Should gay conversion therapy be banned in Ireland?

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really. It depends what your Set is to make the definition. Of all the many many many things I drink - one single drink happens to be tequila. A positive hit on one member of a Set is enough to apply the label for you personally.

Eh, yes it does. If you claim you don't drink tequila, but then go on to say that why yes I drink one particular tequila, you are a tequila drinker. No amount of postmodernist stylee back and forth word salad can deny that plain fact. You drink tequila, you are tequila drinker. It is not a grey area. In your "Venn diagram" there is the non tequila drinker set and the tequila drinker set, you are in the latter.

I just do not think that is a useful linguistic heuristic in general. I suspect language would fall apart if we were to take that approach universally. But we do not seem to.

We kinda do tend to use descriptors that follow plain logic. Well except the aforementioned postmodernist types. In that mess nothing is really to be pinned down, because all interpretations are if not always valid, always valid as interpretations.

Then I am somehow not communicating myself correctly as that would be exactly how I would _not_ describe what I am saying. Rather with my Venn/Sets dynamic what I am saying is that any individual falls into a number of Sets. And any number of those Sets could be what triggers sexual and-or romantic attraction.

That's again an opinion.

I think the people who would consider someone like my partners "bi" despite them never being attracted to women before or since each other - are merely assuming that sexual attraction is based on one single Set. Gender. Whereas everything I know about them - or they describe in themselves - suggests their romantic and physical love is _despite_ their gender not because of it.

Straight people are attracted to their opposite gender, gay people are attracted to their gender, bisexual people are attracted to both to varying degrees. Your partners are sexually attracted to each other and follow through with physical intimacy, in your "Venn/Sets dynamic" they are bisexual with each other. Just like your tequila example, they're not bisexual with anyone else, but by plain obvious as the nose on one's face and when the rubber meets the road they are bisexual with each other. Ergo they are bisexual. They are not "wholly straight". It's a nonsense to suggest otherwise, no matter which way you attempt to wrap it.

But since you mentioned research there have indeed been articles and studies done on showing that straight men are aroused by gay porn and vice versa. An article in Archives of Sexual Behavior for example. While a study from the University of Essex found straight women are likely to be turned on by both men and women. And there are good nerological reasons as to why this would be so.

The vast bulk of studies into this reinforces my original point.

But linguistically - to move away from sexuality - I also think that while the meaning of words should not be set in stone - very much the opposite - some threshold of consistency is required for a word to be meaningful or useful. And if someone is attracted solely and predominantly to the opposite sex with _one sole individual exception_ - then with strong pedantry I am sure we can call that person "bisexual" but I wonder if the word applied that loosely really leaves it meaning all that much at all or what anyone or anything could gain by even bothering to force the peg into that hole.

It's hardly pedantry when it's accurate. And how is it applied loosely? If you're sexually attracted to and having sex with both genders, no matter how many, or how particular you are bisexual. Otherwise why have descriptors at all? Now I get that some are into that. It's very popular a notion in some circles. No labels. The irony being in their mess of the middle ground they come up with ever more labels, oft to the point of circling the plug hole of daft.

Sometimes I fear people are more interested in clinging to making words fit - than caring what they are actually communicating. A divide between language purists and communication purists I suppose.

I'd be a basic logic purist, an empiricist as it were. On an individual level if someone wants to label themselves whatever they choose, I say good luck to them. Nada to do with me unless by doing so they impinge on others. On the macro level I reserve the judgement of calling it nonsense.

TL;DR? If I claim to be a vegan yet eat steak twice a month then my self ascribed label is meaningless. If I claim to be wholly straight yet shag a bloke on the regular then my self ascribed label is meaningless. If I said I'm bisexual but only for them in particular then game ball. That's accurate.

dr.fuzzenstein

Some people try to obfuscate the issue in a wall of nebulous rhetoric.
Cutting the sh*t and getting back to the issue.
There is gay, straight and everything in between, be that bi-curios or heteroflexible.
The very crux of the issue is the therapy on offer doesn't even deal in shades of gay.
It just promises to "cure" gay people, so they can be "normal".
Anyone who can't see how fcuked up that is is fcuked in the head.
It's that simple and I will not entertain an argument on that point.
If there is an argument, I refer you back to fcuked in the head.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Provided they're a consenting adult.

And if they're not? I doubt there are any checks done.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd raise the same quizzical eyebrow if a gay lad I knew started a romantic/emotional relationship with a woman and still claimed he was wholly gay. It's akin to someone claiming to be a vegan but eats a rare steak once a week.

The BI community get a lot of hate from the straight and the gay communities, so I'd say some identify with one camp unless something pops up that they like.

=-=

TBH, I'd fully support don't-be-an-asshole conversion, where you stop being a homophobic christian, and learn to like everyone as they are (don't worry, I see the irony :P ).

Mountainsandh

I voted unsure, because even though my first reaction was to think "yeah ban it, ban it real good", then I thought "nah, Nanny state".

Although the one worry that would sway me towards "ban it" in spite of the nanny state thing would be the possibility that some parents might psychologically work on their children to attend one of these clinics when they're of age.

I do think it is a bit like cosmetic surgery, breast enlargement etc..., but you know, at the level of "crazy-things-people-do-to-their-bodies", we might not understand or approve of the reasons people attend, but it's really their prerogative to make that choice.


I really over-use quotes.

