Should gay conversion therapy be banned in Ireland?

Blame Game

Don't see why. If adults want to give it a go, let them.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

thread is per se intolerant . You seek live ad let live yet deny that to others?

Preventing the exploitation of others is not an intolerance or a denial. Where exactly is it you are finding intolerance here?

Wibbs

Sorry for the delay. One hell of a three day house party followed by some activism on the upcoming referendum.

Wibbs wrote: »

You stating with a straight face that someone who chooses to be in a longterm bisexual or homosexual relationship is wholly heterosexual is all that is required to label it as nonsense.

So your response to my saying you are calling it nonsense without showing it to be nonsense is - to just call it nonsense again. Not much in the way of substance there is there? Nor from the people posting animated GIFs it seems.

Here is another angle to take on it. I already mentioned how we define sexual orientation (by attraction not activity) so even a homosexual virgin is still a homosexual. Whether he some day has sex or not. And I already mentioned how many homosexuals have been known to choose to live the heterosexual life and marry and procreate - even though they are homosexual. We also mentioned sex workers whos sexual orientation is not defined based on who their clients are and who they are active sexually with.

And I already mentioned how people in prison or similar situations sometimes turn to homosexual sex - even if they are themselves heterosexual. And I have also discussed how people have formed romantic and physical relationships over the internet without having ever met showing mere physical gender attraction was not at that time in play.

But add to this paedophiles. In the past people have tried to blame homosexuality for paedophilia. Citing how many paedophile men have abused young boys. However the gender of the child is often incidental. The adult is attracted to the child - not the male or the female. They are attracted to them because they are a child - not because they happen to be male or female. As expert panel in 1993 pointed out "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however"

The point here is the same one I have been making all along. That in many contexts - in many people - in many way - there are paths to the formation of romantic and-or physical relationships that render the gender of the object of that attention incidental. They form those relationships _despite_ the gender - not because of it.

There is a lot of substance there - and merely calling "nonsense" at it without dealing with any of it suggests two things. The substance and claim is not so readily or easily rebutted. And secondly the person calling "nonsense" likely more _wants_ it to be so - rather than has any reason to think it actually is.

Wibbs wrote: »

And TBH I dunno why they're doing so. What are they denying? I mean you're gay, straight, or bi and so what?

Who says they are "denying" anything though? Maybe some are but I do not think many. Certainly no one I know is. I think there is agenda in trying to invent and pretend to uncover agenda.

Many people just want to have an identity. They care about how they are identified.

Take the tequila thing. It is a minor thing - hardly likely to hurt anyone. But imagine someone who really wanted to make a gesture to me - to thank me for something maybe - came to you and asked your advice on a gift. And you falsely told them I was a tequila drinker.

They genuinely want to make a gesture and a gift and due to your label they would go off any buy something I genuinely do not like. Unless they happened (unlikely) to get the one single tequila I do like. If they later got any sense that they chose a gift poorly - this will hurt them.

Now this is not the stuff of nightmare. It will not hurt them much. Or me. But it is still a valid example of my point. By labeling people by what _you_ want their labels to be than by a label that will accurately represent them to others - you can cause otherwise very easily avoidable pain or discomfort.

No agenda of "denial" is required here. Just people who want to identify others - or have others identified to them - by labels that are likely to actually hold true in reality.

Wibbs wrote: »

Like earlier TaxAH(IIRC?) mentioned that sometimes lads show up in the LBGT forum hereabouts worried that they're having "gay thoughts" maybe getting off on gay porn or whatever looking for answers and it appears reassurance that "no it's OK you're probably not gay". And apparently that reassurance is given? Again that makes little sense for me.

Being aroused by homosexual pornography does not mean you are homosexual or bisexual. If I could unwind what part of that is not making sense to you I could make a more directed response to it - but without that knowledge I can only make a more general stab at it.

Whether you are homosexual or not - bisexual or not - there are aspects of pornography that are going to arouse you. The context of the porn is sexual. The gestures and motions and rhythms of the porn are sexual. There is more to sex and porn than just gender. The _act_ of sex itself is arousing even if the people engaged in it are not a gender you are attracted to.

Then there is the aspect of empathy and mirror neurons. When you see the genitalia of another man stimulated sexually - those neurons will by activated in your own brain. Just like if you watch me stab a knife into my hand under fMRI - we would see many of the pain pathways of being stabbed with a knife in the hand light up in _your_ brain.

These things will arouse you. Like it or not. And many people who have had that experience have found their way into forums or other sources of advice wondering if their arousal at homosexual pornography indicates a sexual orientation they did not otherwise know they had. And the answer is that no - often it does not mean that at all. No one is of course saying it does _not_ mean that. Many people probably have discovered their own homo or bi sexuality in this fashion! But it just does not automatically mean you are homosexual.

You likely are not a paedophile either. If you sat watching a child performing oral sex on a grown man however - there is a strong likelihood you could be aroused by this. It would _not_ at all mean you are a paedophile. It would simply mean some combination of the things I listed above were in effect.

