE since i have been judged far too much in this life. So no i do not start ticking off boxes!
I give everybody a chance and i was simply saying in general i have little in common with camper men (merely and observation). Now im not saying there aren't any exceptionsto this, there maybe a few in the future, and that is why i dont judge a book by its cover.
There are no superficial matters about it as i would have no problem talking or being around a camp man, it is just the fact that i find i have little in common with camper men (that i have met) and therefore would not choose to hang around with them. In the same way a lawyer wouldnt hang out with a dustbin man as they have different interests.

It is for this reason that i understand why heterosexual men may withframe from socialising with camp men. As i said before if a camp guy talked to said hetro man then he would more than likely be civil and polite, even find out that this person may have simmilar interests but ultimately it comes down to 'should i waste my time on trying to know someone i probably ont get on with'
AGAIN if a camp guy talked to said hetro man then he would more than likely talk back.

The majoriy of camp guys are very loud and lets face it, it can be annoying, it has NOTHING to do with their femininity, It is in the same way a crying baby can get annoying after a while if it is percistantly crying in a cinema, or if a group of people are talking in a library.

fonecrusher1

Giselle wrote: »

Thats theres more than straight or gay.

And that some people hate labels.

The question was aimed at boston not you.

Why don't you let him speak for himself?

Giselle

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

The question was aimed at boston not you.

Why don't you let him speak for himself?

Discussion threads generally invite opinions.

Thats mine.

pikachucheeks

I have no problem with anyone's sexuality or sexual interests.
Live and let live, I think.

Since I was a small child, my parents' best friends have been a gay couple. I was always brought up to believe that this was perfectly normal and natural.
It wasn't hidden from me - when they stayed in our house, they shared a double bed etc.

People are attracted to each other, people fall in love ... doesn't matter what gender people are, if there's a connection and an attraction.

Boston

Giselle wrote: »

Thats theres more than straight or gay.

And that some people hate labels.

Sexuality isn't a binary system. Sexuality is actually a spectrum with each individual at their own place along it. If you imagine a scale from 1 to 6 with one being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual, then I'd probably be a 4 at this point in time. Most people fall into the middle somewhere few are at the extremes. Thats not me saying it, it's backed up by in-depth research.

Additionally, sexuality isn't just about who you have sex with. A lot of factors influence your sexuality. I've met gay people who have sex with members of the opposite sex but consider themselves gay, since there's no deep emotional or spiritual connection. I've also met people who never experienced anything beyond the physical side of things.

Best way to think about it is that for a lot of people they simply have a strong (maybe very strong) preference for one gender over the other. How many of your guys genuinely get on better with your best mate then you do your girlfriends? It was true for me, at which point I realised I didn't care that much about gender when it came to finding the right person to be with.

fonecrusher1

Boston wrote: »

Sexuality isn't a binary system. Sexuality is actually a spectrum with each individual at their own place along it. If you imagine a scale from 1 to 6 with one being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual, then I'd probably be a 4 at this point in time. Most people fall into the middle somewhere few are at the extremes. Thats not me saying it, it's backed up by in-depth research.

Additionally, sexuality isn't just about who you have sex with. A lot of factors influence your sexuality. I've met gay people who have sex with members of the opposite sex but consider themselves gay, since there's no deep emotional or spiritual connection. I've also met people who never experienced anything beyond the physical side of things.

Best way to think about it is that for a lot of people they simply have a strong (maybe very strong) preference for one gender over the other. How many of your guys genuinely get on better with your best mate then you do your girlfriends? It was true for me, at which point I realised I didn't care that much about gender when it came to finding the right person to be with.

Translation = you're bisexual. Fair enough.

Herbal Deity

Boston wrote: »

How is it bull? A lot of guys have this idea in their heads about what exactly it means to be a man. Usually it's incredibly fuked up at the start but generally evens out in later life. Now camp effiminate males are so far outside the comfort zone of what a male should be, that little internal voices start shouting "WRONG". Hence the attitude. But it's not really very rational.

How do you know this? And are you not stereotyping with this paragraph?

Boston wrote: »

I grow tired of people banging a drum. Thinking if only they banged a little bit harder they could drown out the voices of reason.

So why engage in the same tactic as them?

