Am I the Only One Annoyed with the "Sexuality is Fluid/No Labels!" Comments?

[kallipolis]

"Sexual Identification Clarity"?

Did you just make that up?

Ooooh, can I try?

"Sexual Predetermination Cognizance"

No, it doesn't quite roll off the tongue....

I note that you continue to avoid responding to my point that you are in no position to speak to the intimate details of the sexual life of other people, as if you are more knowledgeable on their sexual life than they are.

You can prevaricate all you wish.

 

[DiamondSkin]

Fully agree with the OP, but I'm compelled to point out the irony of him leaving the "orientation" thing on the left blank.

Oh, lordy. When I first made the profile, I was lazy to fill everything out. "WANTZ PORN NOW!", my past self probably said.

I haven't the slightest how to edit it.

Meh.

 

[kallipolis]

No sweetie, you're speaking in non-sequiturs in the pretense of intelligence.

I deal with that all day at work for a living.

Lofty speaking and double-speak doesn't make an argument.

Your personal put downs do not an argument make sound.

 

[DiamondSkin]

I note that you continue to avoid responding to my point that you are in no position to speak to the intimate details of the sexual life of other people, as if you are more knowledgeable on their sexual life than they are.

You can prevaricate all you wish.

Nay, I say, NAY, sir.

I do not prevaricate when I shall enunciate thou art's loquacious leanings for triviality.

Does thou not envisage thine inappurtenant words of conjecture?



Oh, and "sexual orientation" does not equal "sexual life".

 

[kallipolis]

Nay, I say, NAY, sir.

I do not prevaricate when I shall enunciate thou art's loquacious leanings for triviality.

Does thou not envisage thine inappurtenant words of conjecture?



Oh, and "sexual orientation" does not equal "sexual life".

And as you continue to prevaricate, I shall continue to play the role, of a devil's advocate.

 

[kallipolis]

*Speaking of asexuals, there are asexuals out there with specific romantic attractions to select genders. Is a man who enters relationships with both men and women but is sexually attracted to neither a "bisexual" or an "asexual"?

There are those who believe that attributing the term asexual to people with a romantic attachment to another man, or woman despite their being no sexual attraction to their romantic interest, is an escape from reality and merely evidence of a friendship, or even obsessive infatuation.

I have yet to meet, and know a person who describes them self as asexual.
I am sure that such a person exists.

 

[blackbeltninja]

How is suggesting that bisexual people admit, accept and be comfortable with being bisexual instead of saying they're "fluid" or cannot be "labeled" a form of bi-bashing?

For this reason: You're gay, not bi. You're not an expert in sexuality and insisting that people who are different to you and whose sexuality you do NOT understand must fit into the box you've chosen for them or they're (insert whichever epithet you're choosing to use at this stage).

You're not bisexual and your sexuality is not fluid - well done. Now pipe the fuck down and quit pontificating about those of us whose sexuality is.

Kinsey reckoned there were five (5) areas of bisexuality in his original scale. There is one (1) for gay and one (1) for straight. Some of us in those 5 feel differently about things than other people in the same one of those 5 areas, some don't.

Here is what you need to know, in a nutshell: Does everyone whose sexuality is fluid belong in one of those 5 areas of bisexuality? Yes, probably. Is the sexuality of every person in those 5 areas fluid? No.

-d-

 

[barnbuddy]

for me, it was rather simple

after I jerked off a dozen or so times,

I pretty much knew what turned me on, and what didn't.

that wasn't the complication,

the real question was what to do with that information

 

[sixthson]

When I bed a man I never ask them whether they are gay, bi, straight or whatever.

All I need to know is that they are willing to share my bed. The rest of the story is unfolded in the bed.

That is all well and good if sex is all you want, but it is another story altogether when when you want someone who will share your life and not just your bed.