Pack It In

No, don't ban it. It's like circumcision and gender surgery. I don't like these things but if adults want to do it then let them.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh, yes it does. If you claim you don't drink tequila, but then go on to say that why yes I drink one particular tequila, you are a tequila drinker.

Eh, no it does not. What it means is I am a drinker of a wide variety of liquids only one of which happens to be a single and particular brand of tequila. And even at that only a rare indulgence.

As I suggested - without at least _some_ minimum level of consistency behind definitions we would end up defining everyone as everything. And I for one am thankful language does not work that way. I smoke marijuana about once every 5 years. I would not _define_ myself as a marijuana smoker in that regard either or see any reason why I might or should.

And to falsely define myself in that way would have real world consequences too. Minor in _this_ case of course - but not minor for people who are similarly falsely defined in other contexts. The words consequence for me being falsely defined as a tequila drinker when I am not one is people might gift me any number of drinks I seriously do not like. Hardly something to worry about. But other people falsely defined as something that are not - off the back of having one single individual positive "hit" in an otherwise massive defined "Set" - may not be so lucky. Too much linguistics purity or pedantry can be harmful - just like too little of it can too.

Wibbs wrote: »

We kinda do tend to use descriptors that follow plain logic.

Sure we do - which is why it is weird when you stop doing so like here. The thing about definitions and labels is they tend to bring all kinds of implications and assumptions of some minimum thresholds of consistency and generality. That is one of those "plain logic" things. So if you tell me someone is a politician I would expect certain things. If I found out later that he spent two weeks in the "young greens" 20 years ago however - I would question your labeling logic. Similarly if someone said "I am off to Taxs house what should I bring" and you replied "Well he is a tequila drinker go with that" - he might later come back to question your misinforming him about my preferences.

Similarly if my relationship broke down and you were at a party with one of my exs and a girl said to you "Wow she is super hot - you think I have any chance with her" then you would be setting her up for disappointment - and for her feeling you had misled her - by saying "Well she _is_ bisexual so go for it" rather than if you told her "Well although she was in a same sex relationship for a time - she is actually straight".

So the question becomes which is more interesting to a speaker - to be linguistically pedantically right in forcing terms to be "right" when they feel it is right - or to use language for it's basic main intention and goal - to convey factual and useful information in a way that makes it most accurate and informative in the brain of the recipient. I go with the second option myself. To use words and labels in a way that will give the person I speak with the most accurate representation of what is actually true. YMMV.

Wibbs wrote: »

Straight people are attracted to their opposite gender, gay people are attracted to their gender, bisexual people are attracted to both to varying degrees. Your partners are sexually attracted to each other and follow through with physical intimacy

None of what you say here is false - but also none of it is contradicting what I am saying either. So there is a "talking past each other" warning light that should be going off in both our heads at this time. Again being sexually attracted to someone _despite_ their gender is different to being attracted to them _in light of it_. And someone who is in a relationship with someone of the same sex - but does not identify as bi - is likely an example of the former.

I can similarly take gender out of it entirely to describe the same thing in a fashion a little less likely to trigger any linguistic purism. Imagine a trait that is for you a massive turn off. Maybe you do not like seriously fat girls. Maybe you are turned off mightily by severely crossed eyes. I just have no idea. But let us go with fat people for now - no offence to fat people. They are a serious turn off for you in this rhetorical. You simply are not and never have been turned on sexually by them - quite the opposite.

But then you meet someone who you connect with on so many levels that your feelings for them reach a point you want to express them and explore them in every way - including sexually. This individual and what she is is a member of all the "Sets" that trigger your sexual and romantic interests.

I do not think it is right to then say "Wibbs is sexually into fat girls". I would think it right to say "Wibbs is not into fat girls - but he is very much into Nadia here".

I do not think - I am not seeing - any difference there just because we are speaking of gender rather than some other trait. I think you rely too much on a "therefore" that does not hold. You went from "They are bisexual with each other" to "therefore they are bisexual". And that is not a logical leap I think you can simply make and gloss over. They are two entirely different statements bringing entirely different implications to a listener were you to use them. The latter would - in a way the former would not - lead the impartial 3rd party listener to false conclusions about the people described.

Wibbs wrote: »

The vast bulk of studies into this reinforces my original point.

I am sure you have a comparative analysis and set of workings to offer to back up that statement as fact rather than wishful thinking but even if you did I am not sure what it would gain. Science is not done on the basis of numerical comparisons of the numbers of studies done. Especially when one of the things being compared is relatively new in the study-space. And extra especially when the studies are not contradicting each other. The studies I mention are not contradicting anything you have said - they are adding to it. If there was a contradiction between them _then_ it might make some sense to concern ourselves with the relative number of the studies.

The fact remains as I stated that studies _are_ showing that people who identify as one thing are sometimes aroused by things related to the thing they absolutely do not identify themselves as. And if for example a man who identifies as entirely straight found themselves aroused by - say - pornography of a homosexual nature - that would not imply they are in any way homosexual. And in fact I do seem to recall threads of that very nature on boards in the past. Where guys have shown up in the LGBT forum on boards saying they were worried and confused for exactly that reason. A confusion we would not have helped them through by any level of linguistic purity and pedantry that attempted to tell them "If you are sexually attracted to guys you are homo or bi sexual" when they know themselves they are not. People have a tendency to switch off and stop listening to a speaker - if the speaker is telling them they are something they know with every fibre of their own being that they are not.

Wibbs wrote: »

Otherwise why have descriptors at all?