Boston

Nebit wrote: »

The majoriy of camp guys are very loud and lets face it, it can be annoying, it has NOTHING to do with their femininity, It is in the same way a crying baby can get annoying after a while if it is percistantly crying in a cinema, or if a group of people are talking in a library.

I don't accept that. Again you're defining campness differently to me perhaps.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

How do you know this? And are you not stereotyping with this paragraph?

Stereotyping whom? Stereotyping the subset of people who are straight and hung up about camp gays? I've heard some honest opinions in the past about why they're hung up on it, it's not conjecture, but obviously isn't true of every case.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Translation = you're bisexual. Fair enough.

I'm glad I have your approval, it's basically what I live for.

CDfm

Just a mo - this started about attitudes to homosexuals especially if they were family members and friends.

For a bunch of tolerant people theres some lot of bitchin going on

Nevyn

Oh I am always intolerant when it comes to ignorance and bigotry.

Kirnsy

I reckon people have to accept that everyone has their own preferences: be it sexuality, religion, lifestyle or who they choose to surround themselves with.
There is a lot of finger pointing and needless questioning in the thread which started off so well.

iptba

I don't really know the literature that well on bisexuality (or indeed homosexuality but even less so on bisexuality) and the homosexual/heterosexual spectum but here is something I read before, for what it's worth.

I think a lot of men are 1s on a 6-point scale (heterosexual - homosexual scale) but if this is true this might be less true of women, and women might even think men are lying when they say this.


http://www.blueworld.co.za/blog/read.aspx?id=10985&user=feza

Sex Drive: How Do Men and Women Compare?

3. Women's sexual inclinations are more complicated than men's.
What turns women on? Not even women always seem to know. Northwestern University researcher Meredith Chivers and colleagues showed erotic films to gay and straight men and women. They asked them about their level of sexual arousal, and also measured their actual level of arousal through devices attached to their genitals.

For men, the results were predictable: Straight men said they were more turned on by depictions of male-female sex and female-female sex, and the measuring devices backed up their claims. Gay men said they were turned on by male-male sex, and again the devices backed them up. For women, the results were more surprising. Straight women, for example, saidthey were more turned on by male-female sex. But genitally they showed about the same reaction to male-female, male-male, and female-female sex.

"Men are very rigid and specific about who they become aroused by, who they want to have sex with, who they fall in love with," says J. Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University sex researcher and co-author with Chivers on the study.

By contrast, women may be more open to same-sex relationships thanks to their less-directed sex drives, Bailey says. "Women probably have the capacity to become sexually interested in and fall in love with their own sex more than men do," Bailey says. "They won't necessarily do it, but they have the capacity."

Bailey's contention is backed up by studies showing that homosexuality is a more fluid state among women than men. In another broad review of studies, Baumeister found many more lesbians reported recent sex with men, when compared to gay men's reports of sex with women. Women were also more likely than men to call themselves bisexual, and to report their sexual orientation as a matter of choice.

I like actual direct measurements of sexual arousal in research studies - indirect report could potentially be less accurate.

the_syco

I'd see someone "being camp", and "acting the eejit" been in the same group: some you'll ignore, others you won't mind. And then there are those who you question if they're a straight person acting the eejit, or a camp homosexual?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Most straight guys have at some point fancied a girl but let on they were just friends. Most straight guys would ride their female friends if a no strings attached scenario came up. They assume a gay male friend would think the same about them. I'm not gay but if I had to bet I'd say they're probably right a fair amount of the time.

LoLz. Was in the Sugar Club attending the Rocky Horror Show, and was talking to some dude about the talent. Somewhere along the conversation the fact that he was bi came up, quickly followed by the "don't worry, I'm not trying to chat you up" line. :pac:

Boston wrote: »

One of the lads remarked that he'd never met a non-camp gay guy at which point I leaned in, showed him a photo of me and my partner.

Boston wrote: »

Btw, I'm not gay.

Uh-huh. You do confuse us at times, though, in the way you phrase things.

Goduznt Xzst

*sees boulder has come to rest on a ledge, decides to kick it to start it rolling again*

Let me see if I understand this thread.