Labels have meaning when they are honest. Unfortunately, there is too much dishonesty when it comes to the issue of who people are sexually, especially when people are using labels to get what they want. This dishonesty may not matter when sex is the only goal because you both got what you wanted--immediate gratification. However, dishonesty is destructive when the heart gets involved.

I suspect people want and need labels because of fear. They fear not knowing who someone really is when they decide to go beyond casual sex to a loving relationship.
Again, labels are great when they are honest.
I also suspect that for most gay people who are interested in more than just sex, bisexuality would be too fluid for them. Personally, I could never imagine going through life loving someone who was bisexual.

 

[G-Lexington]

It's been my experience that:

1. People love to believe that their experiences are true for everybody. That because they feel a certain way, that everybody feels that way. And if they say they don't, they're simply hiding it or lying about it. Which is why straight people think that being gay is a "choice" (since THEY aren't attracted to the same sex), gay people think bisexuals are being chicken shit (because THEY aren't attracted to girls, and may have lied about it earlier on), and bisexuals think gays are denying their true bisexuality (because THEY're attracted to both).

2. These self-same people who love to put people in boxes are the one who adamantly insist that they're the exception to these self-same rules.

Lex

 

[Krakenbwool]

It's been my experience that:

1. People love to believe that their experiences are true for everybody. That because they feel a certain way, that everybody feels that way. And if they say they don't, they're simply hiding it or lying about it. Which is why straight people think that being gay is a "choice" (since THEY aren't attracted to the same sex), gay people think bisexuals are being chicken shit (because THEY aren't attracted to girls, and may have lied about it earlier on), and bisexuals think gays are denying their true bisexuality (because THEY're attracted to both).

2. These self-same people who love to put people in boxes are the one who adamantly insist that they're the exception to these self-same rules.

Lex

THIS.

 

[Krakenbwool]

Also, just categorizing people by their genitalia doesn't really cover the full spectrum of human physicality. After all, I am more attracted to this:

than this:

And the latter is the one that actually owns the penis.
So what would that make me?

 

[EJMichaels]

First, excellent point. ^
I'm one of those who distrust labels, so I can't answer.

Minor Rant!

I've ALWAYS been annoyed with people who say "OMGZ human sexuality is so complicated and fluid, ya know!"

...It's completely understandable if a bisexual decides to say "FUCK IT! My sexuality is complicated! And fluid! Don't label me, bro!"

... But don't say that sexuality is FLUID for the REST OF US by creating this "four-point human sexuality spectrum" bullcrap...

Saying sexuality as a phenomenon or conceptualization is fluid is NOT saying that everyone's individual sexuality is fluid or shouldn't be labeled. The fact that some people fit neatly into a category does not mean that sexuality overall isn't more complicated. Sometimes the labels work, and while they can be useful for organizing information, they can also do damage.

 

[kallipolis]

That is all well and good if sex is all you want, but it is another story altogether when when you want someone who will share your life and not just your bed.

Labels have meaning when they are honest. Unfortunately, there is too much dishonesty when it comes to the issue of who people are sexually, especially when people are using labels to get what they want. This dishonesty may not matter when sex is the only goal because you both got what you wanted--immediate gratification. However, dishonesty is destructive when the heart gets involved.

I suspect people want and need labels because of fear. They fear not knowing who someone really is when they decide to go beyond casual sex to a loving relationship.
Again, labels are great when they are honest.
I also suspect that for most gay people who are interested in more than just sex, bisexuality would be too fluid for them. Personally, I could never imagine going through life loving someone who was bisexual.

My partnerships have been with men who do not identify as gay.

My current partnership is with a man who does not identify as gay.

I am not seeking certitude in my romantic relationships, and consequently I never worry about losing my partner.

I said goodbye to my first partner (after a ten year relationship) when I discovered that he was beginning to dabble in drugs. We retained a close loving friendship until he died last year from cardiac arrest.

My current partner and I never discuss his sexual orientation. And our relationships works well for both of us. There is no certitude in knowing that my partner is gay, or straight, or bisexual. Either the relationship works, or it does not.