I answered that in the previous post and already in this one. But seeing as it is the core of my entire point I see no harm in repeating it. The answer to this is that descriptors should imply _some_ minimum threshold of consistency in the thing described. What that threshold is of course varies between contexts. But generally I would suggest that a single positive hit in an otherwise massive "Set" is not the way to go. That would be undermining the purpose of descriptors - in the exact way what I am describing does not.

Wibbs wrote: »

Now I get that some are into that. It's very popular a notion in some circles. No labels.

Similar to the last post where I wrote "Then I am somehow not communicating myself correctly as that would be exactly how I would _not_ describe what I am saying." I would respond pretty much the same here. This is _exactly_ the position I am _not_ advocating for. You are not phrasing this _exactly_ like you think it is the position I am advocating for - but the suggestion is potentially there enough for me to feel it useful to address it in case.

Rather what I am saying is that the "No labels" movement is a poor one indeed (we seem to agree on that so always pays to peg a flag into common ground) - but that when we apply labels too liberally off the back of - say - a single positive hit in an otherwise massive set - the we dilute the utility of those labels to the point we are functionally in the same realm as the "no label movement" - and so equally fecked for the same reasons. Like you entirely correctly and astutely put it - we end up then having to make more and more and more labels to accommodate a single initial error and failing on our own part.

It was another user of boards who put it better than I am - though I suspect he was borrowing it from Christopher Hitchens - but the phrase if I recall was "A word that comes to mean too much - actually ends up meaning nothing".

Mountainsandh

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I voted unsure, because even though my first reaction was to think "yeah ban it, ban it real good", then I thought "nah, Nanny state".

I hope what I wrote in an earlier post helps to reduce your concern there though. Which is to say that we can establish a minimum threshold of concern before we go around banning things.

Going around banning and controlling _Everything_ we do not like would very much be "nanny state" stuff.

But going around saying "well that is measurably worse than most things - we have good reason to ban that" is not.

GCT unlike - say - homeopathy for example - is not just inventing an exploitative cure - it is inventing the disease too. I think that makes it objectively worse than most things others might want to ban.

There is a difference there from saying "This will cure your headache" because at least headaches are a thing. They are something people have good reason to want to cure or reduce.

With GCT however they are not doing that. Rather than are establishing homosexuality as something _to be cured_. And that makes it objectively worse in many ways. And I would not feel like I am "Nanny stating" the issue for addressing it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, no it does not. What it means is I am a drinker of a wide variety of liquids only one of which happens to be a single and particular brand of tequila. And even at that only a rare indulgence. As I suggested - without at least _some_ minimum level of consistency behind definitions we would end up defining everyone as everything. And I for one am thankful language does not work that way. I smoke marijuana about once every 5 years. I would not _define_ myself as a marijuana smoker in that regard either or see any reason why I might or should.

The fact remains You're still an occasional tequila drinker and you are an occasional pot smoker.

Similarly if my relationship broke down and you were at a party with one of my exs and a girl said to you "Wow she is super hot - you think I have any chance with her" then you would be setting her up for disappointment - and for her feeling you had misled her - by saying "Well she _is_ bisexual so go for it" rather than if you told her "Well although she was in a same sex relationship for a time - she is actually straight".

Or I'd say the possibility is there as she was in a same sex relationship. If she'd never been in a same sex relationship I'd say the possibility was much more remote.

I can similarly take gender out of it entirely to describe the same thing in a fashion a little less likely to trigger any linguistic purism. Imagine a trait that is for you a massive turn off. Maybe you do not like seriously fat girls. Maybe you are turned off mightily by severely crossed eyes. I just have no idea. But let us go with fat people for now - no offence to fat people. They are a serious turn off for you in this rhetorical. You simply are not and never have been turned on sexually by them - quite the opposite.

But then you meet someone who you connect with on so many levels that your feelings for them reach a point you want to express them and explore them in every way - including sexually. This individual and what she is is a member of all the "Sets" that trigger your sexual and romantic interests.

I do not think it is right to then say "Wibbs is sexually into fat girls". I would think it right to say "Wibbs is not into fat girls - but he is very much into Nadia here".

Or "it seems he is open to fat women in certain circumstances". Though I think sexual orientation and traits that are a turn off in one's preferred gender are not comparable to the degree you are comparing them.

I do not think - I am not seeing - any difference there just because we are speaking of gender rather than some other trait.

Gender is a a massive, nay fundamental "trait". It's not nearly the same as hair colour or body fat. Certainly not for most. If say a straight guy was attracted to thin women and his partner got fatter down the years, he may or may not have issue with it and attraction, but he'd have a much bigger issue if down the years she turned into a bloke.

I think you rely too much on a "therefore" that does not hold. You went from "They are bisexual with each other" to "therefore they are bisexual". And that is not a logical leap I think you can simply make and gloss over. They are two entirely different statements bringing entirely different implications to a listener were you to use them. The latter would - in a way the former would not - lead the impartial 3rd party listener to false conclusions about the people described.

Are they sexually attracted to and having sexual relations with another woman? Yes. Are they sexually attracted to and having sexual relations with a man? Yes. ergo they are by definition bisexual. They are not exclusively straight. To claim that they are makes a nonsense of language.

EG, a cousin of mine has been with men all her life, even married(and divorced) one. Then a few years back she met a woman and they moved in together and when finally same sex marriage came in, they in due course got married and happy out they are too. Could she claim that she was wholly straight? Hardly(and she wouldn't), but by your Venn/sets criteria she could. After all her relationship is "off the back of having one single individual positive "hit" in an otherwise massive defined "Set"".