To bring this back on topic - even if only tentatively - I know the Scientologists have a "personality test" that is rigged to make it look like you need "help" whatever way you answer it. They invent the disease and the cure. I wonder if people selling "gay conversion therapy" have ever used the fact even heterosexuals can be aroused by homosexual porn in a similar fashion. "Oh look - we are seeing arousal here - yea lets conversion therapy that right out of you sir before it gets to be an issue in your life". I must research this. Later. Busy now.

Wibbs wrote: »

EDIT down the years I have heard bi folks getting some static from both straight and gay people. The "pick a side FFS" angle. Maybe that's a social barrier to coming out as bisexual?

I have heard similar. Thankfully it is not something we have suffered from directly. We have had _some_ issues over the years from bigots and people who are aggressively against us for their own reasons. But it has mostly taken the form of them thinking I must be taking advantage of the girls somehow and so feeling they need to express their chivalry through violence against me - or people horrified by the thought we have - and plan to continue having - children in this "depraved" environment.

But aggression or judgement against the relationship itself for being a bisexual one is not an issue we have had. Were the girls bisexual - or were they identifying as that - they would have no qualms about being open about that label. They identify with what they identify with - not in any way influenced by what they think others do or do not want to hear. And I am proud of them for that.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote:

The _act_ of sex itself is arousing even if the people engaged in it are not a gender you are attracted to.

A blanket statement that seems to reflect your belief and experience, a belief that various studies don't agree with to nearly the extent you seem to want them to.

It seems it is generally the case with heterosexual women and bisexual men, but homosexual and heterosexual men and homosexual women have been found to be strongly biased in observed arousal towards their identified gender preference. I say observed arousal as things are obviously more complex than that and just because a specific brain area lights up it doesn't necessarily mean actual arousal(though measurements of physical arousal response tend to correlate with the above breakdown). Study on men here. Study on women here.

General gist:
"Studies using physiological measures have found that women tend to have non-specific patterns of genital arousal1,2,3. That is, in contrast to men, women tend to show similar degrees of arousal to erotic stimuli depicting either sex. For example, heterosexual women have generally shown equivalent arousal to both erotic stimuli featuring men and erotic stimuli featuring women. This has been repeatedly demonstrated with vaginal photoplethysmography3,4. This pattern has also been found using less direct measures such as looking time5, pupil dilation6, and fMRI7. Notably, homosexual women’s arousal patterns are more category-specific than heterosexual women’s, although less so than men’s8.

The fact that women’s sexual arousal patterns are less category-specific than men’s has been interpreted as a potential contributor to gender differences in “erotic plasticity”9, which Baumeister has defined as “the extent to which sex drive is shaped by social, cultural, and situational factors.”

Science, innit. For a nice change both research looked at bisexual folks.

In very basic terms; the more "female" the brain, the more fluid the sexual response is to both genders regardless of stated preference, the more "male" the brain, the more focussed on the stated gender preference.




As for the rest: One can self identify all one wants, but if you're freely choosing to be in a hetro/bi/homosexual[delete as applicable] longtime relationship, then you're hetro/bi/homosexual[delete as applicable]. NB choosing. Gay, or straight virgins, gay folks "fitting in" with societal expectations, sex workers and prisoners are not comparable. Any other conclusion it seems to me is self delusion, semantics or mind ****.

Wibbs

A blanket dismissal from you does not a blanket statement from me make. And when you say things then like "heterosexual men and homosexual women have been found to be strongly biased in observed arousal towards their identified gender preference" you are not at all rebutting what I said given I never suggested otherwise. Nothing I wrote was about _relative_ arousal between the two kinds just that arousal to both kinds _can and does_ exist in people regardless of their own sexuality identity.

Saying that some people or groups are heavily biased towards their own preferences is stating the obvious. I never suggested otherwise in any way shape or form. What I said is _also_ true. The two are not mutually exclusive. If I had been saying they were aroused by it as much as or more than their own identified gender preference you would have destroyed my argument. But that is not what I have been saying.

So you are blanket dismissing my points while offering citations to studies that are supporting something I never denied and in fact wholly accept(ed).

Which is more than odd so I can only suppose you missed the point I guess. The point is that people are aroused by pornography of their identified gender type yes - but there are also studies showing - as well as knowledge suggesting we should expect - people being aroused by pornography of the genders they are _not_ attracted to or do not identify as being attracted to.

Of course the "big news" ones the media loves are the studies showing that the more homophobic a heterosexual male is the more aroused by homosexual porn they tend to be. Which fits nicely into the narrative of the anti homosexuality pastors in the US who get found with their pants around their ankles or on their knees. But there are also studies showing the level of arousal homosexual men feel for women when they identify themselves as mostly and exclusively gay. But also "Chivers et al. (2004) found that women had the same genital arousal to films of homosexual and heterosexual intercourse regardless of their own sexual orientation."

But your own two links support what I am saying too. Read the opening abstract "men have repeatedly found that erotic stimuli depicting men’s preferred sex produce strong responses, whereas erotic stimuli depicting the other sex produce much weaker responses". Weaker yes. But still a response. And that is all I was saying. Thanks for making my point for me Science innit indeed!