Straight guys are saying they dislike when Gay men are:

1. Loud
2. Shrill
3. Camp
4. Outrageous
5. Queens

In return they are being accused of being:

1. Morons
2. Retards
3. Idiots
4. Homophobes
5. Ignorant
6. Bigots

Is that about the length and breath of it? A lot of assumptions and generalizations are being made. I wonder who, from above, is getting the raw end of the stick :rolleyes:

Seems to me also that a few posters in here are quick to jump on others for assuming someone is Homosexual, but they don't seem to care when it is assumed someone is Straight (which has happened) Everyone loves double standards :pac:

I also find it delicious the amount of bile filled vitriol coming out of Boston who, on the first page, took such umbrage with someone having the audacity to say they hated something. Tastes. So. Good.

fartmaster

I cant say I know many gay people, each to their own but I say I would find myself uncomfortable should I find out one of my male friends was gay. Its not homophobia as such, I wouldnt want harm to come to him but at the same time I would find it hard to treat him the same way as I did before, I guess my main reason for this is because I do think homosexuality is unnatural. On the flip side female homosexuality is rather appealing however if I were a women I do believe I would be of the same feeling as to gay male persons. I wonder do staright females find two gay males attrative?

OldGoat

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Straight guys are saying they dislike when Gay men are:

1. Loud
2. Shrill
...

Attack the post and not the poster else face the wrath of my vitrolic BanHammer.


"Straight guys are saying they dislike when Gay men are: " .
No no no.
Some people are saying they... Don't rope me in with the rest of ye.

Goduznt Xzst

OldGoat wrote: »

Some people are saying they... Don't rope me in with the rest of ye.

Did you really imagine I meant all Straight People everywhere? Anyway, you are excused from this group. BTW, I'm Straight and I wouldn't personally have an issue with Queens either. I find personality traits that have an almost memetic spread to be fascinating.

fonecrusher1

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

*sees boulder has come to rest on a ledge, decides to kick it to start it rolling again*

Let me see if I understand this thread.

Straight guys are saying they dislike when Gay men are:

1. Loud
2. Shrill
3. Camp
4. Outrageous
5. Queens

Wrong.

How about?

Most people are saying they dislike when anyone (regardless of sexuality/race/religion etc) is:

1. Loud
2. Shrill
3. Camp
4. Outrageous
5. Queens

Last month I was sitting in a reception room with several other people quietly waiting to be interviewed for a job.
A person's phone rang, she started roaring into the phone & laughing & generally annoyed the **** out of every single person in the room. Everybody was looking at each other as if to say WTF?
I felt very angry because it was just plain ignorant. A total lack of consideration for others.
Didn't ask her if she was gay or what religion she was to find out if it was ok for me to be annoyed at her.

Bad manners just piss me off regardless of who the person is.

kisaragi

fartmaster wrote: »

I cant say I know many gay people, each to their own but I say I would find myself uncomfortable should I find out one of my male friends was gay. Its not homophobia as such, I wouldnt want harm to come to him but at the same time I would find it hard to treat him the same way as I did before, I guess my main reason for this is because I do think homosexuality is unnatural. On the flip side female homosexuality is rather appealing however if I were a women I do believe I would be of the same feeling as to gay male persons. I wonder do staright females find two gay males attrative?

Some straight females find gay male sex attractive, some don't. Not all straight males find gay female sex attractive.

Why do you think homosexuality is unnatural? It occurs in the animal kingdom all the time. It's been happening pretty much as far back in human culture as you can go (as far as I know). It's good to know you wouldn't want any harm to come to your friend though. I'd love to know why you think it's unnatural though.

Personally if I ever had a son I wouldn't be presuming he was going to be straight so I'd be no more suprised if he was gay/straight/transgender/whatever... I'd be happy for him.

Wibbs

Boston wrote: »

Sexuality isn't a binary system. Sexuality is actually a spectrum with each individual at their own place along it. If you imagine a scale from 1 to 6 with one being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual, then I'd probably be a 4 at this point in time. Most people fall into the middle somewhere few are at the extremes. Thats not me saying it, it's backed up by in-depth research.

Most of the studies Ive read on the subject found men tended to be at one end or the other. The middle ground wasnt particularly weighted at all. The research and others like it that iptba referenced that seemed to show women were more "in the middle". I could see how if both genders were merged then it would show a more middle bias. As an interesting aside it also showed that women were more visually sexual than men than the prevailing notion has it. They just didnt report it(or maybe conscious of it). Indeed in one study women were aroused by bonobo chimps sexual behaviour. Like iptba's link says, men were aroused by their preference and that tended to be gay or straight. If men were more in the middle in general then you would expect them to be more like the womens results.