And if for example a man who identifies as entirely straight found themselves aroused by - say - pornography of a homosexual nature - that would not imply they are in any way homosexual. And in fact I do seem to recall threads of that very nature on boards in the past. Where guys have shown up in the LGBT forum on boards saying they were worried and confused for exactly that reason. A confusion we would not have helped them through by any level of linguistic purity and pedantry that attempted to tell them "If you are sexually attracted to guys you are homo or bi sexual" when they know themselves they are not. People have a tendency to switch off and stop listening to a speaker - if the speaker is telling them they are something they know with every fibre of their own being that they are not.

Just as likely they're buying into the silly stigma that still surrounds being gay. If I found myself seeking out gay porn because it turned me on, or I dunno was having thoughts of a sexual nature that included men(or an individual man) I'd have zero issue with saying it seems I'm mostly straight, but have some tendency towards being bisexual.

Rather what I am saying is that the "No labels" movement is a poor one indeed (we seem to agree on that so always pays to peg a flag into common ground) - but that when we apply labels too liberally off the back of - say - a single positive hit in an otherwise massive set - the we dilute the utility of those labels to the point we are functionally in the same realm as the "no label movement" - and so equally fecked for the same reasons. Like you entirely correctly and astutely put it - we end up then having to make more and more and more labels to accommodate a single initial error and failing on our own part.

Or y'know Keep It Simple Stupid and in this case break it down to straight, gay, bisexual to varying degrees.

It was another user of boards who put it better than I am - though I suspect he was borrowing it from Christopher Hitchens - but the phrase if I recall was "A word that comes to mean too much - actually ends up meaning nothing".

One of those soundbites which seems to promise meaning, but delivers little.

dr.fuzzenstein

Can we have a separate "**** on about tequila" thread please?

wexie

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Can we have a separate "**** on about tequila" thread please?

I always thought it was a worm in the bottom of the bottle....

Learn something new every day

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The fact remains You're still an occasional tequila drinker and you are an occasional pot smoker.

Ah but see - you are now introducing qualifiers - moving from calling me outright a tequila drinker to now qualifying it with extra descriptors. The error of your initial descriptor of me now requires you introduce the modifier "occasional".

That is a move I could not have orchestrated better given the end of my last post - so I love that you made it - where I expressed a shared concern with you related to where you said "The irony being in their mess of the middle ground they come up with ever more labels" and I agreed with "Like you entirely correctly and astutely put it - we end up then having to make more and more and more labels to accommodate a single initial error and failing on our own part.". Beautifully making our shared point of agreement for me.

Wibbs wrote: »

Or I'd say the possibility is there as she was in a same sex relationship. If she'd never been in a same sex relationship I'd say the possibility was much more remote.

Again a wonderful demonstration of the point I am making. I could not have done this better had I actually been writing your response myself. You would may the above of course. The point being that were we to say "Sure - she is bisexual" we would be misleading the person who asked us. So I would not say it and nor- it now seem - would you.

I would not say the possibility would be "much more" remote though. Just slightly or minutely. But that is just because I have the advantage to know them and I know that this exception in their life is an exception to the degree that it would make no future possibility any greater at all that they would enter into the same kind of relationship again. No more likely than anyone else who identifies as straight.

Wibbs wrote: »

Or "it seems he is open to fat women in certain circumstances".

Possibly that too. But it still does not contradict the point I am making that "Wibbs is into fat women" would be an incorrect appraisal and at best one that is misleading. As would - for exactly the same reasons - calling someone who identifies as otherwise entirely straight "Bi".

Wibbs wrote: »

Though I think sexual orientation and traits that are a turn off in one's preferred gender are not comparable to the degree you are comparing them.

I suspected that might indeed be the core of our disagreement on the issue to be honest - but I did not want to assume it. I genuinely do not see why they are not comparable to that degree. Gender is just a trait like any other. And the traits that attract us - or not - are as individual as everything else about us as human beings. I suspect what happens however is that the traits that happen to be the core ones for us personally - are the traits we are prone to assuming are universals and so we elevate them in our own minds to the point we do not think they should be considered comparable.

Wibbs wrote: »

Are they sexually attracted to and having sexual relations with another woman? Yes. Are they sexually attracted to and having sexual relations with a man? Yes. ergo they are by definition bisexual. They are not exclusively straight. To claim that they are makes a nonsense of language.

As I said though it is using descriptors that apply on _one single_ positive hit from a comparably massive "Set" that makes the nonsense of language. So too does making up your own definitions of words that differ wildly from the actual ones.

The "by definition" you are using it _your_ definition it should be pointed out. There are two problems with it that jump out straight away other than it being a definition of your own creation designed to replace the official one.

The first is - If you look up actual definitions of words like "Homosexuality" they - like me - assume a minimum level of consistency and at the very least use plurals in their definitions. Take the first ones google offers for Bisexual for example:

"a person who is sexually attracted to both men and women."
"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity"
"of or characterized by sexual desire for those of one's own sex and also those of the opposite sex"
"Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex."
"Sexually attracted to members of either sex."
"omeone who is attracted to both males and females."

Note the plurality here? Nowhere does it say "one or more" or "at least one" or anything of the sort. It assumes a level of consistency implied in the use of plural. Men not man. People not person. Women not woman. Those. Persons. Members. Males. Females. Consistently plural here.