A problem with your links exists however in that they refer to something different to what I was talking about. I was talking about - for example - heterosexuals being aroused by the porn of sex with homosexuals. You just quoted me saying it after all. "The _act_ of sex itself" I wrote. Yet the study you linked to had videos of "six video clips depicting individual masturbating men". Which is somewhat different. Some of the same effects i described will still be in effect there. But not all. So the study you cited does not actually track with the claims I actually made. You would need to cite a study of men being exposed to videos of homosexual sex - not masturbation.

However _all_ of this is a rabbit hole that is at best tangential to the main claims I was discussing. And it remains the case at this point that -

Wibbs wrote: »

As for the rest: One can self identify all one wants, but if you're freely choosing to be in a hetro/bi/homosexual[delete as applicable] longtime relationship, then you're hetro/bi/homosexual[delete as applicable].

- aside from repeating this claim over and over you have not yet actually supported it in any way. All you appear to actually be able to do is throw dismissals at it in increasingly colourful language from "Nonsense" to "delusion" to now "mind ****". But repeating an assertion does not support an assertion. And making increasingly colorful dismissals does not stop it from being only dismissals. It simply remains true that calling something "Nonsense" does not make it nonsense. Even though you seemingly _really_ want it to.

Relationships do not simply fall into neat little linguistic boxes. Romantic relationships expressed sexually are not the same as sexual relationships expressed romantically. It is possible to form both kinds of relationship - or a combination of the two - with people who are not in the gender you identify as being attracted to. This is because romantic and/or sexual relationships can be formed _despite_ the gender of the partner rather than due to it. It is not some IF X then Y computer algorithm here like you seem to imagine it is on so many threads.

But ultimately the whole issue comes down to two main camps on the use of language in my experience. YMMV. But what I have found is that people use language to identify and describe the world to themselves (the camp I think you are in or towards) and to identify and describe the world to others (the camp I feel myself in).

The former camp want things to fit neatly into linguistic little boxes. An IF X then Y algorithm where everyone fits into the words _They_ define and use rather than the ones the target might actually use. At the extreme end they are more interested in the accuracy of words and the pedantry of definitions than in actual communication.

The second camp see language as a means to give others the most accurate representation of the world to maximize their understanding and the positive effects that will ensue when they act on the descriptions offered. They realise that words are fluid and contextual and dictionaries reflect but do not dictate the meaning of words. At the extreme end of _this_ group are the people you rightly decry and I do too - where any word can basically mean anything and you get into the "my truth is my reality" nonsense that is so messing up our world at the moment.

I see myself towards the middle of that continuum but erring heavily towards the second camp.

And as I say whether calling me a tequila drinker because of the 100 drinks I do like _one_ happens to be tequila while I hate ever other tequila - or calling me a footballer because I happen to play a little very very badly once a month - or calling the girls bisexual when they identify entirely as straight - you would do nothing but give false informations and false impressions of the world to the people you offer those descriptors to. Even if your own brain (being in the former camp) feels happy that you have fit everything into the boxes _you_ feel are correct for you.

Wibbs

Oh oh, here we go again...

Deleted User wrote: »

- aside from repeating this claim over and over you have not yet actually supported it in any way.

It hardly needs any support from me. Now if you want to tie yourself up in knots claiming and believing that two women that are by choice in a long term regular romantic sexual relationship with each other and you are "entirely straight" knock yourself out, but it doesn't require any algorithmic process to see it for what it is; self identification and self delusion. As I said that's fine, whatever floats your boat, people self delude on a daily basis, but don't be surprised that it'll be widely seen as utter nonsense. Just like your assertion that someone "can be straight and have a lot of homosexual sex". If they're doing so willingly, enthusiastically and by choice, they're not straight and that's fine too.

And as I say whether calling me a tequila drinker because of the 100 drinks I do like _one_ happens to be tequila while I hate ever other tequila - or calling me a footballer because I happen to play a little very very badly once a month - or calling the girls bisexual when they identify entirely as straight - you would do nothing but give false informations and false impressions of the world to the people you offer those descriptors to.

Taking your ever more tortured analogies; rather than once offs or rare occasions they don't enjoy, or even hate, the "girls" are drinking "tequila" and playing "football" on the regular and apparently enthusiastically and happily so, but according to you and them no no, they're definitely not tequila drinking footballists, because you've collectively decided they don't identify as tequila drinking footballists. Cool beans.

where any word can basically mean anything and you get into the "my truth is my reality" nonsense

Which is precisely what you're illustrating. It just happens to be your particular Truth™ so you're wedded to it, but you're approaching the same end of the spectrum as those who self identify as cats.

And this is where we end up when the post 1960/70's hippie and post modernist philosophies went mainstream. You can't label me maaaan! type stuff(while creating ever more labels in the process). The idea that labels and descriptors themselves are largely valueless, or at least fluid depending on viewpoint. Which was and can be an interesting philosophy to approach questions of reality and critique and critical thinking and not the new idea acolytes thought, but it was best served in academia. In the "real world" it tends to fall flat on its arse.

