I do not believe in sexual orientation.

[andy12]

Yes, I'm sure the 'labels' are a big reason why people dislike homosexuals.

I didn't say this.

 

[burnoutstar]

Girls can see each other's naked bodies when changing and they don't act all dramatic if they are heterosexual.

To be fair, I think this is because a heterosexual girl has a vagina so she is more familiar with it.

 

[The White Stripe]

In the words of the immortal Kurt Cobain, "...what else can I say? Everyone is gay."

Fucking love Nirvana. I would have done Kurt. I might have washed him first though. He was cute, but like a dirty puppy who rolled in a mudd puddle is cute.

I ramble....a lot...

 

[G-Lexington]

Are we still doing the "you can't label me" game?

I don't bitch about being called a man, even though it might lead some people to think I'm a neanderthal.

I don't bitch about being called a Coloradoan, even though it might lead some people to think I love skiing.

I don't bitch about being called a blonde, even though it might lead some people to think I ain't that bright.

I don't bitch about being called gay, even though it might lead some people to think I (your favorite gay stereotype here).

I don't see the big deal. But then again, it's been quite a while since I was concerned what people who didn't even know me thought of me.

Lex

 

[Kulindahr]

But yet they assert that it is low income households who name those names, because the mothers in those low-income households had those kinds of names themselves.

I think this part of it is subject to a lot of interpretation. Their conclusions do not necessarily match yours or mine.

At any rate, I think it more prudent for women to give names that are more likely to be an enhancement to their baby's success, not an impediment to it. Do you agree that this is fair to say?

From the information given, I don't agree that there's any significant correlation between a name and success.

Regardless, it is still different. People don't like what is different and that doesn't have to do with the 'label' on it. Call Brussels Sprouts 'Ice Cream' and I'll still hate it.

It's not about renaming something, it's about not having a name for something. When a language doesn't have separate words for two things, they're seen as one thing, because they both have the same name. People who only have one name for a set of things don't even see them as a set, they see them as the same thing.

A great example is with weather: people will look out the window and see white stuff coming down, and say, "It's snowing" -- but someone else from a place that pays more attention might say, "No, that's sleet". To people without that other word, it's all snow, all the same.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

ABCD EFGH IJKL MO PQ R S T U V W X Y Z
ins ARABIC
ins INDIA
ins CHINA
ins everywhere

go figure skatins

-

yes it is knows many Labels of cultures speack many many lingos ya win sweety

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

The problem is, is that Homosexuality is different then Heterosexuality. They are attracted to the opposite sex and we're attracted to the same. And you can already establish them under the same thing when you describe it all as Sexual Orientation.

Whether we like labels or not, they're necessary. We need them to identify things. My point about the Brussels Sprouts isn't about renaming it. It's the same thing, whatever you want to call it or not call it. I don't like it because I don't like it, the label of it is irrelevant.

go red it ans figures da mantra

1 red sheep all ova again

2 Labels ofs a this a time necessary evil cause but not neva need but this a time necessary evil cause ( obvious a alls cultures<what big bubbles of balls wank )

if countrys what a make s ups male ans female no can figure beyond HUMPIN ans invest FOLKS lives inta labels - what univverstiys do ? fill holes with paper ta recycle

YA BETTA DO BETTA cause

just says is alls



OY dude find this post HEAVY MEAT COOR

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem is, is that Homosexuality is different then Heterosexuality. They are attracted to the opposite sex and we're attracted to the same. And you can already establish them under the same thing when you describe it all as Sexual Orientation.

Whether we like labels or not, they're necessary. We need them to identify things. My point about the Brussels Sprouts isn't about renaming it. It's the same thing, whatever you want to call it or not call it. I don't like it because I don't like it, the label of it is irrelevant.

The label isn't irrelevant at all, because humans think in labels. That was the point about the invention of the word: cultures which didn't have that word had far lower levels of animosity. You're arguing on an individual level, but this is a societal phenomenon.

 

[YuuKoharu]

I hate these made up "rules" about gender and gender preference...

 

[justaguy]

As far as vaginas go .... as far as being all dramatic goes, there's probably no need. But as far as expressing a dislike for them on JUB, that's ok by me. For some guys it's a relief to have a place where you can say 'eeeew vagina', without the risk of getting your head punched in if you said it at a pub, or another gathering featuring a lot of heterosexual males, perhaps slightly under the influence of a few beers.

You're bisexual, so obviously you're not going to be thinking 'eeew vagina' very often. But I reserve the right to be thinking 'eeeew vagina' and express it here.

PS. Personally, I don't think vaginas are actually that yucky.

 

[justaguy]

I woman approaches you in a pub. She says 'I think you are gorgeous. Will you have sex with me?'

You can either say ...

'no thanks ... it's just that ... well ... it's like this ... I'm not very fond of ... you know ... having sex with ... I'm not attracted to ... you know ... woman ... I'm not turned on by ... I don't find you attractive ... I hope you're not offended ...'

Or you can say ...

'I'm gay.'

 

[Kulindahr]

He's not saying labels are the reason why people dislike homosexuals. He's saying the labels were made to reflect the dislike. I agree with him.

And they enable it. To a lot of people, if there's no label, they don't even notice the thing, and they definitely don't go looking for people to categorize with it.

Kind of like... no one will hate Ford trucks as a class if they aren't aware that there is such a distinction -- they'll like or hate trucks on an individual basis.

 

[Kulindahr]

I woman approaches you in a pub. She says 'I think you are gorgeous. Will you have sex with me?'

You can either say ...