An article in Psychology Today also reconizes the points I am making. The article is about the skepticism about the very existence of bisexuality and makes the distinction "No one seems to argue with the reality that some people have sex with both men and women. The skepticism has centered on if that behavior is motivated by a strong sexual attraction to both sexes.". Clearly making the distinction between someone who has sex with one person of their own gender and someone who is generally attracted to that gender.

The second error in your own definition - is you mention "having sexual relations with". And that is entirely beside the point. Your sexuality is defined by who you are generally sexually attracted to - not at all who you have sex with. A gay man - for example - who decides to hide his homosexuality - marry and copulate and procreate with a woman for all his life - is still a homosexual. Who he is having sex with has literally nothing to do with what his sexuality is.

Further if you look at the article google throws up when you ask it to define bisexuality it gives an article from the site bisexualindex.org which opens with something I said earlier. (I have not read this link before today) which is "Some of us are attracted to people regardless of gender". This parallels what I said earlier about the difference between being attracted to someone _despite_ their gender rather than due to it.

Wibbs wrote: »

Just as likely they're buying into the silly stigma that still surrounds being gay.

Three posts in a row now where you have managed to suggest something that is the exact opposite of what I am actually saying. What I am saying is not only not based in the stigma of being gay - it is something that actually erodes that stigma yet further by acknowledging not only is there nothing at all wrong with homosexuality in the first place - but in fact some aspects of it are actually accessible - understandable - erotic - to the heterosexual community too.

Wibbs wrote: »

If I found myself seeking out gay porn because it turned me on, or I dunno was having thoughts of a sexual nature that included men(or an individual man) I'd have zero issue with saying it seems I'm mostly straight, but have some tendency towards being bisexual.

I am sure you would have no issue with saying it. The question is would it be accurate. And there are good neurological basis for understanding that it is entirely possible to be wholly straight and still be aroused by homosexual pornography. So while it would be possible in your scenario that you have tendencies to bisexuality - it is equally possible in that scenario to have none. In other words much of what you are posting here is true. It is just incomplete.

dr.fuzzenstein

TL:DR
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Wibbs

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Can we have a separate "**** on about tequila" thread please?

Ah sure I know Dr F. It's just when I read the ever shifting sands that passes for this post 60's "hippie" mixed with 70's postmodernist swirling nebulous nonsense masquerading as somehow insightful stuff I just can't resist... Though it's like trying to pick up water with a fork. Because they have no clear positions, save for one; that life/politics/art/gender/culture/sexuality and anything else are a series of endless interpretations depending on individualistic and usually self defined viewpoints. They appear to have positions, but the sands are constantly shifting and the goalposts constantly moving. It's the philosophy of grey areas and cognitive dissonance. Note his take that gender is just another "trait", no different to bodyweight or any other trait. There is no trait weighted above another, all and none are equal in this philosophy.

EG TaxAH has convinced himself he's not a tequila drinker, yet he drinks tequila. His partners are wholly straight/not bi, yet are sexually attracted and active with each other and him.

On bisexuality and sexuality in general(and horrid Mexican spirits) its seems it's a numbers game. If you're attracted to the plural of a gender then yep you may be gay/bi/straight. I say may be as the philosophy won't skirt close to calling anything so definite. So if a straight guy who only ever went out and was attracted to women, then fell for and married a man, he's still straight. Now maybe if he left him for another man? Though no doubt if he self identified as straight this would be accepted.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah but see - you are now introducing qualifiers - moving from calling me outright a tequila drinker to now qualifying it with extra descriptors. The error of your initial descriptor of me now requires you introduce the modifier "occasional".

You are a tequila drinker. You drink tequila. Next time you knock one back look in a mirror and claim you're not a tequila drinker. No doubt you'll be able to.

The second error in your own definition - is you mention "having sexual relations with". And that is entirely beside the point. Your sexuality is defined by who you are generally sexually attracted to - not at all who you have sex with. A gay man - for example - who decides to hide his homosexuality - marry and copulate and procreate with a woman for all his life - is still a homosexual. Who he is having sex with has literally nothing to do with what his sexuality is.

The gay guy is hiding his sexuality. He is forcing himself to do so(and we're back on topic). Your partners are under no pressure. Their sexual desire and attraction and action are congruent and they chose to have sex with a woman and a man. What's that they call that again? Oh yeah...

dr.fuzzenstein

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah sure I know Dr F. It's just when I read the ever shifting sands that passes for this post 60's "hippie" mixed with 70's postmodernist swirling nebulous nonsense masquerading as somehow insightful stuff I just can't resist... Though it's like trying to pick up water with a fork. Because they have no clear positions, save for one; that life/politics/art/gender/culture/sexuality and anything else are a series of endless interpretations depending on individualistic and usually self defined viewpoints. They appear to have positions, but the sands are constantly shifting and the goalposts constantly moving. It's the philosophy of grey areas and cognitive dissonance. Note his take that gender is just another "trait", no different to bodyweight or any other trait. There is no trait weighted above another, all and none are equal in this philosophy.

EG TaxAH has convinced himself he's not a tequila drinker, yet he drinks tequila. His partners are wholly straight/not bi, yet are sexually attracted and active with each other and him.

Heteroflexible may be the word.
Some posters have no position other than "the opposite of yours". They'd argue the sky is pink and the Earth is flat just to argue.
Hence the fork-water effect. These people aren't engaging, they're not even really arguing.
They're just playing "is! Isn't! Is! Isn't!". It's Kindergarten level stuff.