Sure why would we need any support from you when you can just shout "mind ****" "nonsense" and "self delusion" and not actually rebut or prove anything I guess. Convenient for you that you can just declare yourself right and not to need any support for anything you say. Sure why not throw in some fantasy that your position is "widely seen" as the right one too. No evidence for that either - but sure if you imagine lots of people agreeing with you then I am sure that helps you get through it all the same - argumentum ad populum by way of imagination. Then just call analogies "tortured" without actually explaining what is wrong with them. And so on. Your posts are just turning into ever longer versions of "Nu-uh" without anything actually supporting a thing you say.

But no - your comparison between what I am explaining and "people who identify as cats" could not be further from the mark. Because there is a massive difference between using language as a form of communication rather than a form of pedantic rigid correctness (language being descriptive rather that prescriptive) and those people who are using it to fuel insane identity politics. That you need to conflate the two is showing nothing but desperation here.

So you can moan that "The idea that labels and descriptors themselves are largely valueless" all you like but that is not at all what I am suggesting explaining or requiring. Not even a little bit. You are starting to hear what you want to hear at this point. Or worse - starting to hear the things you are absolutely not wanting to hear even when they are not there.

The way I actually see it - rather than the people who trigger you so badly - is that there is a continuum between extreme linguistic pedantry on one end and extreme linguistic liberty at the other where anything can mean anything to the person who wants it so. And I am against both extremes but I lie towards the latter side of middle on it. But much like your impression on other threads that someone who has invested in anything sexually alternative must have "skin in the game" of any alternative sexual topic (which they/I do not) - you seem to have the impression that anyone who errs past the centre of that continuum are just one big group of linguistically nonsense hippies. This black and white thinking on - well - everything simply does not map onto the complexities of human relationships.

Again - there is nothing to suggest that romantic and physical relationships have to be based on gender. Or that the path that leads to two people exploring a relationship that is romantic and/or sexual has to pass through the archway of gender at all. Such relationships can form _despite_ the gender of the partner - or the orientation of either - and any assumption from you of the opposite is unsupported. Which you seemingly are proud of and merely accept as default for reasons that are similarly unclear and unsupported.

, or at least fluid depending on viewpoint. Which was and can be an interesting philosophy to approach questions of reality and critique and critical thinking and not the new idea acolytes thought, but it was best served in academia. In the "real world" it tends to fall flat on its arse.[/QUOTE]

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Then just call analogies "tortured" without actually explaining what is wrong with them.

I did, you just don't want to see it.

Me. Last post wrote:

rather than once offs or rare occasions they don't enjoy, or even hate, the "girls" are drinking "tequila" and playing "football" on the regular and apparently enthusiastically and happily so, but according to you and them no no, they're definitely not tequila drinking footballists, because you've collectively decided they don't identify as tequila drinking footballists.

And yet there they are drinking tequila while kicking a football around(about the only way I can see of making either enjoyable). Them's your analogies explained. Just like the gay virgins, hookers and gaol birds analogies were. Generally your analogies are tortured because they ignore choice.

In any event if you can't see what's a bit odd about stating that two women who are choosing to have regular sex with each other and a man in a longterm romantic relationship yet claim they are "entirely straight" then I really dunno what to say to you. Now if your setup was with your two "girls" and they weren't sexually active with each other then you could state that, but they're not. In other news water is wet. Or maybe it isn't?

Could I claim to be entirely straight if I chose to have sex with a bloke twice a year? I could claim it, I could claim anything, but that would take some mental gymnastics. Could I claim to be entirely straight if I was choosing to be be in a sexual and romantic relationship with a man for years? That would take a large dose of lysergic to make "sense" like that stick. And yet here you are.

But no - your comparison between what I am explaining and "people who identify as cats" could not be further from the mark. Because there is a massive difference between using language as a form of communication rather than a form of pedantic rigid correctness (language being descriptive rather that prescriptive) and those people who are using it to fuel insane identity politics. That you need to conflate the two is showing nothing but desperation here.

So its not "insane identity politics" to describe two women in a longterm bisexual relationship as entirely straight? That's not descriptive and clearly we have different ideas about "insane".

You are starting to hear what you want to hear at this point. Or worse - starting to hear the things you are absolutely not wanting to hear even when they are not there.

I'm impressed you typed that without a hint of irony.

But much like your impression on other threads that someone who has invested in anything sexually alternative must have "skin in the game" of any alternative sexual topic (which they/I do not)

Eh a large part of your public persona here is about how you are in a menage a trois with your "girls" along with other musings on what you call sexually alternative. I'd call that skin in the game. The world you project, at least around here, is based around it.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I did, you just don't want to see it.

Nope, nothing in that quote from the "last post" shows what is wrong with the analogies. Just you once again dismissing it as "rare" and little more. Which is a cheap cop out given that the entire thing we are talking about here is _already_ rare. So that sub sections of that discussion would _also_ be rare is hardly surprising - and certainly not a rebuttal.

So rather than me not wanting to see it - there is nothing there to see. Just dismissals based on nothing.

Wibbs wrote: »

Generally your analogies are tortured because they ignore choice.