'no thanks ... it's just that ... well ... it's like this ... I'm not very fond of ... you know ... having sex with ... I'm not attracted to ... you know ... woman ... I'm not turned on by ... I don't find you attractive ... I hope you're not offended ...'

Or you can say ...

'I'm gay.'

Yes, labels can have a practical side as well.


Or, you could say, "Do you mind if I wear a blindfold?"

 

[G-Lexington]

>>>I identify with "gay," though my problem with the "gay" label is that it leaves even the people that do know me confused after a while. Maybe that works for you, but it annoys me. And it's not about stereotypes, it's about the actual attractions. My sexuality is constantly up for debate amongst both my gay and straight friends, when they're the ones who need the label and I'm just me.

Perhaps that is the case with you. It's certainly not with me. It ends up that the people I'm interested in having sex with are male. That doesn't mean I want to have sex with all men, or "men that are considered attractive by most people", or even "the kind of men that are considered what gay men find attractive". They're just male. In my book, that makes me "gay". And I haven't had any issue with it with my friends. They know I've got my own tastes and attractions, and they know that I won't find somebody hot simply because they've got a dick (or how big it is). They haven't been able to figure out my "type", and frankly neither have I. But the one thing they all have in common is being male, so "gay" it is.

Lex

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't reject labels as a way to be trendy... it just so happens that the word "gay" doesn't sum it up for others. I go by it. Then people find things that contradict the "gay" and it's confusing to them. I hate the pressure to answer to a label because of this--I'd rather people learn me for me.

Basically, it's weird explaining to people why I have a huge attraction to a woman after coming out to them as "gay." Or why I've much lower female partners if they think I'm "bisexual." Or why I'm attracted to a guy with a vagina if I allegedly like guys. To me, labels are a constant reminder of how I don't live up to people's expectations.

Depending on circumstances, if asked if I'm gay, I'll answer something like "At this time of year, I'm a 90 - 10". Then I get to explain that of the people I find myself attracted to, ninety are male and ten female.

Such honesty is not always helpful in connecting with people. But it defeinitely helps me be connected with myself.

To me, learning to love myself coincided directly with ditching society's labels. It doesn't work that way for most (I am clearly not most people...always an oddball/outsider and happy to be one), but that's certainly the way it works for this guy.

LOL

That reminds me of once when at a swimming hole a chick asked if I was gay. I asked if it made a difference. She said yeah, 'cause if I wasn't, her BF would punch me for talking to her.
I told her, "Well, he's not my type", and we had a good laugh.

 

[G-Lexington]

>>>I don't reject labels as a way to be trendy... it just so happens that the word "gay" doesn't sum it up for others. I go by it. Then people find things that contradict the "gay" and it's confusing to them. I hate the pressure to answer to a label because of this--I'd rather people learn me for me.

That's fine, I guess. But as I pointed out, I sometimes "contradict the gay" as well. At least outside the confines of the dictionary definition of "attracted to the same gender". And I don't feel that means there's something wrong with the label, or labeling in general. It's a piece of the puzzle. It doesn't paint the whole picture, or even a large part of the picture, but then again, it's not meant to. I'm friends with a couple bisexuals - as in "the list of people they've been attracted to contain both genders". But one seems to go through longish periods of being attracted to only one gender (she was partnered to a woman for almost a decade, and never felt the urge to move off that), and the other probably leans 85-90% towards the opposite gender. But neither has an issue with the "bisexual" tag, even though the term doesn't give a complete (or even a really good) picture of their sexualities. But the basic outline fits, so they don't mind wearing it. If people want more info, they can ask. But again, that's them.

Lex

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I'm with johann on this. SO what did you mean by that "lower"????

 

[andy12]

?????

Deceiving who? That went totally over my head. The whole point of my not wanting a label is because I don't want to deceive people. I want to be me.

"Bi" is faulty because it's a prefix meaning "two"--it makes no room for genders that exist between simply "male" and "female." The only term I've felt comfortable living up to is "queer." Basically, because the second I dismissed the straight world, the last thing I wanted to do was filter myself into another restrictive box.

Yeah, and the emphasis on genitalia bothers me. I'm not attracted to cock or pussy and it's a bit demeaning. I don't think anyone is. "You know the new intern? I hear she has a vagina!" Yeah, if a person is attracted to certain traits shared by people who have that genitalia in common that's just an overlap but not the reason for the attraction.

I don't like queer either because it assumes that males attracted to other males is some exotic minority. I don't believe it is.

 

[Snuffy]

I don't like queer either because it assumes that males attracted to other males is some exotic minority. I don't believe it is.

The Kinsley study found that one in 10 guys were homosexual, but it was flawed. The sample was taken in Chicago's equivalent of a gay ghetto. We make up closer to one per cent of the population, and prevalence of bisexuality is far lower.

"Not believing" is really wishful thinking

 

[Snuffy]

Or maybe he doesn't identify with gay because it's associated with traits that he's not, while "bisexual" is the closest word to describe what he is (albeit it's yet another crappy label)?

It's a poor understanding of "gay". Many people confuse gay with feminine. You can go hunting and be a NASCAR fan, but if you're attracted to guys exclusively, you're gay. There's lots of different types of gay men. The label is quite expansive, and people who reject it do so, typically, because of internalized homophobia.

It's as simple as this:

Guys make your dick hard and girls don't = Gay
Guys and girls make your dick hard = Bisexual
Opposite sex makes your dick hard = Straight

Sorry for the people who are truly bisexual, the very few, but there are so many gay men that take on that label because they associate it with masculinity. I think of those men as chicken, and they make up the majority of bisexuals.