Additionally, sexuality isn't just about who you have sex with.

I would say for bi people that's true. For gay or straight men who they want to have sex with is their sexuality. Of the gay guys Ive known even the thoughts of being with a woman are in the eeuuuugh zone. Pretty much identical to the take of straight guys if thinking about being with men. Then again that could well be down to me only knowing men at either end of the scale you describe.

Best way to think about it is that for a lot of people they simply have a strong (maybe very strong) preference for one gender over the other. How many of your guys genuinely get on better with your best mate then you do your girlfriends? It was true for me, at which point I realised I didn't care that much about gender when it came to finding the right person to be with.

I get on with my male mates more than most of my exes, so I can see your point. OK Thought experiment. Thinking back on the exes I got on the most with, if one of them went away and came back after gender reassignment surgery? No matter how much I got on with them or loved them, I would not sleep with them again. I do know of a guy, who was very confused about his sexuality and labeled himself as gay, but later realised he was transexual. So she had the surgery and became a woman. Gay men didnt want to know and yet beforehand she had a full sex life as a "gay" man. So I do think it works on both sides.

I do agree there are a lot of grey areas. I do think too that there are more bi people out there. More than straight society thinks but less than bi society thinks if you know what I mean.

The bi thing somewhat fascinates me. My understanding is that they fall for/are attracted to someone first regardless of gender and the sexual tags along on that. Kinda like you describe. I think it fascinates me because of how a guy I knew came out to me when I was young. TBH I was a bit eh what? He put it to me that imagine I lived in a world where the "norm" was being gay. I'd still be into women. I may have to try and pass as gay for appearnces sake, but I would still be into a different thing. Which made perfect sense to me personally. The bi thing doesnt though. I can understand the preference one way or the other but not both. Dunno if Im explaining that well though.

Wibbs

kisaragi wrote: »

Not all straight males find gay female sex attractive.

I dont for one. Does nothing for me. TBH it looks weird.

Herbal Deity

Wibbs wrote: »

The bi thing somewhat fascinates me. My understanding is that they fall for/are attracted to someone first regardless of gender and the sexual tags along on that. Kinda like you describe. I think it fascinates me because of how a guy I knew came out to me when I was young. TBH I was a bit eh what? He put it to me that imagine I lived in a world where the "norm" was being gay. I'd still be into women. I may have to try and pass as gay for appearnces sake, but I would still be into a different thing. Which made perfect sense to me personally. The bi thing doesnt though. I can understand the preference one way or the other but not both. Dunno if Im explaining that well though.

Bi people are just attracted to people of both genders, what's so hard to understand?

Also, I don't see how anything you said in between "The bi thing somewhat fascinates me" and "The bi thing doesn't though" explains why you don't understand bisexuality at all...

Nevyn

http://www.scarleteen.com/article/gaydar/the_bees_and_the_bees_a_homosexuality_and_bisexuality_primer

Is it unnatural?

It most certainly is not. Not only is it natural in people, it occurs commonly in other mammals and animals as well, such as chimpanzees, cows, ducks and other birds, cats, dogs, insects, gorillas, horses, sheep, monkeys, and a plethora of other creatures. It also is nothing new. Though through much of history many homosexuals and bisexuals have not been "out," -- due not to their orientation, but to the cultural and interpersonal condemnation of anything that isn't heterosexuality -- most anthropologists and biologists agree that it has occurred in humans for just as long as heterosexuality.

Wibbs

It's hard to understand for me simply because of the fact its both genders. I am sexually attracted to one, so I can grasp how someone can be attracted to one, whichever that may be. Man for man, woman for man, man for woman, woman for woman, but not both. So it doesnt compute for me thats all.

If I see a person, their gender triggers pretty much instant low level sexual responses for me. Would I or wouldnt I basically. That's entirely tied to their gender on a sexual level. Yes there may be nuances within that, so I'd have the sub group of would I wouldnt I about the gender Im attracted to, but the other side is just nope. Does not register.

As I say both doesnt compute for me. Thats all. So Im intrigued by someone who is triggered by both. What are the different triggers sexually/physically? Or is it that there is a global attraction that takes place regardless of gender and the sexual rides in on the coat tails?