They are not ignoring anything of the sort. You are making things out to be choice that are anything but. A lot of things are simply not choice. I do not choose what drinks I do or do not like. I do not choose who I am attracted to or not attracted to. And many people do not choose to fall in love with someone who is not of the gender they are orientated towards. My not overstating the role of choice as you do - does not mean I am ignoring it. Quite the opposite.

Wibbs wrote: »

In any event if you can't see what's a bit odd about stating that two women who are choosing to have regular sex with each other and a man in a longterm romantic relationship yet claim they are "entirely straight" then I really dunno what to say to you.

This is just more of the same "you stating it with a straight face is all I need to show it is nonsense" empty dismissal. Basically "If you do not see it my way, then you are just wrong" which is hardly an argument of any merit or note.

Wibbs wrote: »

Could I claim to be entirely straight if I chose to have sex with a bloke twice a year? I could claim it, I could claim anything, but that would take some mental gymnastics. Could I claim to be entirely straight if I was choosing to be be in a sexual and romantic relationship with a man for years? That would take a large dose of lysergic to make "sense" like that stick. And yet here you are. So its not "insane identity politics" to describe two women in a longterm bisexual relationship as entirely straight? That's not descriptive and clearly we have different ideas about "insane". I'm impressed you typed that without a hint of irony.

No it would not require any mental gymnastics - because again you are misplacing "choice" in this equation. Who you are orientated towards and who you _choose_ to have sex with are two entirely different things. And one is not an automatic indicator of the other. For example - as I stated before in earlier posts - there are homosexual males who _choose_ to enter into a heterosexual relationship. Marriage. Children. The works. They are still homosexual. That they _chose_ a heterosexual relationship does not change their actual sexual orientation.

So again from "mind ****" to "lysergic" you are just "nuh-uhing" things you do not like - even though they happen all the time. Again - who you are actively having sex with says _nothing_ about your sexual orientation. A homosexual in a heterosexual relationship is still a homosexual. A heterosexual who is a life long virgin is still a heterosexual. Your sexuality is _not_ defined by who you are active with - but where your orientation lies. And you are simply pretending the two are the same thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh a large part of your public persona here is about how you are in a menage a trois with your "girls" along with other musings on what you call sexually alternative. I'd call that skin in the game. The world you project, at least around here, is based around it.

And again you fall prey to your putting everything into neat little boxes that suit you and only you. The world of sex and sexuality is huge - much larger than your blatant overstating of the size my relationship plays in my posting on this forum. And just because a person is alternative in one thing does not mean they have "skin in the game" of every other thing that is alternative. And that was the error you made in that thread then - and simply repeat here. You simply assumed because I have one little thing alternative about me - that I must have "skin in the game" of something (It was transexuals that were the topic at the time) that quite literally has _nothing_ to do with me and impacts me in no way at all.

But for you "alternative" is just one big neat box and if someone is in for a penny they are in for the whole pound. And that is just a(nother) failure of your reasoning.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

And again you fall prey to your putting everything into neat little boxes that suit you and only you. The world of sex and sexuality is huge - much larger than your blatant overstating of the size my relationship plays in my posting on this forum. And just because a person is alternative in one thing does not mean they have "skin in the game" of every other thing that is alternative. And that was the error you made in that thread then - and simply repeat here. You simply assumed because I have one little thing alternative about me - that I must have "skin in the game" of something (It was transexuals that were the topic at the time) that quite literally has _nothing_ to do with me and impacts me in no way at all.

But for you "alternative" is just one big neat box and if someone is in for a penny they are in for the whole pound. And that is just a(nother) failure of your reasoning.

The boxes he is using, straight/gay/bisexual are boxes that society use. It is you who is using terms to suit you alone. Why are the two girls special in this case? They are in a bisexual relationship. They have bisexual sex. They are attracted to eachother, weather physical or emotional, but they are not bisexual?

I dont understand why you so doggedly refuse to see it for what it is.

Rory28

Rory28 wrote: »

The boxes he is using, straight/gay/bisexual are boxes that society use. It is you who is using terms to suit you alone.

Huh? I am using those terms too. What terms am I using that no one else is using? All I am suggesting here is that someone is using those terms incorrectly. By defining them based on who people have sex with rather than who they are attracted to.

Not sure how many times I have to say this - but someone's sexual orientation is defined by they actual sexual attractions. I quoted not one but multiple definitions in an earlier post to support this.

What it is _not_ defined by in any of those definitions is who you are actually having sex with. Who you have sex with - or do not have sex with - is not what defines your sexual orientation. And a homosexual man - for example - who chooses to commit to a long term heterosexual relationships including a house and kids and the works - is still a homosexual man.

That is how the words are defined. I dont understand why you so doggedly refuse to see it for what it is.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

Huh? I am using those terms too. What terms am I using that no one else is using? All I am suggesting here is that someone is using those terms incorrectly. By defining them based on who people have sex with rather than who they are attracted to.

Not sure how many times I have to say this - but someone's sexual orientation is defined by they actual sexual attractions. I quoted not one but multiple definitions in an earlier post to support this.