Wibbs

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Heteroflexible may be the word.

fecked if I know. As I said coming from such a position a vegan could eat a steak once a month and still feel and claim they're a vegan.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Because they have no clear positions, save for one; that life/politics/art/gender/culture/sexuality and anything else are a series of endless interpretations depending on individualistic and usually self defined viewpoints.

I share many of those concerns too. Not all of them - and I think we have traded words on a few of them before (might be mixing you up with someone - sorry) - but a lot. The interesting point for me however is I am not engaged in such things here. And you are lumping much of what I am saying in with that stuff. I wonder if maybe your concern for such things are such that you react to them even when they are not there. That would likely explain how you managed to discuss things in three different posts that were polar opposites of what I was actually expressing.

I am with you most of the way though on all this "my world is my interpretation" stuff we see a lot of and from which a huge swath of our identity politics spews. But with me I think "these are not the droids you are looking for" or something.

Wibbs wrote: »

Note his take that gender is just another "trait", no different to bodyweight or any other trait. There is no trait weighted above another, all and none are equal in this philosophy.

That is the lumping of which I refer above. There is a huge variety of things that spark our romantic and physical interest in other human beings. No one is saying "Gender is just a trait like any other with no difference". What is being said is "In the specific context we are discussing here gender can be seen as a trait like any other". Statements can and often do look ridiculous when you remove them from the place they were applied. Which I guess is why people do it.

I think many of us have traits that are more important to ourselves however and that can move us to assume them to be more important than the others. And - as you have - we react emotionally when people suggest they are not. But despite that - interest in a physical and romantic relationship with someone despite the gender they happen to be is possible.

Wibbs wrote: »

On bisexuality and sexuality in general(and horrid Mexican spirits) its seems it's a numbers game.

I would phrase it entirely differently. In terms of linguistic descriptors I would say it is a consistency game. Describing people places or things with words that defines them by their rare exceptions rather than something they are with at least some small threshold of consistency - would make the use of language in general very problematic.

Wibbs wrote: »

You are a tequila drinker. You drink tequila.

I am an alcohol drinker - and one of the drinks I drink happens to be a type of tequila.

Unfortunately at this point you appear to be simply repeating your claim rather than defending it. You said this twice before - I responded to it twice in two different ways - and now you are just repeating it a third time. If you want to reply to either of those responses from me that is great - but soap boxing the same thing I rebutted a third time does not lead the conversation forwards.

Especially if people then start moaning about forks and water and people refusing to engage. If your response to have your position rebutted is to simply restate the same position again the same way - then the only one who can be accused of not engaging is you.

Wibbs wrote: »

The gay guy is hiding his sexuality.

Errrrr yes that was my point I was pointing out to you that not only were you making up your own definition of homosexuality in order to construct a "by definition" statement - you were inventing a definition that included in it who the person is sexually active with. And I am pointing out that what sexuality you are has absolutely nothing to do with who you are actually having sex with. Your definition was simply in error there.

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

fecked if I know. As I said coming from such a position a vegan could eat a steak once a month and still feel and claim they're a vegan.

I think you'll find the term to be flexitarian

Seems like you too Wibbs, can learn something new every day :P

Yes it appears in the minds of some you are only able to define yourself by a term if you fit that term 100% all the time always. This is the opposite extreme of linguistics to suggesting you can be any label at all if only you get a single positive hit off it once ever. Both extremes destroy language to my mind.

And I do indeed know people who identify as vegetarian who occasionally go for meat. Because they define as vegetarian as a massively dominant _trend_ in their life their choices and their motivations. It defines who and what they are in the majority of situations. Ìt defines the by far primary motivation and factor in their decision making - but it does not dictate the result of every decision every time. It admits of exceptions. Exceptions of necessity. Of convenience. Of desperation. Of circumstance. And as such the definition of vegetarian is no way negated by a periodic dip into meat.

Words are not - nor are they intended to be - neat little boxes that describe the world perfectly in all situations at all times. They are fuzzy little entities that move around a little - sometimes overlap - and sometimes blur.

The goal of them at any time should be to give the people we communicate with the most accurate representation of the reality we convey to them. And communicating with linguistic pedantry or purity might feel good - but it can often send the recipient forward into situations with an inaccurate expectation of reality. And for what? Just so we can stamp our feet and scream "No - this word means this - only this - and nothing but this goddamit"?

Dial Hard

Lads, we get it, you're both towering intellectuals with massive vocabularies.

Can we move on now?

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

Similarly if my relationship broke down and you were at a party with one of my exs and a girl said to you "Wow she is super hot - you think I have any chance with her" then you would be setting her up for disappointment - and for her feeling you had misled her - by saying "Well she _is_ bisexual so go for it" rather than if you told her "Well although she was in a same sex relationship for a time - she is actually straight".

So the question becomes which is more interesting to a speaker - to be linguistically pedantically right in forcing terms to be "right" when they feel it is right - or to use language for it's basic main intention and goal - to convey factual and useful information in a way that makes it most accurate and informative in the brain of the recipient. I go with the second option myself. To use words and labels in a way that will give the person I speak with the most accurate representation of what is actually true. YMMV.