Goduznt Xzst

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Most people are saying they dislike when anyone (regardless of sexuality/race/religion etc) is

Oh I know that. But what you are going to have to do now is explain of what relevance that is to this thread? This isn't a thread about "Traits I dislike in general", it is talking about specifically an individuals opinion of gay people.

For example, would this or would this not be a disingenuous statement to make in a thread titled "Attitudes towards Black people"

"I have friends that are black, but the aggressive and violent ones really annoy me. I dislike aggressive and violent people in general"

Angus Og

I'm just going to answer the questions of the original post. I know people like to argue, but it might help the OP if you also did the same.

I've done all the same things with gay friends that I would with straight ones.

I'm the same. I've gone swimming with gay men, slept in the same room. I never felt in the least bit threatened.

Does it make someone less of a man to be gay? No. I can't tell you the exact reason why, but I've never felt that way about gay men.

Do the sterotypes still exist in your mind, regarding femininity and homosexuality? No. I think men and women display characteristics that are often seen as typical of the other gender. It has nothing to do with sex.

What would you do if your son told you he was gay? Nothing, except tell him it doesn't matter to me. I'd love my son for being my son, not for being straight or gay.

Boston

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Wrong.

How about?

Most people are saying they dislike when anyone (regardless of sexuality/race/religion etc) is:

No, that wasn't said by anyone.

Wibbs wrote: »

Most of the studies Ive read on the subject found men tended to be at one end or the other. The middle ground wasnt particularly weighted at all. The research and others like it that iptba referenced that seemed to show women were more "in the middle". I could see how if both genders were merged then it would show a more middle bias. As an interesting aside it also showed that women were more visually sexual than men than the prevailing notion has it. They just didnt report it(or maybe conscious of it). Indeed in one study women were aroused by bonobo chimps sexual behaviour. Like iptba's link says, men were aroused by their preference and that tended to be gay or straight. If men were more in the middle in general then you would expect them to be more like the womens results.

Yes, most people will be towards one end or the other. Yet a significant number (~25%) of people will have mild to strong bi-sexual tendencies at some point in their life.

Wibbs wrote: »

I would say for bi people that's true. For gay or straight men who they want to have sex with is their sexuality. Of the gay guys Ive known even the thoughts of being with a woman are in the eeuuuugh zone. Pretty much identical to the take of straight guys if thinking about being with men. Then again that could well be down to me only knowing men at either end of the scale you describe.

Depends on how you define your sexuality. For myself sexuality encompass physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual attractions. Often the least important aspect will be the physical side of things since physically I'm capable of being attracted to a wide range of people but the ability to make other forms of connections restrict potential partners. For instance, if I don't feel there's the foundation for an emotional connection to someone, nothing will ever happen between us.

I don't think I'm that out of line with the rest of the population. You'll hear people refer to a sexual encounter as just sex making a clear distinction between sex and sex with meaning. All this ties into sexuality. You're straight but do you really think your sexuality is the exact same as that of other guys who sleep with women, or would you say its unique to you?

Wibbs wrote: »

I do agree there are a lot of grey areas. I do think too that there are more bi people out there. More than straight society thinks but less than bi society thinks if you know what I mean.

I think most people have a strong preference but given the right circumstances and the right person, may be willing to try something out something which isn't in-line with that preference. Thats not to say they are bisexual, just that they experience a "Why not" phase as I call it. You'd be amazed the number of people who fit into this category.

Wibbs wrote: »

The bi thing somewhat fascinates me. My understanding is that they fall for/are attracted to someone first regardless of gender and the sexual tags along on that. Kinda like you describe. I think it fascinates me because of how a guy I knew came out to me when I was young. TBH I was a bit eh what? He put it to me that imagine I lived in a world where the "norm" was being gay. I'd still be into women. I may have to try and pass as gay for appearnces sake, but I would still be into a different thing. Which made perfect sense to me personally. The bi thing doesnt though. I can understand the preference one way or the other but not both. Dunno if Im explaining that well though.

I'd actually say I'm somewhere between Bi-sexual and Pan-sexual. It's why I'm reluctant to use labels.

Wibbs

Angus Og wrote: »

I'm just going to answer the questions of the original post. I know people like to argue, but it might help the OP if you also did the same.