What it is _not_ defined by in any of those definitions is who you are actually having sex with. Who you have sex with - or do not have sex with - is not what defines your sexual orientation. And a homosexual man - for example - who chooses to commit to a long term heterosexual relationships including a house and kids and the works - is still a homosexual man.

That is how the words are defined. I dont understand why you so doggedly refuse to see it for what it is.

So in your words its not gay to have gay sex?

Rory28

Rory28 wrote: »

So in your words its not gay to have gay sex?

Exactly. You can be entirely straight and choose - for whatever reasons who knows what (I listed a few on the thread already but there are many more) - to have homosexual sex. You can choose who to have sex with.

You likely can not choose to be attracted to the person you are having sex with though - if you are not attracted to them. Because while you can choose your actions (to have gay sex) you can not choose your attractions (your actual sexual orientation).

I guess it is worth repeating in every post - a persons sexual orientation is defined by the people they are attracted to - not the people they choose to have sex with. Or not have sex with.

A heterosexual virgin is just as much a heterosexual as a promiscuous heterosexual - even though they have had sex with no body for example.

Or - just so I can try and get my head around your own thinking on the matter - do you believe you only started being a heterosexual at the moment you first actually had sex with a partner? And before that you were - what - nothing?

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

Or - just so I can try and get my head around your own thinking on the matter - do you believe you only started being a heterosexual at the moment you first actually had sex with a partner? And before that you were - what - nothing?

This is absurd. Once puberty hit I knew I wasn't straight. I was attracted to men, muscles and sixpacks (thanks Gladiators). Before that I was a kid with no strong feelings towards one or the other.

Rory28

Rory28 wrote: »

This is absurd. Once puberty hit I knew I wasn't straight. I was attracted to men, muscles and sixpacks (thanks Gladiators). Before that I was a kid with no strong feelings towards one or the other.

What's absurd! That is _exactly_ what I am saying. You knew your sexuality before you ever had sex with anyone. That is my point! Exactly 100% on the button what my point is.

Which means your sexuality was never defined by who you had or were having sex with right? It was defined before you ever had sex. It was defined by where your attractions lay.

That is all I have been saying the whole thread long. Your sexual orientation is 100% about where your attractions lie - not who you are or are not having sex with at any given time or period of time.

I am quite literally not saying anything else other than that.

And - assuming you are homosexual not bisexual - I trust you realise that had you _chosen_ for whatever reason to have sex with a girl or two - you still would have been homosexual? The the choice of who to have sex with - and who you are attracted to - are two entirely different things. If you are gay now - and you choose to have sex with a woman tonight - you are still gay tomorrow.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

What's absurd! That is _exactly_ what I am saying. You knew your sexuality before you ever had sex with anyone. That is my point! Exactly 100% on the button what my point is.

Which means your sexuality was never defined by who you had or were having sex with right? It was defined before you ever had sex. It was defined by where your attractions lay.

That is all I have been saying the whole thread long. Your sexual orientation is 100% about where your attractions lie - not who you are or are not having sex with at any given time or period of time.

I am quite literally not saying anything else other than that.

And - assuming you are homosexual not bisexual - I trust you realise that had you _chosen_ for whatever reason to have sex with a girl or two - you still would have been homosexual? The the choice of who to have sex with - and who you are attracted to - are two entirely different things. If you are gay now - and you choose to have sex with a woman tonight - you are still gay tomorrow.

If I was in a long term sexual relationship with a woman I whom I was attracted to either emotionally or physically I would consider myself bisexual.

Rory28

Rory28 wrote: »

If I was in a long term sexual relationship with a woman I whom I was attracted to either emotionally or physically I would consider myself bisexual.

To add to this. If I was just having sex regardless of attraction or gender I would consider myself a sex addict.

Rory28

Rory28 wrote: »

If I was in a long term sexual relationship with a woman I whom I was attracted to either emotionally or physically I would consider myself bisexual.

And many men who are homosexual do exactly that. They decide to live the "traditional" life and they enter and live a heterosexual relationship. They have kids. They commit to that relationship. They are still homosexual however because again - the words are defined to describe your orientation not your partners.

Further definitions of these words (I listed some and linked above to where I listed them) are generally in the plural. They do not suggest _one_ exception to the rule defines your sexual orientation either.

So you are welcome to consider yourself bisexual - just as you are welcome to consider yourself a puppy if you want. But in both cases I simply feel you are using the word incorrectly. And while I am a great believer in the flexibility and fluidity of language - I am also no where near the camp Wibbs has been pretending I am in where words can mean anything or nothing as people simply decide them to be.

Rory28 wrote: »

To add to this. If I was just having sex regardless of attraction or gender I would consider myself a sex addict.

With multiple partners I would probably agree with you on that definition. Sex for the sake of sex does have worrying implications of that sort.

But if it was with a _single_ partner over a long period of time I would simply suspect you had entered into a relationship - that you decided to express yourself in romantically and sexually - that was attained despite your orientations not because of them.