None of what you say here is false - but also none of it is contradicting what I am saying either. So there is a "talking past each other" warning light that should be going off in both our heads at this time. Again being sexually attracted to someone _despite_ their gender is different to being attracted to them _in light of it_. And someone who is in a relationship with someone of the same sex - but does not identify as bi - is likely an example of the former.

.

I find your posts very interesting I have to say and I usually find myself agreeing with most of what you say, but not this - this is patently nonsense.

If anyone, as in the case of your missus(es):D find themselves attracted to and regularly having sex with both men and women, or man and woman, as the was the case may be - then that is the dictionary definition of bi-sexuality. It's an absolute nonsense to describe it as anything else.

I can completely accept that people experiment, and doubtless there are any number of people who have had same sex experiences, decided it wasn't for them and who are not in any way gay or bi. But it's stretching credulity to live with someone of the same sex for years on end, being sexual with them the whole time and then add the caveat "but I'm straight" - No, you quite obviously aren't!

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

I am pointing out that what sexuality you are has absolutely nothing to do with who you are actually having sex with.

Can you elaborate on this? I mean if I sleep with a guy I usually assume he is at the very least bi. I don't think a straight lad ends up in bed with another bloke unless he isn't straight.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I find your posts very interesting I have to say and I usually find myself agreeing with most of what you say, but not this - this is patently nonsense.

If anyone, as in the case of your missus(es) find themselves attracted to and regularly having sex with both men and women, or man and woman, as the was the case may be - then that is the dictionary definition of bi-sexuality. It's an absolute nonsense to describe it as anything else.

That is fine. The best people to disagree with are the ones who usually agree with you Makes for a much better interaction I find. And the compliment you offer here is one I would throw word for word back at you. I read all your stuff too.

Can you tell me which dictionary definition you refer to though as I provided some in my post and it does not appear to support what you say here. And I explained why in the post above so I wont bore anyone further by repeating it

Rory28 wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this? I mean if I sleep with a guy I usually assume he is at the very least bi. I don't think a straight lad ends up in bed with another bloke unless he isn't straight.

Sure thanks for asking

Quite a lot of Male Prostitutes are straight. So true is this in fact that the CDC have created a category called "MSM" or "Men who have sex with men" to incorporate otherwise straight people into groupings they are otherwise usually left out of. They recognise that groups based on sexuality and groupings based on actual sexual activity are massively different. And for the purposes of disease control and study the former was the wrong one to use.

Also I gave the example of a homosexual who lives the live of a heterosexual. He finds a woman - spends his life copulating and procreating with her - but he is still a homosexual. His relationship with her is _despite_ his orientation.

Also think of a homosexual who is celebate. Never had sex and never plans to. He is still a homosexual though. Why? Because he is attracted to men. He does not have to actually have sex with one to become a homosexual.

Summary: Every definition of sexuality out there is rooted in who you are generally attracted to. Not who you have sex with.

Dial Hard wrote: »

Lads, we get it, you're both towering intellectuals with massive vocabularies. Can we move on now?

Flattery will get you everywhere I am done if he is. I have stated my rebuttals and he has started his position a few times. Unless anything is added to reply to - I have nothing new to say.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure thanks for asking

Quite a lot of Male Prostitutes are straight. So true is this in fact that the CDC have created a category called "MSM" or "Men who have sex with men" to incorporate otherwise straight people into groupings they are otherwise usually left out of. They recognise that groups based on sexuality and groupings based on actual sexual activity are massively different. And for the purposes of disease control and study the former was the wrong one to use.

Also I gave the example of a homosexual who lives the live of a heterosexual. He finds a woman - spends his life copulating and procreating with her - but he is still a homosexual. His relationship with her is _despite_ his orientation.

Also think of a homosexual who is celebate. Never had sex and never plans to. He is still a homosexual though. Why? Because he is attracted to men. He does not have to actually have sex with one to become a homosexual.

Summary: Every definition of sexuality out there is rooted in who you are generally attracted to. Not who you have sex with.

Fair enough gay for pay exists in the sex industry but how prevalent is it in the real world? They are being motivated by money not desire but if you take the money and the desire out why would they have sex with someone they feel nothing for beyond the platonic feelings of friendship?

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

That is fine. The best people to disagree with are the ones who usually agree with you Makes for a much better interaction I find. And the compliment you offer here is one I would throw word for word back at you. I read all your stuff too. .

Stop it, you'll have me blushing:p

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you tell me which dictionary definition you refer to though as I provided some in my post and it does not appear to support what you say here. And I explained why in the post above so I wont bore anyone further by repeating it
.

The only one worth bothering with.....URBAN:D

Top definition

Bisexual

Someone who is in all ways attracted to both guys
and girls. It is not because they are sex fanatics, or simply can't decide. Being bisexual
is not a phase from people who haven't fully come out yet. It is as real
as being straight or gay. You might have a preference over one sex, but
bisexual means you can be attracted to both genders sexually, physically, and
emotionally. In other words, you are fully capable of FALLING IN LOVE with them,
just
as a woman would fall in love with a man. It's not a circus freak thing.


Sally fúcked Jack and Jill, and enjoyed them both.

Sounds pretty much like your setup to me?

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite a lot of Male Prostitutes are straight. .

I can accept this.
Prostitutes in general have sex with people the aren't attracted to for money. Same thing with porn stars.
I seen a show years back and the No1 "gay" porn star is straight, I can't recall his name right now and don't fancy googling gay porn stars in work! He's married and has kids - he doesn't even have sex with blokes - he uses a stunt cock, I shít you not!:D

Deleted User wrote: »

Summary: Every definition of sexuality out there is rooted in who you are generally attracted to. Not who you have sex with.