Well adding to the debate may show why some people have one attitude and others another, over something that seems quite straightforward. That actually might help the OP and others more.

Dr Galen

I can see where your going AngusOg, your attempts to stick directly to my OP are appreciated. But I didn't post it as a limiting factor, more as a way to provoke some discussion, and thats what we've gotten alright. I wasn't specifically looking for help, as, well I've not got anything to seek help on, if you get me.

I certainly would like to see less of people picking each others posts apart to the minute detail though, or making it too personal in nature. Thats something that can rarely be helped though on discussion sites.

Angus Og

I know, and I wasn't saying people shouldn't debate. I was just saying it would be interesting to see the answers to those questions. Maybe I'd be interested. Sorry to be confusing.

Wibbs

Boston wrote: »

Depends on how you define your sexuality. For myself sexuality encompass physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual attractions. Often the least important aspect will be the physical side of things since physically I'm capable of being attracted to a wide range of people but the ability to make other forms of connections restrict potential partners. For instance, if I don't feel there's the foundation for an emotional connection to someone, nothing will ever happen between us.

Gotcha.

I don't think I'm that out of line with the rest of the population. You'll hear people refer to a sexual encounter as just sex making a clear distinction between sex and sex with meaning. All this ties into sexuality.

True enough. I suppose I could never imagine the meaning over writing the gender I suppose? Funny enough though I tend to ascribe meaning even to a one off encounter(albeit a forced meaning)

You're straight but do you really think your sexuality is the exact same as that of other guys who sleep with women, or would you say its unique to you?

Good point. Very. Yep I would say though broadly "average" it would be unique to me yea. Not getting off on two women going for it for a start.

I think most people have a strong preference but given the right circumstances and the right person, may be willing to try something out something which isn't in-line with that preference. Thats not to say they are bisexual, just that they experience a "Why not" phase as I call it. You'd be amazed the number of people who fit into this category.

Gotcha.

I'd actually say I'm somewhere between Bi-sexual and Pan-sexual. It's why I'm reluctant to use labels.

Understandable.

Cheers for your unique take. I may be wrong but I have noticed in my convos anyway in both the straight and gay community, bisexuals are often looked at a bit sideways. More than exclusively gay people anyway. Both sides can accuse them of being "don't know what they want/are covering up their real sexuality" types. Bisexuality can appear to be the odd one of the bunch.

So good to get a better angle I think.

P.C.

Thaedydal wrote: »

http://www.scarleteen.com/article/gaydar/the_bees_and_the_bees_a_homosexuality_and_bisexuality_primer

Is it unnatural?

It most certainly is not. Not only is it natural in people, it occurs commonly in other mammals and animals as well, such as chimpanzees, cows, ducks and other birds, cats, dogs, insects, gorillas, horses, sheep, monkeys, and a plethora of other creatures. It also is nothing new. Though through much of history many homosexuals and bisexuals have not been "out," -- due not to their orientation, but to the cultural and interpersonal condemnation of anything that isn't heterosexuality -- most anthropologists and biologists agree that it has occurred in humans for just as long as heterosexuality.

This is a silly argument.

You do realize that there are a lot of things that humans have deen doing for a long, long time, which also occur in 'nature' (mammels and other animals) that the majority of people in civilized society would consider unnatrual, wrong or illigal...

murder
killing your own young, etc.

the_syco

P.C. wrote: »

that the majority of people in civilized society would consider unnatrual, wrong or illigal...

murder
killing your own young, etc.

that the majority of people in religions would consider unnatural, wrong or illegal...

sex outside marraige, etc

Boston

P.C. wrote: »

This is a silly argument.

You do realize that there are a lot of things that humans have deen doing for a long, long time, which also occur in 'nature' (mammels and other animals) that the majority of people in civilized society would consider unnatrual, wrong or illigal...

murder
killing your own young, etc.

I found that the best way around this argument is simply agree. If I accept the premise that something is unnatural, so what. Unnatural doesn't equate to wrong and bad, similarly natural doesn't equate to right and good.

Reflector

P.C. wrote: »

This is a silly argument.