If we start defining people by their exceptions I wonder what labels would not fit half the time.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

And many men who are homosexual do exactly that. They decide to live the "traditional" life and they enter and live a heterosexual relationship. They have kids. They commit to that relationship. They are still homosexual however because again - the words are defined to describe your orientation not your partners.

Further definitions of these words (I listed some and linked above to where I listed them) are generally in the plural. They do not suggest _one_ exception to the rule defines your sexual orientation either.

So you are welcome to consider yourself bisexual - just as you are welcome to consider yourself a puppy if you want. But in both cases I simply feel you are using the word incorrectly. And while I am a great believer in the flexibility and fluidity of language - I am also no where near the camp Wibbs has been pretending I am in where words can mean anything or nothing as people simply decide them to be.

I disagree with you but if thats the way you see the world who am I to call you out on it? As long as everyone is happy and consenting then more power to ye.

This did jump into my head for whatever reason tho.
“It’s not what you are underneath. It’s what you do that defines you.” I think we can all agree that the caped crusader is as good a source as any :pac:

Hector Bellend

A few pints and a good **** will sort it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Rory28 wrote: »

If I was in a long term sexual relationship with a woman I whom I was attracted to either emotionally or physically I would consider myself bisexual.

Whoah! Jaysus Rory, away with your obvious logic.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is just more of the same "you stating it with a straight face is all I need to show it is nonsense" empty dismissal. Basically "If you do not see it my way, then you are just wrong" which is hardly an argument of any merit or note.

Your argument is that two women in a longterm romantic and sexual relationship are entirely straight. Entirely mind you folks, not mostly, or always thought themselves as straight, but found they were open to a bisexual relationship with a particular person(which I'd see zero issue with). Entirely straight.

My argument is in line with the second part of the above. Thought of themselves as straight and otherwise would be, but they were open to a bisexual relationship with a particular person. It still means they're bisexual, if only with one individual, thus far, or ever.

Which argument is more based on reality? Which argument is more accurate a description? Which argument sound less like nonsense?

Again - who you are actively having sex with says _nothing_ about your sexual orientation.

Outside of 80 year old virgins, people in the closet and sex workers and outlier examples you point to, who someone is actively and enthusiastically and regularly having sex with a damned good indicator of their sexual orientation.

It's got little to do with neat little boxes either. It is a continuum as the research shows. One that brakes down into heterosexual - bisexual - homosexual. Some are more extreme ends of that others are in the middle and the middle has more extreme ends too. So someone who is otherwise at the gay end, but "becomes" bisexual with one individual is still bisexual. They happily and actively chose to be full members of a bisexual relationship, so are therefore bisexual.

much larger than your blatant overstating of the size my relationship plays in my posting on this forum

I'd bet the farm that a general description of you if someone was asked who was aware of you would be "that bloke who talks about his two girlfriends". As for "alternative" I would also bet I could paint a pretty accurate picture of your beliefs and worldviews and where your opinions on a few matters would lie and it wouldn't require me to go all Sherlock Holmes about it.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

My argument is in line with the second part of the above. Thought of themselves as straight and otherwise would be, but they were open to a bisexual relationship with a particular person.

They and others I have met would tell you they were not open to any such thing. It evolved and ended up in a place that surprised them as much as it did everyone else. At no point along the process - had anyone asked them - would they have been open to it.

But that is the reality a lot of people find themselves in in a lot of situations. Not just sexual. We are led to places against our nature or expectation by a series of tiny steps. Each making entire sense at the time. But the culmination of which leads us to a place we never would have gone otherwise.

In fact some of the best villains in movies are of this form I have found. Not the outright evil to the core ones - but the ones who ended up in a place we as the viewer can condemn - but for a series of reasons and steps that individually we can not. The depth of the villain coming then from how easily we could imagine ourselves following the same path even if we can look at the villian and say "That could never be me".

Wibbs wrote: »

It still means they're bisexual, if only with one individual, thus far, or ever.

By your definition but not by any definition I have posted on this thread - seen anywhere - or seen supported here in any way. I can only keep repeating it that sexuality is defined by your orientation not your activities. And you can only go on ignoring that I suppose. And forever we can make this dance if you like. I got time

But certainly calling it "nonsense" over and over is not going to progress the conversation further. Any more that citing studies that do not address anything I actually said at any point.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's got little to do with neat little boxes either. It is a continuum as the research shows. One that brakes down into heterosexual - bisexual - homosexual. Some are more extreme ends of that others are in the middle and the middle has more extreme ends too. So someone who is otherwise at the gay end, but "becomes" bisexual with one individual is still bisexual. They happily and actively chose to be full members of a bisexual relationship, so are therefore bisexual.

And what you somehow keep missing is that I have never denied or disagreed with _any_ of that. I too believe sexual orientation is a continuum. I believe people fall into all kinds of places on that continuum. And I see utility in vaguely labeling chunks of that continuum with words you also use. And a couple more you do not. You say all this here as if it somehow goes against _anything_ I have said on this thread. Which it does not.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd bet the farm that a general description of you if someone was asked who was aware of you would be "that bloke who talks about his two girlfriends". As for "alternative" I would also bet I could paint a pretty accurate picture of your beliefs and worldviews and where your opinions on a few matters would lie and it wouldn't require me to go all Sherlock Holmes about it.