A label speaks nothing of the inner man. It is through a loving relationship that we discover the depth, and breadth of our partner's love for us.

Dan - I am off to my home island of Rhodes to celebrate Easter, and enjoy a week's holiday so take this opportunity to wish you, and your partner Καλό Πάσχα και Χριστός Ανέστη.

 

[EJMichaels]

...There's a huge difference between needing both genders and simply being open to either. This is a disconnect that the term "bisexual" doesn't cover well.

Excellent point. Gay men don't necessarily need more than one man to be satisfied (like blonds and brunettes, from the part of the post I deleted). Likewise, bisexuals don't, by definition, need more than one person.

 

[sixthson]

OUCH! That was god awful to read. It actually saddened me.

You're basically saying that anyone who cares about more than just sex couldn't be bisexual. (Going back to the bi-bashing roots of this thread). This is why the term irks me. People use it to describe only someone who must be attracted to both sexes at all times. Never someone who is open to either sex and is interested in committing to the right person.

To some, being bisexual is no different than liking blonds more than brunettes. Sure, they may picture a blond as ideal, but who knows? They could end up with a brunette if it happens to work out that way.

There's a huge difference between needing both genders and simply being open to either. This is a disconnect that the term "bisexual" doesn't cover well.

Why are you saddened by what I said?

Maybe I worded it badly but I didn't mean to say bisexuals weren't capable of relationships. It is just my guess that a gay man might not feel that they could give a bisexual everything they need in a relationship. Isn't there always going to be one side of their sexuality that is unfulfilled.
I'm not bi, so I probably cannot fully understand it. I imagine a woman partnered to a bisexual male might feel the same way.

I understand what you are saying about a bisexual being able to be open to either rather than needing both to be happy, but I am not sure I buy it. That is not me bi bashing, that is just me expressing doubts.

No offense was intended. I think sexuality is complicated to understand.

 

[sixthson]

Kallipolis, I understand what you are saying, too, but you must be very unusual in not discussing sexuality issues with your partners. Have you always been this way or has it developed over time.

This whole topic might be too deep for me since it has so little bearing on my life.

Happy Easter. He is risen!!

 

[jasoncrew03]

Where I get the sexuality is fluid from is when people just realize they're gay, straight, bi, asexual, transexual, whatever. I didn't have any sexual attraction to the same sex until I was 15, there are guys who don't discover they're gay until they're 20 or 30 or even 40. If sexuality was completely static we'd know exactly what we are from birth and since that's not the case for most people I think it's at least a little bit fluid.

 

[Callum]

There are far too many arguments supporting human sexuality as something malleable and fluid to deny the reality of it - we're talking vast fields of academia in anthropology, biology and all that jazz. Sexuality being fluid has been examined in multiple species. Only a dolt would argue otherwise.

Education. It's a wonderful thing...but you can stay in that comfortable little box you've decided to label "GAY", OP.

 

[yummylongsword]

You know what this sounds like?

You sound like a bisexual man who self-identifies as a gay man because you are largely attracted to men (i.e. 80% gay / 20% straight) and a little bit attracted to women.

If you'd consider having sex with a woman because you find their qualities attractive then you're NOT gay. If you'd consider having sex with a woman just of the hell of it regardless of no sexual attraction then you're probably gay.

Call yourself gay if you like, but in the scientific/rational sense of the word by it's very definition, you're not gay.

You're a bisexual who's largely attracted to men and sometimes to women. Especially if as you said, you like a girl's boobs.

IF you're genuinely attracted to qualities of women in a physical and/or emotional aspect.

It sounds like you're bisexual but want to identify as 'gay' because you're scared of what other people will think.

Screw them. If you're bi, you're bi.

But don't LIE, and say you're gay. That's the same as 'straight' guy say he likes dick sometimes but he' STRAIGHT BRAH....

Or, I could say "fuck you, I don't have to apply your limiting labels to myself."