You do realize that there are a lot of things that humans have deen doing for a long, long time, which also occur in 'nature' (mammels and other animals) that the majority of people in civilized society would consider unnatrual, wrong or illigal...

murder
killing your own young, etc.

the banning of homosexual sex and heterosexual sex for anything more than procreation is a construct of religious organisations to control society and exert guilt and shame as a form of mental manipulation
Homosexuality has never existed in its current form as neither has our current society. We need to legislate to accommodate these changes.

I dont believe in anything being natural or unnatural. Either it occurs or it doesnt.
Gay people occur
Flying people do not occur

Goduznt Xzst

Boston wrote: »

I found that the best way around this argument is simply agree. If I accept the premise that something is unnatural, so what. Unnatural doesn't equate to wrong and bad, similarly natural doesn't equate to right and good.

I've always found the premise of natural/unnatural divisions to be somewhat of a frivolous human construct.

I mean you take Ants, they build colonies, form and mold the earth, use foreign materials for this process and the end result is that their city is "natural". Humans do the same thing to build their cities, yet ours are defined as "unnatural".

Humans are a part of nature, we are a product of it. I think people make the confusion of saying "unnatural" when they really mean "abnormal". But then again, a "norm" is also a subjective human construct.

CDfm

P.C. wrote: »

This is a silly argument.

You do realize that there are a lot of things that humans have deen doing for a long, long time, which also occur in 'nature' (mammels and other animals) that the majority of people in civilized society would consider unnatrual, wrong or illigal...

murder
killing your own young, etc.

You are right just because we feel it does not mean we should act on it and some things like killing young etc we dont do because we are civilised.

However a relationship that does not harm another person well.

the_syco wrote: »

that the majority of people in religions would consider unnatural, wrong or illegal...

sex outside marraige, etc

My son of 19 does not question his gay friends sexuality but there is a running joke if they ever start a boy band he (the friend) will have to deal with the manager.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I've always found the premise of natural/unnatural divisions to be somewhat of a frivolous human construct.

You are dangerousley close to saying Social Construct which would be very Nietzchean and too scary at lunch time.

I mean you could say why do gay couples want marriage. Heterosexual marriage is largely appropriate to bring up kids and share resourses.

Gay marriage monogamy and sharing resourses. Why not.

Boston

CDfm wrote: »

I mean you could say why do gay couples want marriage. Heterosexual marriage is largely appropriate to bring up kids and share resourses.

Gay marriage monogamy and sharing resourses. Why not.

Thus when children are 18 heterosexual marriages are automatically dissolved. Marriage is a commitment with certain legal benefits and consequences which would render it attractive. I'm at an age where alot of my friends are starting to talk about marriage. Not really planning to have kids, more to do with marriage for it's own shake.

CDfm

Boston wrote: »

Thus when children are 18 heterosexual marriages are automatically dissolved. Marriage is a commitment with certain legal benefits and consequences which would render it attractive. I'm at an age where alot of my friends are starting to talk about marriage. Not really planning to have kids, more to do with marriage for it's own shake.

Not really -there is permanence - I mean its the same as if two people incapable of having kids mary thru age or for medical reasons. I dont see the problem myself.

I dont see why gays cant get married and its the child issue and adoption etc which is a relatively small side issue which causes the squabbles that hold it back.

Dumb logic IMHO.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

I mean you could say why do gay couples want marriage. Heterosexual marriage is largely appropriate to bring up kids and share resourses.

Gay marriage monogamy and sharing resourses. Why not.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking me, if anything? Are you asking me what is the point of Gay couples wanting marriage? A more liberal use of question marks in your posts would help

Equality would be one. There's no reason such a freedom should be allowed one group and not another. Like Boston said, there are also a myriad of financial and legal benefits to marriage. Then there is also the symbolism of it, which is important to people.

Children are only 1 of the factors involved in why 2 people would get married. Plenty of people marry and never have children.

CDfm

Its been a while Goduznt -how are you.

I was teasing you about Nietzche

I didnt think it was any harm to raise the marriage issue as gay people have the same hopes and aspirations of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else. Which I am sure you agree on.Weyhey - we finally agree on something.

iptba

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There's no reason such a freedom should be allowed one group and not another. Like Boston said, there are also a myriad of financial and legal benefits to marriage.

Of course financial benefits for the couple mean others are paying for it. So society may decide it only has so much resources from taxes, etc. So, in reply to the first point, there can be a reason (which might be nothing to do with homophobia) even if some/many/most may disagree with the reason.