It is nice you are making this about me rather than the topic now but I would be willing to bet the same thing actually. Self selection bias is a powerful thing and people notice what is different and stands out. That is how the human mind works. We see patterns where there are none by noticing the things that stand out to us. But whether the pattern is _actually there_ is another issue altogether. I just opened the last 50 posts from me that are not on this thread. Guess how many fit your description? 2. And one of those was because it was specifically very relevant to a question a user asked about how to discuss such relationships with your own children and I felt I had something to offer.

Actually having read all those posts together just now - I think if anyone went over my posts honestly and without an agenda they would probably describe me as someone who spends most of my time discussing and talking about my children and a few of my hobbies. That seems to be mostly what the last 50 posts were about almost exclusively.

Sorry reality does not fit your pattern seeking behaviours there. But that is just how the human brain works. We notice something about a person or a group of people - and we have a psychological tendency to cherry pick occurrences of it. So if you think black people are all violent for example you might read in a newspaper about 10 violent crimes. And if _one_ of them involves a black person and the others do not - the brain goes "aha those blacks at it again".

But no I have not seen you predict or paint any of my views accurately in the past. Quite the opposite as I said. Assuming I had "skin in the game" on issues that literally affect me or interest me not at all for example.

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not speaking of them specifically but also other people I have known in similar situations - basically a level of closeness evolves over time. A friendship that is ever deepening to something more emotional. Then this becomes more tactile over time. Hand holding. Cuddling. Fairly average stuff. But it continues to grow in depth and expression until mere tactility becomes more and they begin to express their mutual love in ways that are more in line with the romantic and physical ways many of us start our relationships with.

Sex and sexuality can be a way of expressing all kinds of things. Not solely and only mere physical gender based reproductive attraction. And I for one cherish and celebrate the multitude of diverse ways people can find their way into - and then express - love.

Rory28 wrote: »

I disagree with you but if thats the way you see the world who am I to call you out on it? As long as everyone is happy and consenting then more power to ye.

Yeah it is amazing how many people get genuinely worked up about this stuff. I enjoy both language and conversation and I think the way we use language is interesting and that makes this an interesting conversation for me for that reason.

Neither I nor anyone I know actually gets in any way upset about what label people do or do not use to describe them though.

But it is interesting to watch as we realise that our neat little linguistic boxes fail to capture the diversity of human relationships in the world. And the extremists at both ends who want to either rigidly hold on to out dated minimalist terms - or free up language to mean anything to anyone - are only fringe loons on the edges of what is otherwise an interesting conversation in the world worth having.

Rory28 wrote: »

This did jump into my head for whatever reason tho. “It’s not what you are underneath. It’s what you do that defines you.” I think we can all agree that the caped crusader is as good a source as any

Hah and we had citations from Urban Dictionary earlier Just shows how much fun this conversation _can_ be even if some people take it or themselves too seriously in it. But I think I would have to disagree with Batman on that one - if not to his face

It is not what you do but why you do it that defines you. Because doing the same thing in two different situations can change the playing field entirely. Take lying for example. I think we would not struggle to think of two situations where lying is the wrong and absolutely right thing to do in each. If you were defined by "what you do" then in both situations you would be little more than a liar. But _why_ you do it can define everything.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kunst nugget

Can we stop with the semantics about what words mean versus what I want them to mean is what they really mean and get back to sending the quares to the re-education camps!!!

daheff

Why should it be banned?

As long as its consensual then I don't see the problem.


If the 'gay' person decides they don't want to be gay then surely they should be allowed to seek therapy to be straight?

And if there is no demand for the therapy then it wont be offered or availed of?

silverharp

Ironically you can choose to change your gender these days but not your sexuality :pac:

Wibbs

daheff wrote: »

Why should it be banned?

As long as its consensual then I don't see the problem.


If the 'gay' person decides they don't want to be gay then surely they should be allowed to seek therapy to be straight?

And if there is no demand for the therapy then it wont be offered or availed of?

I'd pretty much agree on your consensual point D. However the problem I see is beyond the back and forth on the morality of it, is the fact is it doesn't work. I dunno if you're straight or gay or bi, but if you're straight can you imagine any scenario or therapy that would convince you to be gay? I seriously doubt it. Any "successes" these charlatans point to are either folks in complete denial, which is likely to bring horrible problems down the line , or folks who are bisexual and then choose to ignore the "gay part" for whatever reason(religious, social). It's quackery at best and exploitative of the vulnerable with it.

bennyl10

daheff wrote: »

Why should it be banned?

As long as its consensual then I don't see the problem.


If the 'gay' person decides they don't want to be gay then surely they should be allowed to seek therapy to be straight?

And if there is no demand for the therapy then it wont be offered or availed of?

What if a straight person 'decides' they want to gay now? They should have the option too then?...

The only reason these 'therapies' exist is because society says it's wrong to be gay..

Sexuality isn't sonething you decide ffs!