But the 2 girls are attracted to each other are they not?

They clearly aren't equal opportunity, 50/50 bisexual but they also clearly aren't straight.

Rory28

Rory28 wrote: »

why would they have sex with someone they feel nothing for beyond the platonic feelings of friendship?

Any number of reasons. Incidents of homosexual behaviour are found in prisons as far as I know. What is likely here - they they were gay or bi all along and just discovered it? That prison somehow turned them gay? Or there are factors above and beyond ones sexual orientation that lead people to choose who to be sexually active with?

Also what do we mean by "feel nothing for". Quite often - certainly it is the case with the two women I am in a relationship with - they feel very many things for each other. Enough things to cross a threshold of sexual and romantic interest that otherwise might not have been triggered due to the fact they identify as straight and not at all sexually interested in other women as a rule.

Mountainsandh

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope what I wrote in an earlier post helps to reduce your concern there though. Which is to say that we can establish a minimum threshold of concern before we go around banning things.

Going around banning and controlling _Everything_ we do not like would very much be "nanny state" stuff.

But going around saying "well that is measurably worse than most things - we have good reason to ban that" is not.

GCT unlike - say - homeopathy for example - is not just inventing an exploitative cure - it is inventing the disease too. I think that makes it objectively worse than most things others might want to ban.

There is a difference there from saying "This will cure your headache" because at least headaches are a thing. They are something people have good reason to want to cure or reduce.

With GCT however they are not doing that. Rather than are establishing homosexuality as something _to be cured_. And that makes it objectively worse in many ways. And I would not feel like I am "Nanny stating" the issue for addressing it.

hhmmm...
That's still an arbitrary line someone has to draw in the sand though.

Breast enlargement/reduction now.
The fact that it's available would sort of suggest that people's breasts may not be adequate.

I would see homosexuality as something that, like (the size of your) breasts, was part of the package you got when you were born.

If breast enlargement/reduction is something that is acceptable, then maybe sexual orientation should, just like any other physiological trait, be open to modification for whoever is so inclined.

Don't get me wrong, I do think even the idea of such a clinic/procedure is ridiculous, but in principle, when I pause to think about it, what someone else wishes to do with their DNA package is really none of my business, whether it's dying their hair blue or becoming straight.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The only one worth bothering with.....URBAN Sounds like your setup to me?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They clearly aren't equal opportunity, 50/50 bisexual but the also clearly aren't straight.

Hehehe the linguistic equivalent of citing the Daily Mail during a scientific debate If we are including Urban Dictionary in this discussion then all bets are off - I hereby declare and admit total defeat and retreat. I can do no more and can not compete with that

If we stick to more - credible - sources however we see that some level or threshold of consistency is in all the dictionary definitions. They require some general attraction to the same gender to be considered homo or bi sexual.

But playing Devils Advocate against myself when you go to the sites where bisexuals define themselves and leave the dictionary out of it - there is a mad diversity of definitions there. And some of them would define it as - say - "Being open to - even if it never happens - at least one sexual relationship with someone of the same gender".

Dictionaries do not define words and their meanings - they report on them. So I would be the last one to halt the changing definitions of words! But for me the use of language should have the goal of conveying reality as accurately as possible to the person you are talking to - not to be "right" in your use of individual words. And I can simply say that if you called someone like my partners "bisexual" you would not be representing them as accurately as you could.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But the 2 girls are attracted to each other are they not?

Yes - sorry. That statement was answering a completely different question about how sexual orientation is not defined by who you are sexually active with. Two different things. I was replying to another user there.

I can just picture the conversation now if you were to ask either of them.

So are you bi?
No.
But you are attracted to her?
Yes.
So you are attracted to women?
No.
But she is a woman?
Yes.
And you are attracted to her?
Yes.
So you are bi?
No.
But you are attracted to women?!?!?!?
No.

And around and around until you eventually tear either your own hair out or theirs or say "Screw this and chance of a threesome?"

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mountainsandh

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Breast enlargement/reduction now. The fact that it's available would sort of suggest that people's breasts may not be adequate.

I think there you errr into the realm of aesthetic choice and subjectivity though. Offering the ability to change ones appearance is not implying that there is something wrong with them needing to be cured. Sure some people might be implying that - but the service of augmentation itself is not doing so.

This is not so with something that touts itself as a "cure" or a "therapy". That very much is implying a fault that needs to be fixed.

When they start generally calling or advertising breast augmentation as "Breast Therapy" or "Small breast cure" and the like - and stop just offering to change you or improve you but to actually remedy something that is inherently wrong with you - then we would have a level playing field.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not by any definitions of the word I have read or learned no. You may be operating with other ones. But all the ones I have read or learned are describing a general tendency in the people it describes - rather than single exceptions.

And I for one do not tend to see a need to label people in terms of single exceptions to their norm rather than who they normally generally and almost entirely are.

To use an example someone else brought up - if someone identifies as vegetarian then this describes to me their general outlook on life - one of their primary motivations behind many decisions they make. It is actually informative to me of their value system - their judgement algorithms and much more.

If they then said "But I find it so impossible to really augment my diet sufficiently to get all I need that I therefore on rare occasion have to have a steak" I would see no utility in telling them or anyone else "Well you aint no vegetarian then".

Language should be descriptive and informative - not prescriptive and limiting.